HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.700 E Main St.18A-89r ,
111/ 1
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 3/20/89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: `1 `3 sal 2737-073-27-002 18A-89
STAFF MEMBER: CN
PROJECT NAME: 700 East Main Growth Management/PUD Amendment
Project Address: 700 East Main St.
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: The Elmore/Yow Group
Applicant Address: c/o Garfield & Hecht 601 E. Hyman Aspen
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates
Representative Address/Phone: P. O. Box 8485
Aspen, CO 81612 5-6958
A
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: 1,750.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 21 r,
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date g" PUBLIC HEARING: ® NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
REF LS:
J City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
-C-ity Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
( Z Housing-5 r Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
( v,"-- Aspen Water: K✓ Fire Ma sr hall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City-Electric ``"Building Inspector
-Envir--H1th.. Roaring Fork-
Other
(-V" Aspen Consol> Energy Center �.
N S.D.
DATE REFERRED: `7`/7/� 7 INITIALS: ,�
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: D CtT INITIAL:6R
U
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Other• (: � t
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
1 :�.J Rec $20. 4113K 73i 740
• #36341/ j., �.�.'`=r�� ,. __e
Davis , PitKin .ntY Clerk , Doc $. 00
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION
FOR
RIVER PARKIN ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
This First Supplemental Declaration for River Park in Aspen
Condominiums is executed this iG day of ✓ ii? rj
1993 by Jaelly and Associates, Ltd. , a Colorado limited
partnership.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, JAELLY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. , A COLORADO LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP (the "Declarant") caused to be recorded a CONDOMINIUM
DECLARATION FOR RIVER PARKIN APSEN CONDOMINIUMS in Book 653 at
Page 873 et seq. (the "Declaration") 'with the clerk and recorder of
Pitkin County, Colorado. ,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 7 . 2 of the
Declaration, the Declarant therein reserved the right to construct
or designate additional common elements and condominium units on
the condominium project (the "Project") and reserved the right to
subject such additional improvements to the Declaration without
obtaining the consent of the Condominium Association or any owner
or any Mortgagee. The maximum number of condominium units which.
Declarant may make subject to the Declaration is fifteen (15) .
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VI, paragraph 6. 1 of the
Declaration, the Declarant therein reserved the right unto itself,
from time to time, without the consent of any owner or mortgagee
being required, to amend the Condominium Map for River Park in
Aspen Condominiums which is recorded in Book 27 at Page 11 of the
clerk and recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Map") and any
supplements or amendments to the Map to conform the map to the
actual location of any of the constructed improvements, to
establish, vacate and relocate utility easements, access easements
and parking spaces, if any, and to establish certain General Common
Elements as Limited Common Elements.
WHEREAS, the Declarant therein reserved the right for itself
and its agents, ' employees and contractors to do whatever Declarant
deemed necessary or 'advisable in connection with the construction
or other work to be performed for the development of the Project,
including, but not limited to, the construction of all additional
improvements by Ithe Declarant in a subsequent, phase • of
construction.
WHEREAS, the Declarant has completed the construction of nine
(9) additional condominium units to the Project which results in
there being a total of fifteen (15) condominium units on the
Project.
)2- a '/3 fC
7
r/
#3631111 11/17/9.3
15: 45 Rec $' ;, O,
t 731 PG 741
Si . L :_ Davis ,J
Pitkin Cfli='•f Clerk , Doc $. 00
1
•
WITNESSETH
NOW THEREFORE, the Declarant does hereby publish and declare
that the following terms, covenants, conditions, easments,
restrictions, uses, limitations and obligations shall be deemed to
run with the land, shall be a burden and a benefit to Declarant,
its heirs and assigns and any persons acquiring or earning an
interest in the real property and improvements, their grantees,
successors, heirs, executors, administrators, designees or assigns.
1. The improvements being made shall consist of the
following additional units and shall be designated as such:
Building C, Unit 7 , 8, and 9 ; Building D, Units 10, 11, 12 , 13 , 14 ,
and 15;
2 . Any and all additional improvements shall become subject
to the Declaration by the recording of the first Supplemental
Condominium Declaration for River Park in Aspen Condominiums (the
• "Supplemental Declaration") and the First Supplemental Condominium
Map for River Park in Aspen Condominiums (the "Supplemental Map")
with the clerk and recorder of Pitkin County Colorado;
3 . Recordation of the Supplemental Declaration and
Supplemental Map shall cause the following to occur automatically
without the necessity of filing any further documentation or taking
any further action by the Declarant, any Owner or any Mortgagee;
(a) The definitions used in the Declaration shall be
expanded to encompass, refer to and include the additional
improvements. The additional Condominium Units shall become
Condominium Units and the additional Common Elements shall become
a part of the Common Elements for all purposes.
(b) Each unit ' s undivided interest in the Common
Elements as set forth on Exhibit A to the Declaration shall be
reallocated to' reflect the addition of Condominium Units to the
Project and such reallocation of the undivided percent interest
shall be based on each units proportionate share of the total
square footage of all units then comprising the Project.
Recordation of this Supplemental Declaration and the Supplemental
Map shall also operate to vest in any Mortgagees of units a
security interest in the undivided percentage interest of an Owner
based on such reallocation of undivided percentage interest. Based
on the maximum aggregate number of fifteen (15) units, each unit
would be allocated an undivided percentage interest in all Common
Elements as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated •
herein by this reference.
(c) As a result of additional Condominium Units being
submitted to the Declaration, the common expenses shall be shared
as set forth in Article XIV of the Declaration by the total number
of units subject to the Declaration in proportion to their
respective undivided percentage interest as reallocated in this
n ii i
1
45 Rec $20. 00 Irk:: 742
Silvia I�.at Pitkin i_n y Clerk , 70013
Supplemental Declaration.
4 . The provisions of this instrument shall be in addition
and supplemental to the provisions contained in the Declaration. -
5. The provisions of this instrument shall be in addition to
and supplement the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act of the
State of Colorado.
• IN WITNESS WHEREOF,' this First Supplemental Condominium
Declaration for River Pprk in Aspen Condominiums; is executed this
/& day. of , 1993 .
DECLARANT:
JAELLY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. , A
COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY
JAELLY, INC. , A COLORADO CORPORATION,
GENERAL PARTNER
/ 3
By - /i/c •
David Le1Gitt, President
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss. •
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
Th or in i strument was acknowledged before me thislir
day of , 1993 by David Levitt as President of
Jaelly, Inc. , a Colorado corporation, Ge -ral Partner of Jaelly &
Associates, Ltd. , a Colorado limited p. nership.
• Witness my hand and officia -al .
'•••My' commission expires: NNLA
"• •'Ttary Pub g� •
c:\pm\re\ a�L1 y.scd
?iO
•
•
y 15: 45 Rec $20. 00 E K • F'G 743
Silvia Davis , Fri t:'<i n LnLy Clerk , . Doc
$. 00
EXHIBIT A
UNIT APPROXIMATE UNDIVIDED PERCENTAGE
SQUARE FOOTAGE INTERESTS2
Building A:
1 6371 8 . 7%
2 6198 8 . 4%
3 6232 8 . 5%
4 6288 8 . 6%
Building B:
5 5354 7 . 3%
6 5326 7 . 3%
Building C:
•
7 5378 7 . 3%
8 5345 7 . 3%
9 5197 7 . 1%
Building D:
10 6408 8 . 7%
11 6479 8 . 8%
12 6418 8 . 7%
13 1035 1. 4% .
14 582 . 0. 8%
15 822 1. 1%
1 Plus or minus two and one-half percent (2 . 5%) from actual
building square footage.
2 Interests are rounded for convenience and to, accomodate
the approximate square footage measurements. These percentages are
the undivided percentage interests, assuming full development of
fifteen (15) units of the indicated square footages.
c:\pm\re\laelly.exh
•
•
•
•
EXHIBIT A '
•
•
!
,___....„
..,
,.•
E.Eiri . i •
t i
g ,
i .
ti ta(
pi .i K; I pC4 WE JO
6111
: -6 niii i
Wr, li.168 - •
21 .1 ._...r4_, ,„ WI
411V
'L M• ft( 0
I. , .
i
..;
c=q ts-"a V
Ii r'Cj• E5 6 a
i;• 114"iL ' S! 1 .." .',-:1 8fl V
s:,i••=1 -Il ,
• :-...1 -1,5... 1 • :I: , r'irki,,,.""s."'; i I ilit
.,
!-. • .-,"i ', i
.=, tt.:7,. .• 1
;.
i 5"
,I. L' 4
''''' ; •-'1 Y!'• ,;• i .
'rE
...A EL'ti i •
'.:■ •
! !3
It757 a Aap- . I,, I va .§ F--...4.' •-"1•1 .' •
; i I
I
1,...,1..z., --...: •le . .
•A' [ 1 44 1141 ;is-g 6 14'
...,)..,
4 -1
r..
r....,
, =1
IS• EA., •
.• .., ..r. , ,
1
...i, I
:_-7 (' 1 i • El . It- Et6_,1" ,';,-6; 1
,
El wr ;r1-t2-8-
W V .
1 rj i:60zW i,, !
; !
0"It.14gg!i i cil 1 ' [El Iiii!iggOF v=
ig t
w r:=2:1 U Wal?,1 4 • 1 ,, 0 !!! !!'-e'.1
ri /1 P.
,afts'eivl. 1. ;
• .1..,..1,7,E-.7 A 0 c,.4 -,..,0, .w
r=-4 tr,, ,',L-L,iil: . ..;
1= A 'F I
V..-.1 gi,,, •
r: a
. I ) E• g ' fix, 4"... • -.--- E9 '
Ft ' g I g •,...., i22. al"7 8-6 PI
4
1,
`,;• ---) ;11,.;.:814E0 41 ' g r _ F4 :
r-N '*.k:f.4 -2h. • - ti " f] % -F. I
tr Et. 1
g IN pi , giT-1AAN J 11 il -19 %Ii .1.Tq..!4 F..11 VE
!fri..1.-;R,2741 r . .g .: EI . f VI 11,i.J.0.2.,741 ,„ u, .
It: t; koia g:payi a It: 2 411 I •'_ V `s4 CF-ji•:Et°4-: Plil " a gig L4
P" t4 .."NP1 i5 g3...- 5 !r i -. - yi - ii,P":1;-1 -,• !
,,,, 'DILA .iiaFil 0 :1 rhith5,..52 E Li t i r E L
1 I
ra. 4
----1
rZ,, .--- .-•
----•4
._s
_ •-.1
I:<;-1)
F•
iil
::. 1r
,
Ei. Pt=
.1---\ ,
I=i •
111, ..., e
t 1!
r.g..;•ia.
;
8:
l
Ea
t-
, „I
• I
r k :1i.:.2'E i . ,r-,•1: 3-F1.e
• ffr,a•,1 i?1 r
.,:. (-Th ;`-4 '4' . V • ;24 L'OiLJAF F-1 ;14.
P :il 1.1;_-. EA 1 4 ..*:.2 02 -:14!02'.§ r.'-'4 ET; ' ' r1V ..1-i
•l (24—i f . .:...: cc= 12s:env.),
F-a -13 - 8 -: 8". -1""8- k.1-1 0,I!
',:.
01::: i4;6161 f.0 121 I a 0 5/• • 11". il •I
r..3,1 •
1;
tEEE ij ;0 .,--4 v- ' t
,-- k, 2 t
G" 0-' 2,..! • r•=1 t!
e _ , - •
v=7) . . wv. e AL ..
,4.I ! ik V;!ir li j
EfiFo ni r, Z.!!
;=1.:4 Igg iis ms;avE L.4,..5,:ia I!,
i ..
1 l-ag _9a 8::78,82a itiv,ay..:3 r -,
attn.MI:ra!:-. 1I6II;., `.1•'''' i!V1.3. :. ■,1 .,:::a " "- -
iTh
1----1
t ,
, ==1
,t;•
IrT
111
. - -
I ricjj[
., .4 i..
('' I
■T 1-,,as 1,^
r:
,v, i 0 a IRV !
W14E5, ):1 i
0 J
--
,?,; 1-11.11HiT111
I 1[M ll 111 In i 5
1-.
:a 1 •
F.-1.1 :- 4:2.! ii--. "f l'' V!"..."2
---- [II [11
4 _. „.;., . A .5.f..1.-i 1..' kii- 1 •
0°1 I ;i..!
-11[1 PH 1-11] .V.--. 41: li : f.rrill !. : 4 iIiiffil
i. ,''''4 Tnciil P. _ •• I IA -•••••••
i;
■
•
• 2 I.
• ••
0 $ i
. --
. i g I§ 1 "9 itlit
. .3 "..
L,11 laili
. 1 •-
f 1 El It, 1
..n
. o2 ■: 2 7, -;,,- ,
, PI ?.:
tn"i 1,q5 d e ,l'2 4 l d t Yeq
,...
i-d..1" i •:,:; E 0. - :i!
I
0 4A1
z r
93" i
Z •
„„j .. • • , x •;
El I i •:; "g ;al li ',I:.!
0)3 ; ro al I:-
6"1 S I i'i,t
2 Ili 5,
--,• f 7 i 1 111 :I l'; • • 1
!
r
, .
1
P
1
I
i , I
i
1 1
h
Z
4 •.\ ' 1 .
. .,,
cr ,
,,. ,,,a=
..,
. LI
. .
La • .!' ;'‘,,. _--' <>'‘•••„ ' , .• al •;• ..••
2 . ,,,,,, ., .4 WI C°:47'. ' '.'•. ..••
. l'f.t■
i • 4...''..'1:'...... rs
•
I u '
4"
', r''.''. ''....N. l'
I
1L'I U
, ‘ . .....1. , -:-....____..... - Lao vat"n°4.14;PAI .6,II) . iIIII '• .4‘.::::::'I III.:'' ''I I III/II/
Cr i,'" ." ---_-• " ,•'.,:.•-:7•::s!-::-.„ .,•,• •!..;-,,,-;,_ ------• pi „,'-_,..,;;;...w. .-'.i, ,<,,./.••,..',\
f ;:::::::.',:,,,I,-;•:::--i.::: :Z.I; -'-4!-;;;% :.-ii,;:-.:- 7-.•;',..•: -...17.■-L,...":',.'-,...'-I',.•';;f' II I.—•''"-I------ y
!•
/
,I,I • i,f' ,.'-,',-;'' ' ,'-•::.•1'`....1 -:. -••:.-.:•-: - ----.;;"- -..:'•-•'.1 .// I,*7-" , .( I / I
. 4 I,• '.,•1• ',•,-,;.".,%" .'.-,. ; - ';. ''..'I•I'''...."-..:‘•-•:._......*--:fr-f!!!:--1-7.1----7. •.,..•-"'fr,5,:•,;."*:7- 1, .;.'•''',. /
'-•- ---- --N-- - _..-1 ...1 f/' 1
1.... ,.
-...i--------'-------.-.-..'".... ., .. ,• „I_ ,'
..., • . i
/_1 1 :----"—-41:17----- 1.
/ 1
I I ;I-----. --- ,--I- i •••, ,
-;;-----=- '■ ,,
/ • I
I f l•fi .1. ,,/ s, n
/ I
I I I
t i 92
- _
' "'"1"---%, •,,,/
r 1
• ,1 ..7 -,..„..7 --I
• •
• 0 y 1 , .
I ed/1
, 0 1 gik,'il I
a. • 1
,
„., 1 r.-- \ .1 ••
0.3 '
-
- ------.____ . -4--,-.31' ,' • P•
1 • -J
61'
\ I . •
I
% 1 w I.
■ • 0
Z .
\ii:„ ,%. I 1.! ■ l• ■ U • 1 '
,ill 0 i
t" 1
, ‘0
*.v 1-....
I I Y ' I. 0 ':) 6
I 1 ii i ''. 1:11. 11 ! •\„,a- 11
).: I
., , , .4 •. .,
;1 ' if 1:--=--------..-
I z 0
Cr 1,2 a 1
. . .
11 't '' L•4 i • • . • i 1,. ---,.............., .,..4. _. .
' N . V • I
• ...,,,
, . ... .
1 • .. if ' O I 2
r - r•-' AIIII I ._.
•
1 0 2 2 1
i., i I: ;,I r i - •. 1 , 4
:^ i 1 - '3 j r'•"„ ,,!,3,,, _.4.t v,,ji _ 17,s,
....._ u !
;i•I. .
__i.....A.:-..- -....t.-1-44..:44.61,thy. ....41.11■10..0/ .''': ,'I • Z \
.— - _I;
. ,
I - - —-T
I I I I 4
' !
! ...-
I! '
. .
• ' --- *...';•.44...,. 1‘ I .•.% ! i. '
•--..:71.11141.
. 113381S- ,,ONIddS 'N
4,
1 -- -_..
. .1
- - - . _ _, _ .. .,_- _i
.. _.
1
i 1
%. i
83A3H21300 ,
1 LW 6° ,
• •
1 00N00 000 .1.d3DNOD 1 •
. • .. .. I
I I I I 1
I .
•
. .
- . . .
.. .
I
•
•
,;•,:. . . - 1 . . . 4--.i
• '''. ' '' i!'1
, \
' ' A
I
I
. z•,..k . ,„,
■ . , •.;
•
• • •
.L. .
, ..4A1•
, .
&,
. ..,
ff
.,.
z • 1 z
Fr .
w
/
z
I
ii...:2„.. /,e.• ' .
I
k
f •-...____
. ,
.40. / ..
■I
ig
„ /
.
.../1. 9.
t.--""--------/- . 3
, P!
.1
x/ • .. ' i
' • I I
ig
•
O
f"
) .
—
1
ff!i
• iri•I:'.• /r F'-y i
-\._,1,.,7 1i r,."rt k-.-.•..J' ,:-
ii'
: .
i
,___:.i ...•
•\. , //
- a i1 , ,.h,4
1
1 f .
•
\_,...-..31 / a•
) 1 - L 3-.41 t a'
- 1—'11 k._____) a 6 ,, 'a 1 ‘1
Ucf),;('' 1. I
11
z ii 11 1 _,_.„ _.___:::________
,
vipi: I I: , kit.. -r ..... _I' .,1 e , ... , 0 mi,_L._ ...•
.
Lt. (` : J;iliiE 7 1 , .i ; ;
,, . II , •z
ii 9 1 0 , i i
, ; ,
. !• ' . , ._ . .
I ,
. ,
, ci i- a w
i ,. drii ? I . ,
1 ,, - ,._
• --1 1----
•
!: 1, A.,
,r .vc- , . -
s, .i•1
—°1 D I ' • •I'kek '
•
. Ii
I 7
l'. t .- '' 1, . '' -Q -8 .' ; -,
. i
• , •,.. ---' I •1`:' ; ,, .1 ' ! ,l, 4
I
_.. .„
e
; I. ,1"; i".',,.—, Lill 7-t ; I
•
I •-I i 1 L___ ' . ; I *t I ill '
ri i 1...
poi., r -1 f N lil. .`fi' i :
i I t 141 'k
. t-L-,
11 I
.
...._
w
I : .., . •
1
z .
. - •', W2 3 .-j-il' g li I'lli.:X :1;
I
i „. ' .2 ill ,t..._F. !\ ..J ,/,;lik 1 i °,i ;• ,
• •• 0 i , w .
. i
,:. , ,.; ......... .— 1. 6
\:, 0 0 0 °,. i .
F • - .
. P. • •i • i III - 1 .g v . •
i .
;, r § _ . .
, Li -. :: ii:_d._„. 018 __. ----8'
a-I — . • It- • ? P '
.3 oel> 3
—-
-t>
le 31"gi: t
133MIS ONWdS N '14 154
10401
a,
I - , I:11414 -
' 11113. ■ .
g .7
t.1 V •
i I ini dZI7, ' •
4. a
I .I
ini '111:'llf
qt1151t1
i 5 t2
s;- • Oa tz,3 r__ _____
a .
1 1
3413
8p,fig ,
• A
9 r
. 0 •
' I ,
,
' • h:
, .
I .. i i g i i i i • ' I
i ■ a I t i d % •
;W .
!. ;. ,! !: : 4 4 1 1 .4. h t . I .
I ! 1 1 i
111111 fi ti 1; 11111 fill ii 'i 1 i .
I
i_p II if I 11 r ii li It ifs 1 I ill ii) ri . 2
..
jj I i I i i
I .
. .
.. •
• • \ &
EI;
- / —
4 I • i d'i, '., i
.--",, ,
Y .6
• 1 1., .„.„,....... )180A . 1............/-------./' ..
I ., . , .• /
• .7, II r- 4---0,/,
. . , t A
ie • 41 • /
. .
f h .
, (, 0 CO tkk:‘,1..°.!/
- i ' 14 -03) Odbe
li 310: AO .. ,... '•'..e .
A ,,_
, i_. ,
ii;11
.,, ..- !is P.: i -,-, - - .9-Ativ.,, ii,ittg
(II t /
a . , .
if, , -.I • ' 0 tN e
141
V NIII
.u 1 WO
' \O. . • • 1
c , ...... ■ \\ ■.‘ ■.* - - ' 1. ■1
•-• ,.. 1 .
V 'In.,. .-i-
z I 4#444PA-. i& ;-1 ■Vt Ilk ' '‘ 1r I I',' .," ' • z .
a, •
08'' if
. .
- • /. . !L'ip■! . -tt. >. , t ''' kl . .0
! r--9.45,,:: _J . 011. • '''' I
%..a 1111, ......._
f5 [I 1 I
oa '', 111 "- ; . ,. 1 :t. . • ,:t• , I
i z
, 1 r i .q I. •47'. .61 , ,cio
•
,, . . ,, •,,,,, , - . „,
al
I ro if:,,; ,
• IWAtA6,1
f•... 141. . 1
•
A N ,
II
I
— . •
. .
. ._.._.
_
13321.1.5 DM.dS N
.-.....k ck ty.
'1 (------ _ .-..\I -- -
1
9• . •
,5 1
3 1
. 4a ■
I i
, _,_____ •
' •
' .
0 , ,
I
it
IL IL
, .1 iia I .._,41 _I-_-,--11 / 10 -„„,,--PI '4.1c! ; 3.11.1
;i 4 1 , f
.:!1
. IIIIIUi Ii.li -t-t �!1� 11.1
l!iu EI' ' �\I1.�1 �iIii 1
i ..L r II.
11111 4 I 111'
e
till a' !II
I
.I
u
1
} I[[1
I n o
0 .
,f U
i
I
in 11111 1111 III'..f . �1■1 10.1
! , 7,7x. mi., 11 1•1 k
.
IIleal 11/' _ I
\ILPU 11;Ii;I
I � Il,i iI N HI I -i ._ i I
I.' 'PIP
'r 4 viii vi Is: 4•-
1
1T. ,I:_: I�l;:o ::�.I;
I
I
.
I !l I ,
•
•
. i
rl
i i
i
..
TT it
I /
.114 1(11.11. 'II 3•,
illic 11.41 1 rog I i C
Riffill it
, ..
„,,, ••
T1 cs
.
IVO
. .!li ,a • ....MI I
In
W
lirl
let 1 , i
...., 7. - -.-
qt- .
..... i
•‘ .F..i
I la
I • • / i.: I ...pm:., 111111 : ,
//J•li- ril 1 al r,- n 110„
I 111. I
.
gr.! I
411 1 1 1 iti
s Atm- a i
H
il
li
1 ill
alri:11
01
/°!ri°- Mil I
Nil*" 1 - "14
•lm._ r'''
AEI' 1 "'il'' ' '1,114'1
At— pi
\ - .
. i L, . .
0
, ... , ._
',it-. .. 1 Ii i
II._ _ .,,. , ;: , ill. 1 -4 I 0 I .0
--- i It Sit 4
1 4:7 ;4,-
0
• i.o.,
, ,,,,m,..
\ Ia.,. ......,
\.ow.. ,-; ,
, MM.! MEM
C.) .
1.11. UM
1111 :-
1 .111H a .
11
11 I I
11?I Ell i •
. 1 .I j• "
NAN Ili ■ :. , ;1"="! . 1!:.1. " axi
,,,,,„ ,_• Tias•1 \ AIM; .......1
\'IlMie kin. Rif
\\IP--Ciffl- MI 1
if :71111 "
.11
011111 .
III
idl II I <III1,
IIII -bil
awe
h. { - 1 (.1 i 1
L. il i ' - • alm ,:
,!....co . 1 I 1. I 1 I
.... ‘ —..—i.„ :::!,., .
< Illgi
I !Willi
i:, Ilv 11,.
1
i 44 : mil ill
i .
I.
._
\ II
s•.'.: 1•11 .
:... tot
, .
. ,
• i
1„ / •
,
, A
•
i /,
.... ,, .
/i 1
; a
I t ' ii :!..:..j : : ...7 k.--
_ • 1 i, i 0 1, -, t _10 tic, — "
4
,.,
.., !
..:. \xanu 1
1
‘.1 i
t ' t__-_••it.11 II tu. --
-
f t ii l. li I - t ,7C100 1..1i_lp 11
Oil 1 ••' V,P,0 L-1-1, i t
ii ; 3
lj liLi ; .
1
E-,74-- rj ilifl ' 11 iiiii ;Ai
I•iii .1 -
1U11_ 7 ION 1
41, ,1_,NI 1,
,, l•-• 1.1' 1
\ 1.1.1 16 ■
lei ' II l''
,Ilos '1
Ft: II
Oil(
.11;1 I Ak3
1 el te IA
i I-
•
III
41 , ,[1......, ,
A 1 ii j1 li i -
r II I ,
i = • idloo
\ IM/. MEC ill
AMI
,0,.. „
11
111E11 1 i i,
. -•1; 1
II' ill - I
, loci vial in , x
/ *.V:111.! :Nil lit,
. mit 'Nil .1'
I
.
lli co
If
• eit. MEI I MS
. 1.1.117I III 1.1 ' iik .1,4 0 I
/4,. I_ ill <42in_, ,.. ....!.■ ■ .-1- 0 . li.?
1 R 7
Ise.
'\JCI::::41 1112Z 2 Aill=: 111:1 II "i 4 4,
\ 1••••1 el
\irjg .4!Li ,• =■
/ 0
lull o,Noir Aoli- II T
!i Kim pa
// le•misi Amp,. pm,4 1 _ iiTail ii i
0
. 1111111 Ell M 1 - t, •i- N c)
"I=iftil •Noli iliTlii t
n • OWE. miti sis
i Ili o IN IN ,
_
al—,_,..= II
•. ::::,1, :T,il ]
11_1, II ' .
ii EL:, i
•:.F.‘ •=I el
it el. *1 mg
ii
III
.,,.. agf
,., INILA INN 1 ... 411
..r.rr.- . i• ..,
t-- r ir it I 5-10
• a ' ill rtil. r 1 I - &
\\....u. ... ,,,......
4iii / .....„i
ourlow. 11
Valk • 1 rill
,A.t....m. , .i.,
i
•■•• r i 1
,:ii:Z,VrPi' . 1 -j:
\ i..,Ni _11 - • ,
,, ,...11
mit Nob la / Cr I il e
•- • maimi — is au ' • ,r,i —
.‘ al•Ig ...• il \70L_ .1 11 IIIIII
al a lidillli
gill 1 , I
\!17511;—-1___117 '114 I. 1--Irillql
\112111 __nut pm 1 Likij
1"111 --• I! 1 fl,_
‘, 1=1 a=PI
4) 4.'4,42, •„..
, r
- ---
L .
I *
,:;,i
0
It CU .
I !mo• 1 1 l' i
I
i
i
i
i i
i i
; i
i
i r
i i i I I't i• i
1 I 1 i I
rlJl I i r., _1: .._ a
ff is � , f1 I 61 i
I -- _. a , - r I
•El l { a id 1'
i r��'
I ' ..19gr, ■ ■ :. , . io,,
. .41L"1 1 II [ a,„,4,,, , _ ,,.,�1 _ =. " r iii
i I 1 -. -i.-1. :�' .. <. '1ig 4' HOU III I, - --- a�IIII 211 ■II I-! 1 i
el _ m r I1 II r ~ ''I:Itllli I n
Or�
Q -a it le i Ali !mJ: -
i l Et
4.4 VI
I; 3 I I"I H
III; .':: , _. ! i L;
r ,' ,d" 11'261 I!isali, ,A,_. '11
41111* _ _ Vti I
'°\, Amt \ ■ iyi„ T r■li I'
�
4 it , ilsi .Rho . II_. a_u
L I 'inr Jr.
1• iin ; ,�
II _ n
I I
i I.I. i
i
\ 1 I -.
I
. ; I
'', i
pI --
N . III
L
,i
it I
1
•
•
! •
r .
a 1 1
IP
V. lei;
03 4,11
0) 15101!
Z'en ' 11.11i
g P
varii
\ :
,....
N
.-
.4•"!::;--- "...-' ' ''\ . '''s ,_ / ..-
••••••... N. to.. ''' ‘.,--__ ....--
____
•
L.---------- . • •/ '
,
--------- ..
_ ._......**...''
.
____ _ --
. ,
...-',..„--;.=:-_--.>., ,_, •..
...... ... , 1
1P- -- --,-,.--,-:-7---,-:-,--:-„J ......°
........ ,,,
--..-
,- ,
....."
.-
•
. . . *.,
1/
r co
" t I
ii c, t i 1
I ..;
I ' J
()) IX to /o'L, d 1
1
.1/
- I",1 ' ,
/ -1----1 ,- Z
7 •-•
2 . a. //
, ,:l -—1-1.... 1 1 ,i-—7- .,
//t"-'1 s.-_/- Ji . r— 1---- L i 'i
li i J - /
11 i -\--fi 1--r:-, tfill :
,
i ii
` ' J : 'N--n:1
..
fo . .
_
li 1:2. 1,1,.), ,..1111 1 ,h
o, ...,
. 1 .
(..9
_±, ..gi 1 , '-i 1
i /
a ! I 7
. ' ''.k! . ! - _
• - ifil . I - '77 o .
(.9
, I
6
(.7ct
Z o- • . W
7 '
1 i : 0 1 1 , • 1 ii E
rj
w 1 _ (
>9'•(.2 I;
•_-_
I I • • •—i.. :I. z
6 t --.
Lir- 1
. :1
( - . .
i .
I I i
•• 1
\ •
I • I
.«-
4--- I---ir- F
..7'
---.
- I
13.211S ONILIdS•N
_ -
1 I \
0 1 -''ii'•,.
., . t 44 i V 8
... . . .. . 7 r 3.
• 131
• • ,
31i"
. . • P a 31
-- ---_. _ .. 6-.°g 1 .. • <
. - I. •
a r
. . •
\ :.c 61 t • ,-------_______.--__---____
. 6..
•• i
\ . -.---
i 2 lio
. /
;:, ... II . P
.p., 1 a
. .•
• /
•. t:-........ _ •-/
• . . \ /
., ..... \ Picz- .
__.---7
, . .. ..
. ... , ,i.:: e_ ---.........................
• g /
.....„,
„...,-; • s
. .. ■ .... .
____•--...
. --— . .. • • §.4 -- • /.. •••',.•
•?" .
• i
' / / //.—- .\\N .1-e. s-- .'----7.s--___.. / • / ***/' .-. '/• 1 ri / '
' ....,e " •/, • . ,/
,.--,. 1 i--- --,..' '0\..,.'./. - •. 1_____ . 0..e/.,''.,':.'e.,''...,..''''•:/.//..//
/
/ ** , •/ • ••/• • //
. \
ft ./... ../. '_ 1(' -„,...,.::-. 4.7,',(.. ■,.,...,.,...... ,. . i _. _ . _
1. e .. . -.1 `........ /,`....„..) , *****.0**** .**** ./.„•.'/ . e/. / ',':/ :'
*** :- ,/, e / 2 , ••/i i.:
'***** : ,,,•, e' .//././..‹.• / I,•
**...** • :.
\
i , r
, •1 ,it'
/ 'co __- . . -•-.-- •-..-„, ",,,,,,, ; ---- •
--- - ...-, ...-• ;, • • ,••
\ j..11, - • - .- /, „
p:.;_j•;iii/iiiih .__---;,-i. I:: -----I''''' - . — — --—--.--1...1•• -. • ------ 4./..'
• 4 ,---(11.1111141111 dt.. r 11
/.1
. / , ....
r
t w z
-v. s ), . I— • z J 0
Ji. !•_---. / , r
a si 1
.17 A
-g: tC 2 bi 1 • /CO 0 i
. /• (ili 1 .
'' • 5 • ' 4 kl
2 D.-
. '
i •
1./ / ----1—'-- 7—'4P1.:1 1 ji IZ —ul t-
o D
5 .9 2 1 2 • 1!. ./..::'
F•• r —
. .
•
If 1 • AL. 11.11.1 j . +, ' / //I 1/
•
z J I- / / / ri 0 1
....I PC '/ ., //.1
• . ' i. C\J -- -- .. .
. I -'' • --1.. .' 1 L----b4.11 .
1 •.11 gt ' I . ,
11 t
, , 1 , . .
. . ----i- ., ,• ,/4,
ii- • ..gyi 'IP r_—. -. ., ,,-- ..,„" . •'
1 ., 1 i r 2
tj 1 9 II 1 --/ ■.
' - '3•.:1 11.3 ,- /•,. ,:'
/. /•:# o n .
. I l' 1 I-
II 3 2. ; 1M - /
ii..I. _- • I (7,-6p
I-. , .. 1 :,..-11, i •. vi-
1 i. --7 1 i_.. .,
.1 I.
<J • . ,,
1.. I -"u_.' I i i;'P.i 11 1 • 6 2 au , ,!.
x
!I 'III ' i.11315;; ± •_fit_ __..15— i.. ii,e, . '..1 •••
-11 1 S i R ,•1 r- • , ..1,1: 0 2 tc 5 A i
I I I_ IC I, lit[ .ct3 .,t , 2 .0 • 1
.. . :tig I
■ 'LI
11
,'
; -
• .1 a
• • ill
, 1 i 1 1 i 1 k
r I
[ v 1 f \ 11 . 6 0 5 i
0 < _,14 1. ..
. . . .
1 . g'' 4 a: k
i'-`-, DO
J11 .
li 1
■ 51 s
. I CC 0
D -.1.-
o i•la U i I i • celihji-1 I
. hi co I-
I
• )-'Z
0 IA 7 0 I
...IAA
_... ,,...
„ ,1 n, 1:1 . • - . 7' •I
0z •., z •
yi'l-1-`1 / a.,D
m x
z 1 ( •D 3
114 '
.tr.
it 1 • 7 • I 1 i■
i I
i 1 1 : I -.
ii l. •1.- — d - J '
. l' IIC 1
a,1• 1
,,..53.,, ___
• I, ..„1.
1/
'',' - I i Li. ,. •
---:- --1 I I - ?. V.._
I _• .14 \ .
. 1.
...., .. 1 -7_
.-7' I s.. __ / Ili r .,7 -.)_.... ' '
L_______t____„, ____ , I / .1
' "i-
__hi—--- —__.
, _ __ •
___
, ___.._.____( .. . .. .
i w
------- 1
"--------------.4 I •-I-7 ,e1-1-S 0 !WS'N t —_,—. ...._.
/
I I
_ 5
) I 1, if-. — -- ---
1
' • 1
I 4
... . . . . I 1 • I .
411
Exhibit A (10 sheets, 1-9A) , which conforms to the requirements
of Section 7-1004 of the Code. The City agrees to accept such
plat for recording in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder, upon payment of the recordation fee and cost to the
City by Owner.
3 . Construction schedule and Phasing. The City and
the Owners mutually acknowledge that exact construction schedules
cannot be determined at this time. However, it is anticipated
that construction of the Project will begin no later than three
years from the vesting of the Owners' property rights in the
Project. The anticipated construction schedule is as follows:
a. Units 3, 4 , 5 and' 6, and the accessory unit to
Unit 6, and the subgrade parking garage are expected to be under
construction on or before June 1, 1990, and completed by June 1,
1993 .
b. Units 1,2, 7, 8, and 9 and the accessory units
to Units 7 and 9 will be under construction on or before June 1,
1991 and completed by June 1, 1993 .
c. Units 10 - 12 , the employee housing units and
the accessory units to Units 10 and 11 will be under construction
on or before September 1, 1991 and will be completed by June 1,
1991.
d. The swimming pool is expected to be under
construction on or before June 1, 1990, and completed by June 1,
1993 , and the common courtyard areas will be completed in
accordance with the completion of construction of the adjacent
Units.
e.. The public improvements identified in
paragraph 4 of this Agreement are expected to be under
construction on or before June 1, 1990, and completed by June 1,
1991, and each element thereof shall be installed as soon as
possible consistent with adjacent Project construction. All such
public improvements shall be completed by Owners and accepted by
the City prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy for
the Project or within three years of the date hereof, whichever
first occurs.
4 . Landscaping Improvements. In accordance with the
Code, the landscaping improvements shall be installed as
represented and shown on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit B,
which plan shows the extent and location as well as the type of
plants to be installed, and all landscape features, flower and
shrub definition, proposed treatment of all ground surfaces
- 3
___
III III
(e.g. , paving, sod, gravel, etc. ) and the other elements of the
landscape plan. The landscaping shall be installed as soon as
possible, no later than the first planting season following the
completion of the construction adjacent to the area of planting.
; The Owners shall promptly replace any plants which have not
survived for a period of two growing seasons following the final
certificate of occupancy for the Project.
5. Public Improvements.
a. Sidewalks and public seating. The Owners
will construct sidewalks in accordance with applicable City of
Aspen Engineering Department standards in conjunction with their
construction of the Project. These sidewalks located along the
east side of Spring Street between Main and the Creektree
Driveway and along the north side of Main Street from Spring
Street to Neal Street and along the south side of Neal Street to
the Roaring Fork River bridge will include a two-foot grass area
' between the curb and sidewalk as represented and shown on the
plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. The curb along the sidewalk
on the north side of Main Street shall be nine inches high. The
Owners will install at least two benches for public seating at
the corner of Spring Street and Main Street; and one bench and
decorative rock formations on which it is possible to sit at the
river overlook along the north side of Main Street overlooking
Herron Park, as shown on the landscape plan. Owners shall obtain
any required permits from the Colorado Highway Department for
construction of the sidewalks along Main Street prior to
obtaining building permits on the Project.
b. Water lines. The Owners will provide an
interconnect for the Project by extending the dead-end water line
with two isolation valves as shown on the final plat.
c. Sewer lines. A plastic pipe slip line will
be installed on the last segment of the Rio Grande collection
system for a distance of 300 feet to the trunk line, in order to
service the Project.
d. Fire hydrants. The fire hydrant which
currently is located at the southwest corner of the Project will
be upgraded by either replacing the hydrant with one which has an
additional nozzle or, if so requested by the City of Aspen Fire
'Marshall, by upgrading the existing hydrant with an alternative
similar system. In addition, the Owners will install a new fire
hydrant at the southeast corner of the Project and will sprinkler
all of the Units for fire protection safety.
- 4 -
e. River bank stabilization. No vegetation will
be removed nor any slope regraded such that the Roaring Fork
River will be adversely affected. All disturbed slopes will be
stabilized during construction and appropriate measures taken to
prevent erosion. Lincoln DeVore Testing Laboratory has prepared
a report, attached hereto as Exhibit B, which makes certain
additional erosion-control recommendations and specifications
which, when implemented will prevent further undercutting of the
bank along the east side of the Project by the Roaring Fork
River. Currently, the River is undercutting its banks along the
southeast edge of the Project, on City property, and on the
northeasterly edge of the Project property.
The Lincoln DeVore report requires that boulders of a
certain size and specification must be used to prevent further
erosion. The City shall, to the extent available without cost to
the City, provide and deliver boulders meeting the specifications
of the Lincoln DeVore report in order to take steps recommended
in the report to stabilize the undercut eroded area located on
the City property and shall provide and deliver any additional
boulders available to the City to the undercut erosion area on
the Project property. The Owners shall provide any additional
materials and required labor and shall install the riprap as
recommended in the Lincoln DeVore report in both the undercut
areas on the City property and on the Project property. In the
event any further permits from governmental entities other than
the City are required for such installation, the party on whose
property the installation is to be located shall obtain such
permits.
6. Security for public improvements and landscaping.
In order to secure the performance of the construction and
installation of the landscaping and public improvements described
above, the Owners shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or
other guarantees in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in
the sum of $183 , 233. 25. Said guarantee will be delivered to the
City prior to the issuance to the Owners of a building permit for
the Project. The guarantee documents shall give the City the
unconditional right, upon clear and unequivocal default by the
Owners in their obligations specified herein, to withdraw funds
against such security sufficient to complete and pay for
installation of such public improvements or Project landscaping.
As portions of the improvements are completed, the City Engineer
shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, he shall
authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that
portion of the improvements, except that ten-percent of the
estimated cost of the improvements shall be withheld for the
benefit of the City until the completion of all of the described
public improvements, and the retainage for the landscaping shall
- 5
•
be withheld until two growing seasons following the certificate
of occupancy for the Project. The Owners shall require all
contractors to provide a warranty that all improvements were
constructed to accepted standards of good workmanship for the
benefit of the City for the installation of the public
improvements described herein for one year from the date of
acceptance. In the event that any existing municipal
improvements are damaged during Project construction, on request
by the City Engineer, a bond or other suitable security for the
repair of those municipal improvement shall be provided by Owners
to the City. Prior to construction of any improvements of the
Project, the Owners will secure a new estimate of the cost of
installation of the public improvements and Project landscaping.
If the new estimate, as approved by the City Engineer, exceeds
the amount set forth in the first sentence of this paragraph, the
security will be increased in such amount. If, however, the new
estimate is lower, the security will be decreased by the amount
necessary to match the current estimate.
7 . Utility Easement and electrical transformers. A
utility easement, in the location as shown on the Plat, is
dedicated by the Owners for the benefit of the City and public
utility companies. In addition, the Owners will relocate the
existing utility transformers on the west part of the Project
near the vacated alley to an appropriate location north of the
existing transformer site.
8. Drainage. The storm sewer system and dry well for
site drainage, water retention and other site drainage features
• will be installed in accordance with the representations,
drawings, plans and reports attached hereto as Exhibit A.
9. Parking. Owners shall construct 50 subsurface
parking spaces (five of which will be for use by compact cars) .
The parking spaces shall be constructed prior to a certificate of
\Nt
occupancy of the Units.
Employee housing requirements. Owners shall
construct housing for 5.75 employees on site in two one-bedroom
employee units and one two-bedroom unit, all of which will be
deed-restricted to the Pitkin County Housing Authority's low-
income guidelines, provided that the Owners shall have the right
to designate the occupant of such unit and give occupancy
PC priority to employees of the Project, and any occupant who is an
employee shall not be required to meet income or asset
limitations of the low-income guidelines. The units are
initially intended to be rental units, but the Owners reserve the
right to sell the units in accordance with the sales guidelines
- 6 -.
111
established by the Housing Authority. In addition, the Owners
will provide a payment-in-lieu for 22 employees at the low income
payment levels, for a total of $440, 000. 00, to be paid prior to
issuance of building permits for the Project. The deed
restrictions for the employee units are attached hereto as
Exhibit C.
The three previously existing units on the Project
may be reconstructed and are exempt from growth management,
employee housing and park dedication fees. Those previously
existing units are the Ware residence on Spring Street, the Bevan
residence at 120 North Spring Street and the former Mikkelsen
residence at 700 East Main Street ( demolition permit number
9758) . The employee units are also exempt from Growth Management
Plan requirements and the fee dedications.
11. Park dedication. The City agrees to accept park
development impact fees (Section 5-603) for the Project in lieu
of land dedications for parks. The employee units and the three
previously existing units are exempt from requirements for a park
development fee (Section 5-606) . The previously existing units
consisted of two three-bedroom and one one-bedroom units. The
resulting park development fees owed by the Project are as
follows:
a. Nine three-bedroom units at $3 , 120. 00 each,
for
$28, 080. 00;
b. Three four-bedroom unit at $3, 120. 00 each, for
$9360. 00.
Thus, the total park development impact fee for the Project
is $37, 440. 00. This fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of
building permits for the Project.
12 . Condominiumization. The City has approved the
condominiumization of the Project, and the City agrees to accept,
execute and approve for recordation a condominium plat prepared
in accordance with the Code. As the Owners have provided
affordable housing pursuant to Sec. 8-106 (E) (5) of the Code, the
Project is exempt from paying the Affordable Housing Impact fee.
The Owners shall record a condominium declaration and shall
create a corporate non-profit homeowners' association and
articles of incorporation and by-laws. The association shall be
responsible for the perpetual maintenance of the Project common
elements and open space in good repair and in a clean and
attractive condition. Membership in the homeowners' association
shall inure to a Unit owner on the transfer of title. The
- 7 -
I
association board of directors shall consist of at least three
unit owners in the Project. Owners agree to join any improvement
district formed for the area in which the Project is located.
13 . No fireplaces. The Project shall not contain any
wood-burning stoves, fireplaces or similar devices.
14 . Maximum floor area. The Project shall consist of
no more than 43, 000 square feet.
15. Fisherman Easement. The Owners shall grant a
fisherman's easement along the west bank of the Roaring Fork
River and the easement shall be five feet in width and will be
shown on the Plat for the Project.
16. Material Representations. All material
representations made by the Owners on the record to the City in
accordance with the amendment of the Cottonwood Park Subdivision
and P.U.D. approval shall be binding on the Owners.
17 . Enforcement. In the event the City maintains
that the Owners are not in substantial compliance with the terms
of this Agreement or the final Plat, the City Council may serve a
notice of noncompliance and request that the deficiency be
corrected within a period of 45 days. In the event the Owners
believe that they are in compliance or that the noncompliance is
insubstantial, the Owners may request a hearing before the City
Council to determine whether the alleged noncompliance exists or
whether any amendment, variance or extension of time to comply
should be granted. On request, the City shall conduct a hearing
according to its normal procedures and take such action as it
then deems appropriate.
18 . Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent by
United States certified mail to the addresses set forth below or
to any other address which the parties may substitute in writing.
To the Owners:
John Elmore
P.O. Box 381
Wrightsville Beach, N.C. 28480
•
- 8 -
. ®
Lionel Yow
Yow, Yow, Culbreth, Fox &
Pennington
102 North Fifth Avenue
P.O. Box 479
Wilmington, N.C. 28402
To the City of Aspen:
City Manager
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
with a copy to:
City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
19 . Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement
shall run with and constitute a burden on the land on which the
Project is located and shall be binding on and inure to the
benefit of the Owners' and the City's successors, personal
representatives and assigns.
20. Amendment. This agreement may be altered or
amended only by written instrument executed by the parties.
21. Severability. If any of the provisions of this
agreement are determined to be invalid, it shall not affect the
remaining provisions hereof.
Attest: THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal
corporation
KATHRYN S. KOCH WILLIAM L. STIRLING, Mayor
City Clerk
- 9 -
I
Approved as to form:
City Attorney 9
, 111,014,1mo ,
JO. N A. ELMORE II LIONEL YOW
IF
• E OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
Acknowledged before me , 198 by
WILLIAM L. STIRLING, Mayor, and KATHRYN S. KOCH, City Clerk.
My Commission expires:
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
Acknowledged before me U /.,j , 1989 by JOHN
A. ELMORE II.
My Commission expires: q-/-9v
Witness my hand and official seal.
r ublic
Y
Acknowledged before me �4j , 198? by
LIONEL YOW.
My Commission expires:
Witness my hand and official seal .
• ary Public
c: \jeh\lu\elmore.pud
JEH
- 10 -
•
ii
SCNn.�ESER GORDON MEYER INC. �, a��Alas1 1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E
ftt, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dior Mild (303)945-1004(303)925-6727
Fax (303)945-5948
August 15, 1991 Igaiini.r/ CONSULTING ENGINEERS&SURVEYORS/
City of Aspen Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Attn: Leslie Lemont AUG 1 9 1991
RE: River Park at Aspen Condominium Map �` '�
Dear Leslie:
This letter is being written at the request of Katie McMahon and is in regard to the River Park
at Aspen Condominium site plan map. On that map, we labeled a setback to the property line
near the northeast corner as 2.0 feet. This was an error. The building shown was for
reference only and does not reflect the exact location of the buildings as built. Over the
course of the platting process, it was forgotten that the unfinished building locations were not
accurate and the label was placed on the map inadvertently.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
•
•
en Wilson, P.L.S.
Survey Manager
KW:lc/9037
cc: Katie McMahon
411
P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR COTTONWOOD PARK
(700 EAST MAIN STREET)
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of
, 1989, between JOHN A. ELMORE II and LIONEL YOW (the
" ners") , and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation (the
"City") .
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Owners own that certain real property located in
the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin legally described as:
A parcel of land situated in the SE; SW; of Section 7 ,
Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal
Meridian, East Aspen Additional Townsite, Pitkin
County, Colorado, more fully described as follows.
Beginning at the N.W. Corner of Block 21, East Aspen
Additional Townsite; Thence S 75°09'11" E 150. 00 feet
along the North line of said Block 21; Thence departing
said line S 59 ° 18'00" E 56. 37 feet; Thence S 50° 14 ' 11"
E 118. 32 feet; Thence S 52 °57 '39" W 47. 02 feet; Thence
S 49°58 '47" W 21. 71 feet to a point on the East line of
said Block 21; Thence S 14 °50'49" W 100. 00 feet along
this East line of said Block 21 to the Southeast corner
of said Block 21; Thence N 75°09'11" W 2 . 31 feet along
the South line of said Block 21; Thence 62 . 88 feet
along a curve to the right having a radius of 868 . 51
feet (the chord of which bears S 10°18 '25" E 62 . 87
feet) ; Thence 145.72 feet along a curve to the left
having a radius of 176. 18. feet (the chord of which
bears N 51°27'27" W 141. 60 feet) ; Thence N 75° 09 ' 11" W
164 .75 feet along the South line of said Block 21 to
the Southwest corner of said Block 21; Thence N
14 °50'49" E 220. 00 feet along the West line of said
Block 21 to the point of beginning.
and;
WHEREAS, Owners' predecessors in title, Dorothy M.
Mikkelsen, Ardith Louise Ware, Alice Gallegos Mikkelsen and
Albert W. Bevan, Jr. entered into a P.U.D and Subdivision
Agreement for 700 East Main Street with the City dated December
19, 1988, for the development of a residential project (the
"Original Project") ; and
WHEREAS, the Owners received a recommendation for approval
of an amendment to the Original Project's Growth Management Quota
System allocation, Planned Unit Development and Subdivision
approvals from the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on May
5 ,
411
30, 1989 and is scheduled to have such amendment reviewed by the
Aspen City Council on June 12, 1989 (hereinafter such amendment
to the Original Project shall be referred to as the "Project") ;
and
WHEREAS, the City and the Owners wish to enter into a new
P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement for the Project which will
supercede the Agreement for the Original Project; and
WHEREAS, the Owners have submitted to the City for approval,
execution and recordation a plat for the Project (the "Plat") and
the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plat on the
agreement of the Owners to the matters described herein, subject
to the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (the
"Code") and other applicable rules and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in
connection with its approval, execution and acceptance of the
Plat and such matters are necessary to protect, promote and
enhance the public health, safety and welfare, and pursuant to
the Code, the City is entitled to assurances that the matters set
forth herein ,will be faithfully performed by the Owners and the
Owners' successors and assigns; and
WHEREAS, the Owners are willing to enter into such agreement
with the City and to provide assurances to the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
contained herein, and the approval, execution and acceptance of
the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Description of Project. The Project consists of
12 free-market residential living units consisting of nine three-
bedroom units (Units 1-9) and three four-bedroom units (Units 10-
12) . In addition, the Project will consist of three employee
dwelling units deed restricted to Housing Authority guidelines
and 5 accessory caretaker units attached to Units 6, 7 , 9, 10 and
11. Further, underground parking will be constructed for 50
cars.
2 . Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this
amended agreement by all parties hereto, the City agrees to
approve and execute the final plat for the Project submitted
herewith and reduced-size copies of which are attached hereto as
- 2 -
• ,lla®0 646 "
4 h
t4 *` 4V.V1', 3 JjF�
1 .c,i
M1 d't`A3.P.,t
Lincoln DeVore
1441 Motor
Grand Junction, Cob 81501
(303)242-8968
Mr. Stan Mathis
Stan Mathis Architecture & Planning
119 South Spring Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
June 14, 1989
Re: -Erosion Control Measures
Bank of Roaring Fork River
700 East Main, Aspen, CO
Based on reported 100 year flood elevations estimated from the FEMA study,
anticiptated building placement and existing bank slopes conditions, a
riprap repair and flood protection construction is recommended for this
site. The existing bank is oversteepened and is being undercut by the
river. Slope sloughing and ravelling is ongoing and will continue if
protective measures are not undertaken.
Following are basic recommendations for riprap along areas requiring
repair. It must be emphasized that as the work progresses on the bank
repair and actual building construction on this project, inspection by
this office may reveal conditions which would either modify or extend the
actual amount of slope repair and stabilization required.
Subsurface conditions may be uncovered during the project construction
which were not detected during the initial investigation or covered in the
initial subsurface soils exploration report by Lincoln DeVore, June, 1989.
The placed riprap should not extend more than 2 feet away from the
existing slopeline, to prevent encroachment on the river flood flow path.
The maximum riprap size will vary between 48 to 72 inches inspection,
depending on the actual calculated water velocities expected. The placed
riprap is to be hand placed (not dumped) , predominanatly angular in shape,
and shall be a durable material of either select Granitic or other
indigenous igneous rock in the area.
Colorado Springs, Colorado Pueblo, Colorado Grand Junction, Colorado Glenwood Springs, Colorado Evanston, Wyoming
0 lb
Riprap shape and placement should conform to the requirements of the Corps
of Engineers design method. Stabilization of the riprap mass will probably
require the placement of a pressure grout in the riprap mass. A sand
bedding material will be required between the riprap and the native soil
deposits.
The riprap will have to be placed in stages, due to the steepness of the
slopes and the limited construction area. It is recommended that the
project be scheduled so the riprap and building foundation excavations can
be accomplished together. The riprap placement should be completed before
actual construction of the adjacent building foundations begin.
Actual design of the riprap feature can be accomplished when the project
characteristics are fully defined. If any further questions arise, please
do not hesitate to contact this office.
Respectfully submitted,
Lincoln DeVore, Inc.
/-,- _,
Edward M. Morris
Manager/Geological Engineer
Western Slope Branch
' C
•
Lincoln DeVore
1441 Motor
Grand Junction. Colo 81501
(303) 242-8968
•
SUBSURFACE SOILS EXPLORATION
COTTONWOOD PARK HOUSING
Block 21 , East Aspen Townsite
Aspen, Colorado
Prepared For :
Stan A. Mathis , Architects
P. O. Box 1984 •
Aspen, CO 81612
Prepared By:
LINCOLN-DeVORE, INC.
1441 Motor Street
Grand Junction, CO 81505
June 5 , 1989
olorado Springs, Colorado Pueblo, Colorndo Grand .kurction, Coawndu Glenwood ;Inint)s, Colorado Evanston, Wyoming
•
t i It ry
\Lincoln DeVore,Inc.
Geotechnical Consultants
1441 Motor St.
Grand Junction, CO 81505
(303) 242-8968
June 5 , 1989
Stan A . Mathis
P. O. Box 1984
Aspen , CO 81612
Re: SUBSURFACE SOILS EXPLORATION
COTTONWOOD PARK HOUSING
Block 21 , East Aspen Townsite
Aspen , Colorado
Dear Sir :
Transmitted herein are the results of a Subsurface Soils
Exploration for the proposed Cottonwood Park Housing .
If you have any questions after reviewing this report , please
feel free to contact this office at any time . This opportunity to
provide Geotechnical Engineering Services is sincerely appreciated .
Respectfully submitted .
LINCOLN-DeVORE, INC.
BY: EDWARD M. MORRIS • :i�`l,\
WESTERN SLOPE BRANCH MANAGER: _ �1
Grand Junction, Office '`� 4 • t
• 6/ 1;)
Reviewed by: George 1. orris, �, E.g.;.. /
EMM/pt
LDTL Job No. 70652-J
411
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page li4�
INTRODUCTION 1
Project Description 1
Project Scope 2
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3
FINDINGS 4
Site Description 4
General Geology and Subsurface Description 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8
General Discussion 8
Open Foundation Observation 9
Site Preparation 9
General 9
Site Preparation 11
Structural Fill Soil 12
Fill Placement and Compaction 12
Field Observation and Testing 13
Drainage and Gradient 13
Foundations 15
Settlement Characteristics 16
Slabs 16
Earth Retaining Structures 17
Floodplains 19
Reactive Soils 20
Limitations 20
3
411 411
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report presents the results of our
geotechnical evaluation performed to determine the general subsur-
face conditions of the site applicable to construction of
condominium structures and a parking garage . A vicinity map is
included in the Appendix of this report .
To assist in our exploration , we were
provided with site location and proposed building layout
diagrams. The Boring Location Plan attached to this report is
based on that plan provided to us .
We understand that the proposed struct-
ures will consist of 2 or 3 story, wood-framed structures with a
full basements and concrete floor slab on grade . Lincoln DeVore
has not seen a full set of building plans , but structures of this
type typically develop wall loads on the order of 1500 plf to
2500 plf and column loads on the order of 6 to 40 kips .
The characteristics of the subsurface
materials encountered were evaluated with regard to the type of
construction described above . Recommendations are included here-
in to match the described construction to the soil characteris-
tics found . The information contained herein may or may not be
valid for other purposes . If the proposed site use is changed or
types of construction proposed , other than noted herein, Lincoln
DeVore should be contacted to determine if the information in
this report can be used for the new construction without further
field evaluations.
1
411
411
PROJECT SCOPE
The purpose of our exploration was to
evaluate the surface and subsurface soil and geologic conditions
of the site and , based on the conditions encountered , to provide
recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of the
site development as previously described . The conclusions and
recommendations included herein are based on an analysis of the
data obtained from our field explorations , laboratory testing
program, and on our experience with similiar soil and geologic
conditions in the area.
This report provides site specific
information for the construction of a condominium complex .
Included in this report are recommendations regarding general
site development and foundation design criteria .
The scope of our geotechnical explora-
tion consisted of a surface reconnaissance , a geophoto study,
subsurface exploration , obtaining representative samples , labora-
tory testing , analysis of field and laboratory data, and a review
of geologic literature .
Specifically, the intent of this study
is to:
1 . Explore the subsurface conditions to the depth
expected to be influenced by the proposed construction.
2 . Evaluate by laboratory and field tests the general
engineering properties of the various strata which
could influence the development .
3 . Define the general geology of the site , including
likely geologic hazards which could have an effect
on site development .
4 . Develop geotechnical criteria for site grading and
earthwork .
2
411
5. Identify potential construcion difficulties and pro-
vide recommendations concerning these problems .
6 . Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the
anticipated structure and develop criteria for
foundation design .
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
A field evaluation was performed on
April 25 , 1989 , and consisted of a site reconnaissance by our
geotechnical personnel and the drilling of exploration borings .
Three exploration borings were drilled within the proposed
buildings near the locations indicated on the Boring Location
Plan. The exploration borings were located to obtain a reasonably
good profile of the subsurface soil conditions . All exploration
borings were drilled using a CME B-45 , truck mounted drill rig
with continuous flight auger to depths of approximately 14 to 15
feet . Samples were taken with a standard split spoon sampler and
by bulk methods . Logs describing the subsurface conditions are
presented in the attached figures .
Laboratory tests were performed on
representative soil samples to determine their relative
engineering properties . Tests were performed in accordance with
test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials or
other accepted standards . The results of our laboratory tests
are included in this report . The in-place moisture content and
the standard penetration test values are presented on the
attached drilling logs .
3
I
FINDINGS
Site Description
The project site is located on all of
Block 21 , East Aspen Townsite , Pitkin County, Colorado. Block 21
is bounded by North Spring Street on the west , Main Street on the
south and the Roaring Fork River on the east .
The topography of the site is gently
sloping to the west for the majority of the tract . The exact
direction of surface runoff on this site will be controlled by
the proposed construction and therefore will be variable . On the
east end of the tract , a very steep bank, 13 to 15 feet high,
overlooking the Roaring Fork River , is present . The slope
gradient along this bank ranges from 30% to 100% . Surface
drainage on the tract , as a whole , is fair to good; subsurface
drainage is good .
The existing ground surface elevations
range from a low of 7885 to a high of 7910 feet above mean sea
level . Elevations are taken from a site plan obtain from Stan
Mathis , Architects .
GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE DESCRIPTION
The geologic materials encountered under
the site consist of alluvial sands and cobbles of the Roaring
Fork River Terrace and glacial till , which is somewhat reworked
by the Roaring Fork River . The geologic and engineering
properties of the materials found in our exploration borings will.
be discussed in the following sections .
4
410
The soil types encountered during the
field exploration have been grouped into 3 soil types , which
indicate different stages of deposition and soil reworking by the
Roaring Fork River . Soil Type Numbers 1 & 2 are separated due to
to a color difference and relative amounts of mica fines , which
gives the appearance of different soil types. The major
difference between the Engineering characteristics is that Soil
Type #1 represents the -3/4" fraction of a cobble deposit and •
Soil Type #2 represents the -1 " fraction of a gravel and cobble ,
deposit . For the following discussion , both Soil Types 1 & 2
will be grouped together .
This Soil Type is classified as a SP/SM
of medium grain size under the Unified Classification System.
This soil type is non-plastic and of moderate density. This soil
will have virtually no tendency to expand upon the addition of
moisture . Settlement will be minimal under the recommended
foundation loads . This soil will undergo elastic settlement upon
application of static foundation pressures . Such settlement is
characteristically rapid and should be virtually complete by the
end of construction. If the recommended allowable bearing values
are not exceeded , and if all other recommendations are followed ,
differential movement will be within tolerable limits . At
shallow foundation depths this soil was found to have an average .
allowable bearing capacity of 4500 psf .
Soil Type # 3 represents thin strata
which are found throughout the lower portion of the soil profile
penetrated by the test borings . This soil type was exposed in
the bank section , shown on The Test Boring Location Diagram as
5
41) S
"Bank Observation , Soils Profile. " •This Soil Type is classified as a GP/GM
of coarse grain size under the Unified Classification System.
This soil type is non-plastic and of medium density. This soil
will have virtually no tendency to expand upon the addition of
moisture. Settlement will be minimal under the recommended
foundation loads. This soil will undergo elastic settlement upon
application of static foundation pressures. Such settlement is
characteristically rapid and should be virtually complete by the
end of construction. If the recommended allowable bearing values
are not exceeded , and if all other recommendations are followed ,
differential movement will be within fo} erab\ e limits. At
shallow foundation depths this soil was found to have an average
allowable bearing capacity of 2800 psf .
At the depth of Test Boring Refusal and
in the "Bank Observation , Soils Profile" , a marked change in the
alluvial soils was noted . The coarse portion of the soils is
composed of large , angular boulders and cobble sized rocks , which
contain a matrix very similar to Soil Type Numbers 1 & 2. This
zone could not be penetrated by the drilling operation and was
observed at the bank bottom , in the "Bank Observation , Soils
Profile" . These soiks have similar Engineering characteristics
to Soil Type Numbers 1 & 2. •
The boring logs and related information
show subsurface conditions at the date and location of this
exp l ora ti on. Soil con diti ons may diff er a t l oca ti ons o th er than
• those of the exploratory b or i ngs' If th e s t ruc t ure is move d
any
appreciable distance from the locations of the borings , the soil
6
_
ii
110
conditions may not be the same as those reported here . The
passage of time may also result in a change in the soil condi- ,
tions at the boring locations .
The lines defining the change between
soil types or rock materials on the attached boring logs and soil
profiles are determined by interpolation and therefore • are
approximations . The transition between soil types, may be abrupt
or may be gradual .
No free water was encountered during
drilling on this site . In our opinion the true free water sur-
face is fairly deep in this area, and hence , should not affect
construction. Seepage moisture may affect construction if sur-
face drainage is not properly controlled . It is believed that
free water is present between 17 to 25 feet below the existing
ground surface .
Because of capillary rise , the soil zone
within a few feet above the free water level identified in the
borings will be quite wet . Pumping and rutting may occur during
the excavation process , particularly if the bottom of the founda-
tions are near the capillary fringe. Pumping is a temporary,
quick condition caused by vibration of excavating equipment on
the site . If pumping occurs , it can often be stopped by removal
of the equipment and greater care exercised in the excavation
process. In other cases , geotextile fabric layers can be design-
ed or cobble sized material can be introduced into the bottom of
the excavation and worked into the soft soils . Such a geotextile
or cobble raft is designed to stabilize the bottom of the excava-
tion and to provide a firm base for equipment ..
•
4 411
Data presented in this report concerning
ground water levels are representative of those levels at the
time of our field exploration . Groundwater levels are subject to
change seasonally or by changed environmental conditions . Quanti-
tative information concerning rates of flow into excavations or
pumping capacities necessary to dewater excavations is not inclu-
ded and is beyond the scope of this report . If this information
is desired , permeability and field pumping tests will be.
required .
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL DISCUSSION
No geologic conditions were apparent
during our reconnaissance which would preclude the site develop-
ment as planned , provided the recommendations contained herein
are fully complied investigation to date and ied with . Based on our investi l P 5
the knowledge of the proposed construction , the site condition
which would have the greatest effect on the planned development
is the steep bank and potential erosion of this bank by the
Roaring Fork River .
Since the exact magnitude and nature of
the foundation loads are not precisely known at the present time ,
the following recommendations must be somewhat general in nature .
Any special loads or unusual design conditions should be reported
to Lincoln DeVore so that changes in these recommendations may be
made , if necessary. However , based upon our analysis of the
soil conditions and project characteristics previously outlined ,
the following recommendations are made .
8
411
Open Foundation Observation:
Since the recommendations in this
report are based on information obtained through random borings ,
it is possible that the subsurface materials between the boring
points could vary. Therefore , prior to placing forms or pouring
concrete , an open excavation observation should be performed by
representatives of Lincoln DeVore . The purpose of this observa-
tion is to determine if the subsurface soils directly below the
proposed foundations are similiar to those encountered in our
exploration borings . If the materials below the proposed founda-
tions differ from those encountered , or in our opinion, are not
capable of supporting the applied loads , additional recommenda-
tions could be provided at that time .
SITE PREPARATION
General :
All earthwork and grading for this site
development should be accomplished in accordance with the attach
ed earthwork and grading recommendations and Chapter 70 of the
UBC. All special site preparation presented herein will
supersede those in the attached Standard Earthwork and Grading
Recommendations Section .
Since no site grading plan was made
available at the time of writing this report , the extent of site
grading and the proposed footing elevations is not known. There-
fore, these grading recommendations must be considered
preliminary until Lincoln DeVore has had the opportunity to
review the site grading plans .
9
411
410
No major difficulties are anticipated in
on the course of excavating into the surficial soil s o t he site. It
is probable that safety provisions such as sloping or bracing the
sides of excavations over 4 feet deep will be necessary. Any such
safety provisions shall conform to reasonable industry safety
practices and to applicable OSHA regulations .
We recommend that the amount of cut and
fill be kept to a minimum on this site . Specifically, we recom-
mend that any cut or fill which reduces the stability of native
slopes be avoided . This includes any cut at the toe of a slope
and any fill placed at the top of a slope . We recommend that any
cut or fill over 4 feet in height be analyzed for stability of
the final slope prior to construction. The stability of the bank
overlooking the Roaring Fork River must be addressed before
construction of the unit numbers S through 11 and the Lap Pool .
• In general , we recommend all structural
fill in the area beneath any proposed structure or roadway be
compacted to a minimum of 90% of its maximum modified Proctor dry
density (ASTM D1557 ) . We recommend that fill be placed and
compacted at approx- imately its optimum moisture content ( +/-
2% ) as determined by ASTM D 1557 . Structural fill should be a
granular , non-expansive soil .
Allowable slope angle for cuts in the •
native soils is dependent on soil conditions, slope geometry, the
moisture content and other factors . Should deep cuts be planned
for this site, we recommend that a slope stability analysis be
performed when the location and depth of the cut is known.
10
411
Notching the structure into the hillside
will create some very steep cut slopes . While such slopes may
stand safely for short periods of time , exposure to the elements
for any extended period requires that the slope be braced or
surface-protected . We recommend that building walls in contact
with such cut slopes be designed as retaining walls . The magni-
tude of the forces to which the wall will be subjected are noted
in the section on lateral stability.
We recommend that all backfill placed
around the exterior of the building , and in utility trenches
which are outside the perimeter of the building and not located
beneath roadways or parking lots, be compacted to a minimum of
85% of its maximum Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698 ) .
During the placement of any structural
fill , it is recommended that a sufficient amount of field tests
and observation be performed under the direction of the geo-
technical engineer . The geotechnical engineer should determine
the amount of observation time and field density tests required
to determine substantial conformance with these recommendations .
Site Preparation:
It is recommended that site prep-
aration begin with the removal of all vegetation , existing man-
made fill and other deleterious materials . This applies both to
areas to be filled and areas to be cut . The removed materials
should be legally disposed of off-site or , if appropriate , stock-
piled for later use in non-structural areas or landscaping . In
the case of existing man-made fill , we recommend that it be
11
removed completely. It is recommended that the exposed native
soil be scarified to a depth of 12 inches , brought to near opti-
mum moisture conditions and recompacted to a minimum of 90% of
maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 .
Prior to placing fill , the exposed
ground should be observed by representatives of Lincoln DeVore to
determine that all deleterious material , man-made fill and soft
areas have been adequately removed . The removed material may then
be replaced with uniformly compacted lifts of structural fill
until the desired slab or footing elevation is achieved . We
recommend that the structural fill be placed within 2% of the
optimum moisture content of the material and compacted to a
minimum of 90% of its maximum dry density, ASTM D 1557 .
Particular note needs to be made of any abandoned foundations ,
leach fields, cisterns , sewage tanks and trash pits.
Structural Fill Soil :
It appears that the majority of the
material excavated from cut areas is suitable for reuse as
structural fill . Material to be approved shall be free of
deleterious matter and oversized hard rock . We recommend that no
predominantly clayey soils or claystones be included in the
structural fill .
Fill Placement and Compaction:
We recommend that structural fill
placed beneath floor slabs , foundations and parking lots be
compacted to a minimum of 90% of its maximum modified Proctor dry
density (ASTM D 1557 ) . The structural fill shall be placed and
compacted at a moisture content within +/- 2% of optimum
12
411
moisture .
Field Observation and Testing :
The opinions and conclusions of a
geotechnical report are based on the interpretation of inform-
ation obtained by random borings . Therefore the actual site
conditions may vary somewhat from those indicated in this report .
It is our opinion that field observations by the geotechnical
engineer who has prepared this report are critical to the contin-
uity of the project .
DRAINAGE AND GRADIENT:
Adequate site drainage should be provid-
ed in the foundation area both during and after construction to
prevent the ponding of water and the saturation of the subsurface
soils. We recommend that the ground surface around the structure
be graded so that surface water will be carried quickly away from
the building . The minimum gradient within 10 feet of the building
will depend on surface landscaping. We recommend that paved areas
maintain a minimum gradient of 2% , and that landscaped areas
maintain a minimum gradient of 8% . It is further recommended that
roof drain downspouts be carried across all backfilled areas and
discharged at least 10 feet away from the structure. Planters, if
any, should be so constructed that moisture is not allowed to
seep into foundation areas or beneath slabs or pavements .
At the higher altitudes at this site ,
difficulty with freezing of drainage lines at the discharge point
is probable. We recommend that this be overcome by discharging
into a protected , coarse rock and cobble fill or. mound . As an
13
I
411
alternative, heat tapes can be used on the discharge point of the
pipe. The drain outlet must also be located with due consider-
ation given to the proposed pattern of snow removal .
It is recommended that the natural
drainage , existing prior to construction , be disturbed as little
as possible by final grading . In particular , we recommend that
water not be channeled along or across any newly filled areas , as
this may result in accelerated erosion and damage to the fill . To
fully minimize erosion, a vegetative cover should be established
as soon after grading is complete as possible .
To give the building extra lateral sta-
bility and to aid in the rapidity of runoff , it is recommended
that all backfill around the building and in utility trenches in
the vicinity of the building be compacted to a minimum of 85% of
its maximum Proctor dry density, ASTM D 698 . The native soils on
this site may be used for such backfill . We recommend that all
backfill be compacted using mechanical methods . No water flooding
techniques of any type may be used in placement of fill on this
site.
Should an automatic lawn irrigation
system be used on this site, we recommend that the sprinkler
heads be installed a minimum of 5 feet from the building. In
addition, these heads should be adjusted so that spray from the
system does not fall onto the walls of the building and that such
water does not excessively wet the backfill soils .
The slope areas immediately adjacent to
the Roaring Fork River drainage can be considered potentially
unstable due to the threat of on-going erosion. A minimum setback
should be established between the proposed construction and the
14
•
410
edge of existing slope scarps . We recommend that the setback
distance be established by laboratory analysis of the shear
strength and stability of specific locations along the banks . In
addition, mitigation systems are recommended to control the on-
going erosion caused by the river . Such mitigation could include
retaining walls , riprap , gabions or other stabilization materials.
FOUNDATIONS
We recommend the use of a conventional
shallow foundation system consisting of continuous spread foot-
ings beneath all bearing walls and isolated spread footings
beneath all columns and other points of concentrated load . Such
a shallow foundation system, resting on the native alluvial
sands, gravels and cobbles of the Roaring Fork River Terrace, may
be designed on the basis of an allowable bearing capacity of
2800 psf maximum. Contact stresses beneath all continuous walls
should be balanced to within + or 300 psf at all points ..
Isolated interior column footings should be designed for contact
stresses of about 150 psf less than the average used to balance
the continuous walls. The criterion for balancing will depend
somewhat upon the nature of the structure . Single-story, slab on
grade structures may be balanced on the basis of dead load only.
Two and three story structures may be balanced on the basis of
dead load plus 1 /2 live load .
Stem walls for a shallow foundation
system should be designed as grade beams capable of spanning at
least 10 feet . These "grade beams" should be horizontally
reinforced both near the top and near. the bottom. The horizontal
15
411
reinforcement required should be placed continuously around the
structure with no gaps or breaks . A foundation system designed
in this manner should provide a rather rigid system and , there-
fore , be better able to tolerate differential movements assoc-
iated with any lenses or thin strata of sands or silts which may
underlie the foundation footings .
Settlement Characteristics:
We anticipate that total and/or diffe-
rential settlements for the proposed structures may be considered
to be within tolerable limits , provided the recommendations pre-
sented in this report are fully complied with . In general , we
expect total settlements for the proposed structure to be less
than 1 inch.
We recommend that the bottom of all
foundation components rest a minimum of 4 feet below finished
grade or as required by the local building codes . Foundation
components must not be placed on frozen soils .
SLABS .
Slabs could be placed directly on the
natural soils or on a structural fill . We recommend that all
slabs on grade be constructed to act independently of the other
structural portions of the building . One method of allowing the
slabs to float freely is to use expansion material at the slab-
structure interface .
It is recommended that slabs on grade be
constructed over a capillary break of approximately 6 inches in
thickness. We recommend that the material used to form the capil-
16
411
lary break be free draining , granular material and not contain
significant fines . A free draining outlet is also recommended for
this break so that it will not trap water beneath the slab. A
vapor barrier is recommended beneath the floor slab and above the
capillary break. To prevent difficulty in finishing concrete , a 2
inch sand layer should be placed above the break.
If the interior floor slabs are to re-
cieve heavy loads due to: a ) wheel loads of industrial vehicles
such as fork lifts or straddle carriers , b ) concentrated static
loads of racks , or c ) heavy distributed stacked loads, then the
slabs classify as industrial and we recommend they be designed in
accordance with methods outlined in the PCA publication, "Slab
Thickness Design for Industrial Concrete Floor Slabs on Grade" .
For design purposes , the modulus of subgrade reaction for this
soil may be taken as 100 pci .
EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES
The active soil pressure for the design
of earth retaining structures may be based on an equivalent fluid
pressure of 28 pounds per cubic foot . The active pressure should
be used for retaining structures which are free to move at the
top (unrestrained walls ) . For earth retaining structures which
are fixed at the top , such as basement walls , an equivalent fluid
pressure of 40 pounds per cubic foot may be used . It should be
noted that the above values should be modified to take into
account any surcharge loads , sloping backfill or other externally
applied forces. The above equivalent fluid pressures should also
be modified for the effect of free water , if any.
The passive pressure for resistance to
17
411
lateral movement may be considered to be 290 pcf per foot of
depth. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be
assumed to be . 62 for resistance to lateral movement. When
combining frictional and passive resistance , the latter must be
reduced by approximately 1 /3 .
We recommend that the backfill behind
any retaining wall be compacted to a minimum of 85% of its
maximum modified Proctor dry density, ASTM D-1557 . The backfill
material should be approved by the Soils Engineer prior to
placing and a sufficient amount of field observation and density
tests should be performed during placement . Placing backfill
behind retaining walls before the wall has gained sufficient
strength to resist the applied lateral earth pressures is not
recommended .
Drainage behind retaining walls is
considered critical . If the backfill behind the wall is not well
drained , hydrostatic pressures are allowed to build up and
lateral earth pressures will be considerably increased. There-
fore, we recommend a vertical drain be installed behind any
impermeable retaining walls . Because of the difficulty in place-
ment of a gravel drain, we recommend the use of a composite
drainage mat similar to Enkadrain or Miradrain. An outfall must
be provided for this drain.
Special considerations in design and
construction of the swimming pool will be necessary since water
leakage from the pool which saturates supporting soils will
reduce the stability of the slope above the Roaring Fork River .
18
•
111
It is recommended that an underdrain system be constructed
beneath the swimming pool . This underdrain will consist of a
layer of clean, coarse gravel or crushed rock approximately 12
inches in thickness . The subgrade beneath this gravel layer
should be carefully graded so that no depressions exist and water
has direct access to the drain. It is recommended that an
impermeable membrane be placed between the gravel layer and the
subgrade to prevent moisture from seeping into the subgrade soil .
This membrane could be a spray--on asphalt emulsion, a
polyethylene film or a bentonite layer . At the lowest point in
the underdrain layer , a small lined sump pit is recommended to
allow a pump to discharge seepage water to the ground surface .
The gravel or crushed rock layer may vary some , but , in general ,
should meet the following recommendations:
E. gve Ng_ % Esuzinq •
3" 100
2" 60-90
1 1 /2" 12-40
#4 0-12
#20 0-8
#100 0-3
FLOODPLAINS
The site is partially within the 100-
year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River Federal , State, and
local regulations will require the finished floor elevation to be
at least 1 foot above the 100-year floodplain. Federal •
regulations require that the construction of a fill not raise the
flood water elevation more than 12 inches . A detailed hydrologic
study of the area is recommended to determine the effect of
construction on the elevation of the 100-year flow water level .
Such a study is beyond the scope of this report.
19
411 411 •
REACTIVE SOILS
Since groundwater in the area typically
contains sulfates in quantities detrimental to a Type I cement, a
Type II cement is recommended for all concrete which is in
contact with the subsurface soils and bedrock. Calcium chloride
should not be added to a Type II cement under any circumstances.
LIMITATIONS
This report is issued with the
understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner , or his
representative to ensure that the information and recommendations
contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect
and engineer for the project , and are incorporated into the
plans. In addition, it is his responsibility that the necessary
steps are taken to see that the contractor and his sub-
contractors carry out these recommendations during construction.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date .
However , changes in the conditions of a property can occur with
the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or
the works of man on this or adjacent properties . In addition,
changes in acceptable or appropriate standards may occur or may
result from legislation or the broadening of engineering
knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be
invalid, wholly or partially, by changes outside our control .
Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be
relied upon after a period of 3 years. The recommendations of
this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based
on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from
20
411
those described' in this report . If any variations or undesirable
conditions are encountered during construction or the proposed
construction will differ from that planned on the day of this
. report , Lincoln DeVore should be notified so that supplemental
recommendations can be provided , if appropriate.
J.
Lincoln DeVore makes no warranty , either
expressed or implied , as to the findings , recommendations,
specifications or professional advice, except that - they were
prepared in . accordance with generally accepted professional
engineering practice in the field of geotechnical engineering.
•
•
.z1
•
I Lrie;'\ ;
�\ ` \
0�'� .�
Si s , . ' ,___}; '.!I 1(('' .'--- -:;;' -Y''< fs)- f,,--i
•
- _, r Iowa / N
. . ,
• • . l
. . ' .
� - -\��
, ,
. •
d 1 ;' t B�slwaCct; f
° ' ` 3hlf• \nit: :�• • 1 `��, lt" a a:f . h' \ 1e -I•
,ll
�• '. I `ta•,, 1 , S-„(e�rfY .� .(',,, /J//iip ((<,a.*:,,-_:.
. •j :444 i.....••• :•.•• •••.•.: •'.• .•‘\, ' k . ,,• ' ,_ r. ';'..'‘1,.... . I),-,,S,":.'\\\ \\ \,\
.�`•.y •! •
\ `.�� •;•.•:.,,.44...; 4. ; t ,, 'N'.;.:::-_-__'\ ( \1 I•ter o- I• / ( ( i,.` - _ • • I -_
O ': - . i r \ 1 y c� \
�, (� ( I v ,.-1 ' )/. '' v \; ‘,‘7,`'?..‘.'','.... k,
1. ( ',�., lY1••ir • �- ¢ U (
1
/ ! l \ r a �� 5` ld 802, \ \
, \\
I ,D \ •2
--Z. ..1 c C i ('\ '' 1% / /. - y' t -. -' \ '� � •GtevCl PSIS I,..(1
',/,77-_--v°,5 • \ ,‘\u-' ,,'; ' ----- b ) ., -''`',.. \
--JO) . \ ) ) . - '.,1 ,/ S I 4i \ . \— \ . \ ,.— \ .. ,
5/•7 e L oea //o/7 /)/a9 7-o/77
7o 6.22 J
Co//'aii tuoota/ Poi/( HOUS//19 ` LINCOLN COLORADO : COLORADO SPRINGS
700 Moir S� /93 en Co/oracle. DeVOR E GRAND JUNCTION , PUEBLO ,
P I ENGINEERS
GEOLOGISTS
^
� ���y
^ `�' —1,-- '
�
SOILS DESCRIPTIONS: ROCK DESCRIPTIONS: SYMBOLS �� NOTES'
p_uieja, vSCS 04-5C/ETIzy x/4490L PLICRIPrION SmmoL, yemCR/Pnmv .
', : 1.1.21w,xTA" "ot,x
�
x/
'° Topsoil ���:��. CONGLOMERATE �
� — `~ ^~�`~' m 9A2 Standard penetration dhvm
Numbers indicate 9 blows to drive
Man-made Fill : � � �� SANDSTONE the spoon m"inmground.
■
---
���� GW *e|�gmdodGnmo| �� _ SILTSTONE i
��a� --- « STc-k2^Shelby thin wall sample
"" ----
____
~o 00 8P Poorly-graded Gravel ���� SHALE
. ---- -
itiix x x � 0o Natural Moisture Content
GM Silty Gravel x x x CLAYSTONE
oo
�� Wx�m*mmdMo�h�
o�o GC Clayey Gravel COAL
���� Free
T°m"'
Free water toW�:.',...:!!::',•...'::.',...:!!::',•..:.',...:!!::',•...': SW Well-graded Sand LIMESTONE ��
I �
| i SP Poorly-graded Ma Sond � D0L0W|TE V0 Natural dry density
/ ' mMIMIln
/ I .. ..
N | p Sm Silty Sand . . MARLSTONE TB.—Disturbed Bulk Sample
II .
. .
1 ' WW1'
SC Clayey Sand •■•• GYPSUM ® Soil type related to samples
ZWIIA in report
ML Low-plasticity Silt �� Other Sedimentary Rocks
` / wwe, mmx
~~"^~ � 0
���� - - / ` Tnpvf�"no�vo
CL Low-plasticity Clay /`Y GRAN|T/C ROCKS
yr'`- Form.
++ +
non OL Organic + ++ U|0FUT|C ROCKS Tm�BuhngLvcotkm
OTE
moms Silt and Clay —
ill i 1 MH High-plasticity Silt .C��. GABBRO
����/.! 1:10 Test Pit Location
CH Clay —=�--' RHYOLITE .
+�z1t—t Seismic orResistivity
Station.
.
-� Unonhon��co�n �� OH High-plasticity , � 4WDES|TE
Organic Clay length spread
: (t.Seismic,
R=Rm���Ky
)
Pt Peat ���U BASALT
�i �
"2
Standard puno Penetration �hxwsmamade
GW/GM y��|- grodod 8ruve|. TUFF a ASH FLOWS
' .
iIfl Si|iy � by driving n standard / " split,nnvn
- 0 � dropping
, ^ » GW/GC Well-graded Gravel, ::::9•6,'!-
BRECCIA 8 Other Volcanics oon�o /*n lb.woigN
no^.4STM�y
"^ •^* :..0!.'.P.: des.D-1586.
Clayey
"" � ^ '',
1 o- GP/GM Poorly-graded ^ ^' Other �n�nux Rocks
"« Silty ' -' ., ^ ' Samples may bwh |k,"to d
rd split
"`
'"—/' ����~u °m", spoon (both dis, r be )oro'ye"|.C\
« " GP/GC Poorly-graded Gravel, CNEISS min °oU("vnd<�A,bwd") Shelby tube
'Cbyoy
samples.See log for type.
PRI di; p il -
GM/GC Silty Groxo|, SCHIST The b«oshow subsurface xv"dkivow
Clayey boring
� o,|hvd�esondkmuhons shown,ondh�
GC/GM Clayey Grove/, PHYLLITE not warranted that they ntothw
Silty of subsurface conditions momhm,�coUmm
ION
and times
s8ySm WeU- grodadSood. SL4TE '
Silty
ITO, SyK/3C .Well-graded Sand, �t( N., METAQUARTZITE
Al Ctoymy IL, •
•
1111| ^��` ^|� SR�� Poorly- Sand, ~ ' ' MARBLE
� Si|ty ° ' '
N� / | / SP/SC Poorly-.graded Sand, y' HORNFELS
Clayey. �
SM/SC Silty Sand, Clayey /^.0 SERPENTINE
SC/SM Clayey Sand, S/yy k_� Other Metamorphic Rocks
N@1NUN@
Nl m1 CL/ML Silty Ciny 5.17, LINCOLN COLORADO: c�*mm Springs, m
.
T Glenwood spw�` Montrose,Gunnison, EXPLANATION OF BOREHOLE LOGS
AND LOCATION DIAGRAMS
Junction.- Springs���
Z LL.
BORING NO. O P. V a w c
U. w ELEVATION: a
I O -�_ CC I- I w
0. m a w F- U) to ►-
zcn z z
a DESCRIPTION a cc z p U
■
_ M _ Ve►y Rocky - coebles .,.../6ou/defs
— M M Svr)`occ soils b beon reworked, bar nay- Q wit- N I M Cobb/es are. not- HesfccJ — 'Gr IS•
I i I S/i9hr/y n,o/3r
- -
N ' 6ra IW s a Silty ',frog_ 57/7 r Sa l -AA�
- (l l 1 - I 1`y .s 4' )4 e$ w� cebbles
iy ,IJ .r- Hole rave( a Acvt. 5 �rer -
Id- r +� Collies art ha'r Nesr yo (�oNESiaN .... .6 °f
i _ Silty ca,,.f /ei,ses - s l/y/r/y MOar is MO/-51. -
- U -0 a P Very IL1 c4ceaus -• Hole owed --1leer
E 7,le. Prill Rdusd/ rnec>/iuy c/e.HSiYy -
APPa.re r- 3-' t /)1cro..ase -To Gbuldars ? -
Roues,-Cobbles- 4a,y,G 61 tweis cel'i. 1'r()'1w*//,QvarTz lion rt-7e onto /DO rA4ayy
r —
- IVo Free barer nelre.si 121 A /e -
- 4 ZS-gg -
�.. _ LOG OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
LINCOLN COLORADO: COLORADO -SPRINGS ,
13 DONOR E GRAND JUNCTION , PUEBLO , ; DATE ?.5-89
ENGINEERS • GLENW00D SPRINGS
GEOLOGISTS JOB No. 706sz-T
�_.
• ________._ _-,..
•
•
BORING NO. T p w U r
v a UJ —
ELEVATION: 4 a 0: z
z F- w
a ~
o *4 DESCRIPTION w w cr Z w O
a._ M A M _ REwoKKED ON SOC - ,Vor- Fu-r._
- 1 6 ' ,- V,EAY /ocky - /MEDIC! Pti i7y -
1 M °cc 5/c-7-r SAND L�-NSEJ- ti/N
- , M
J5-- 1 i M s.�'-4ry S4WO Fitts- v� /'fihe - C/-.AYJ - C l IA Z_S%
- ► pal - yrcJ q`RCJ C4A6f silecY - nricq -
- • r - Incl-eol�� yr 41s -
acc 5�c r y SAH p L Eivs Ea 54;,4>/y nro/Jr 70 moist
- , gr'
10- i 11 Hole Caved 7 '
- oc`-"cleral ROCKS- S/cTr SANDS- VERy' "crtepDUS -
-/r , - /�7A67- e/vys — very /Oe/p/4sriC - Medi0*f O/els5ify -
M -
aM Mo CottEstew C0664Fr /IND 8002-905�Zr - Grew.( -
►� s
IS— r It,vol/u+s► detisirt7. — y pr i7 es-rwel �o%st _ ,�.6%
_. - No/r C e,/ // 7`ice-f Hricacec e'5 )1()?e 5 -
No FREE 1/141,64 /N //WE
- 'r-1-Y-89 -
LOG OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
LINCOLN COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS ,
' DATE �j -ZS=89
D®VOR E GRAND JUNCTION , PUEBLO ,
EMOINEENS • OLENYOOOD SPRINGS ion NO. Ams-- - J
CMINIMMIISISCWW GEOLOGISTS
s....;,.
•- z it
H BORING NO. 3 - V ILI aU w
LL J w ELEVATION: Q
I 0 -J 1- H H - F. w
F- [0 0- w N cn ►-
a 2 2 z cn N z - z
o u) a DESCRIPTION o_ cc a' p 2 O
NW GRHss- flL4 I .511-Ty Cony - u/er
_
Z N Co Cobbles- 5//'y $ id 74111e-r- media"" c/arsifr -
y M - /'1I3.' dcr ys - ih/G4 — moist- I/try IHO/S t
_ M .• /fcre4i7S ei/fy S.,,,l5 - more m c2 - H+eisl` -I% .1D 3_1%
r- RpD 6 /z
- 7 �i C _ Mtrs4.r/> i 40iVes _^- No cohetr� -- moist- -.
- r , - Silk}/ S6io./ 4ihes ,cam 9rwwe/(5 -
- 0 - 7 Jehsa5 4576- Silk s4csesls - minor- e%ry -
s
— # i 0. McOfi L4I1 Pensrr-r ZACreasi�`f 1yi - �},9 y
l4- D 1 - No. Cotiecic - M /e 64,ve01 5-71lee7 -
�-Ncre4fih
I M i _ y Cp 6 6/es - P564 [tau lc%n- - 9-.�
1 iedi ct n o./e.ns�i4x
(S - -
_ No / E- IV, /, ho -
4- a -8y —
LOG OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
t ' LINCOLN COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS ,
DOVOR GRAND JUNCTION , PUEBLO , DATE 4-.2-3---$.9
%' ENGINEERS •
GEOLO®ISTS OLENVYOOD SPRINGS JOB NO. 7D611-.-j- ~
-. ___________11,
. 1
Soil Sample ‘51°/344 Poor/.. Gram es///y so,ia/s ,ify Test No. ,
Project Co//erWooz1 Par/f Ha us/r9 Date - /0 • 89
Sample Location 2 a /A' Test by /1.0.3
a,
GRAVEL SAND SILT TO CLAY
, Coarse Fine Co. MedJLwn Fine Noplastic to Plastic_
100 . -- - - - --_ . — - ---
�x 90 _._�,__ ._ . �__ . ..__.__
o
>4 70 ------- _,
m
6 0 -.----.--
a. - - .-_- _____— _
.f
H 50 -- ____._- --, -
N 40 ---. -
PG
30 ----
hi\
0 I ..a...�..
100 I ]J -ime 110.0 I r .1 I . 01..... ... ..S01
1) er- (t
117/2" .4' ,h" 4f4 010 WO HO tt.100 4200 - Sieve No,
Sieve Size % Passing
Sample No. I
1 1/2 "
Specific Gravity 1"
3/4" /00.0
!Moisture Content 2. 67 1/2 " 89.4
3/8" 811.4
Effective Size 4 7/.4
10_ 515-..2.
Cu 43.33 20 29.7
40 27:9
Cc /:M 100 /6. 6
200 //,4
Fineness Modulus
1-4.7 4.4 ea' 0200 ,
L.L. /9.8 % P.I. N/i0
BEARING per S'ulfatee Ppta
LINCOLN COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS D DeVOR E GRAND JUNCTION , PUEBLO ,
ENGINEERS GLENW000 SPRINGS
1 - GEOLOGISTS N.
•
. ________.____________
toil Sample sM .5111y Sands Test No. 706 5z
Project Cof''or ood K
i w `'a•' Housing Date 5-70 -Si 9
Sample Location r/s a4' 3 e 4 ' Test by /20. S
GRAVEL SAND SILT TO CLAY
Coarse J Fine Co. Medium Fine 'Nonplastic to Plastic
100 , " \ - --- - -- - -- -- __.-__.
y80 _ .. I r( �. __ ._r__.
>-1 m 70 - —L
Cr', 60 - --. - - } - — ----. _. _�. _
HS 0,..__--_- -._... -- - - - -
Ll 30 ~
w . ..
20 _.,
•
0 rid .r. .......
100 I ( I i .0 I I ]1! ( V I . 0 01
D. ame er- i
13/2" /11" , ' " #-4 ##t0 420 #40 #100 #200 - Sieve No.
Sieve Size % Passing
Sample No. Z
• 1 1/2 "
Specific Gravity 1 " /00.0
3/4" 96:8
Moisture Content 3.1 7 1/2 " 70.2
3/8"
Effective Size 4 _ 56. 9 .
/0.0 10 46.0
Cu 20 34.0
40 23.8
Cc /. 0 100 /6',4 •
200 /2. 7
Fineness Modulus 0200
L.L. % P.I. . %
BEARING PSI Sulfates ^—^ppm
•
—
LINCOLN COLORADO : COLORADO SPRINGS —7
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ` DeVO R E GRAND JUNCTION , PUEBLO ,
'" ENGINEERS GLENWOOD SPRINGS
— ._ vae--_. —. GEOLOGISTS__ _.__.
a • - ------ —.
i
foil Sample G'P/GM Poor/y Graded Glove/ Si//y Test No. 7065
.
project Co/ter/woad ?ark ffoUs;,iy Date 5--30 -89 (
Sample Location 7-/.3 .''' / e /..5-1 Test by /. D. S
GRAVEL SAND SILT TO CLAY
Coarse Fine Co. Medium I Fine Nonplastic to Plastic
100$: VIIi II_111111 ( i 1II1IIE± tiIIIIiIi____
70 . . - 1 _ -- i 11'11 .
m mg � { LH --6 011 uel0 I
N
50 ':r 1®OiIiis. . 1 ,_LI
40 111 1ii� — 11 :1�u 11 1111 ► 11
a 3 20 0 III :: — 111 ® - MM--® 111 _ '� I� --
0 tau 11---_,-- 111 - T "
t in
100 I I I .o I I il r :o °C 01
D. ame er- (i4 n3 I
11/2" W4" '7 " 444 #10 420 010 44100 #200 -- Sieve No.
Sieve Size % Passing
Sample No. ___ _ "_`- 2' /DO. D
1 1/2 " 798
Specific Gravity 1 " 798
3/4 " - 74.7
Moisture Content 4,47, _ 1/2 " 657
• 3/8"• 58.1-
Effective Size _ 4 49.0 •
10 36.0
Cu /83.33 20 22. 7
40_ _ /6.9
Cc 2.97 100 /..g./
200 1/. 7
Fineness Modulus 0200
7V0/ e4.9%.9 '
L.L. /9. 4 %$ P.I. N/P `,
BEARING psf Sulfates ppm
is LINCOLN COLORADO : COLORADO SPRINGS —I
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS DeVO R E GRAND JUNCTION , PUEBLO ,
as ENGINEERS GLENW00D SPRINGS
4-----.GEOLOGISTS ..............
EXHIBIT C -
OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT
CARETAKER
EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNIT
THIS OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT (the
"Agreement") is made and entered into this day of June, 1989,
by and between John A. Elmore II and Lionel Yow (hereinafter
referred to as "Owner") and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, a Colorado corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
"Authority") organized pursuant to the Colorado County Housing
Authority laws, as set forth in C.R.S. Section 29-4-501, et. seq.
and the City Council of Aspen.
W I T N E S S E T H:
•
WHEREAS, Owner owns real property more specifically
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the
"Real Property") . For purposes of this Agreement, the Real
Property and all appurtenances, improvements and fixtures
associated therewith shall hereinafter be referred to as the
"Property") ; and
WHEREAS, the Property shall contain twelve (12) free-
market dwelling units, five (5) accessory caretaker units and three
(3) affordable resident dwelling units, two of which will be one-
bedroom units, and one of which will be a two-bedroom unit
(collectively, these three units shall be known as the "Affordable
Residential Units") ; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement imposes certain covenants upon
the Property which restrict the Use and Occupancy of the Affordable
Residential Units to residents and their families who are either
employed by the Owner or who are residents of Pitkin County and
fall within the Housing Authority rental/sale price and resident
qualification guidelines established and indexed by the Authority
on an annual basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten
($10. 00) Dollars and other good and valuable consideration, paid
to the Authority by the Owner, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed by the parties hereto as
follows:
1) The Owner hereby covenants that the Affordable Residential
Units described above shall at all times be limited to housing
for qualified employees of the Owner or for those individuals
who are employed in Pitkin County and who meet the definition
of "qualified low-income residents" in accordance with
guidelines established by the Housing Authority of the City
of Aspen and Pitkin County or a successor thereto. The Owner
of the Affordable Residential Units shall have the right to
lease the units to a qualified employee of the Owner's
selection. Such individual may be an employee of the Owner,
or employed as a resident caretaker, provided such person
fulfills the requirements of a qualified low-income resident.
410
110
2) Written verification of employment of person(s) proposed to
reside in the Affordable Resident Units shall be completed and
filed with the Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the
unit prior to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the
Housing Authority. If the Owner does not rent the employee
unit to a qualified low income resident, the unit shall be
made available for occupancy in accordance with the Housing
Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall have the right
to approve any prospective tenant, which approval shall not
be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
3) The one-bedroom Affordable Residential Units are limited to
occupancy by not more than two adults and related children.
Resident adults must qualify as, and have been found by the
Housing Authority to be, residents of the community as
referred to above.
4) Lease agreements executed for occupancy of the Affordable.
Residential Units shall provide for a rental term of not less
than six consecutive months.
5) Should the Owner determine that the Affordable Residential
Units will be offered for sale, the sales will be made in
accordance with the Housing Authority Guidelines in affect at
the time of the sale.
6) These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a
burden thereof for the benefit of, and shall be specifically
enforceable by, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County, the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County, and the City of Aspen, their respective successors as
applicable, by any appropriate legal action including, but not
limited to, injunction, abatement, or eviction of non-
complying tenants during the period of the life of the last
surviving member of the presently existing Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, plus twenty-one
years, or for a period of fifty years from the date of
recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records,
whichever period shall be less.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
instrument on the day and year above first written.
OWNER:
NAME:
Mailing Address:
410
STATE OF
SS.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 19 , by
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
ACCEPTANCE BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
The foregoing agreement and its terms are accepted by The
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
BY:
Mailing Adress: 130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 19 , by
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
c: \jeh\re\occ89. fm
}
EXHIBIT A
A parcel of land situated in the SE' SW', of Section 7,
Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal
Meridian, East Aspen Additional Townsite, Pitkin County,
Colorado, more fully described as follows. Beginning at
the N.W. Corner of Block 21, East Aspen Additional
Townsite; Thence S 75°09'11" E 150. 00 feet along the
North line of said Block 21; Thence departing said line
S 59°18'00" E 56. 37 feet; Thence S 50°14 '11" E 118 . 32
feet; Thence S 52 °57'39" W 47.02 feet; Thence S 49°58'47"
W 21.71 feet to a point on the East line of said Block
21; Thence S 14°50'49" W 100. 00 feet along this East line
of said Block 21 to the Southeast corner of said Block
21; Thence N 75°09'11" W 2 . 31 feet along the South line
of said Block 21; Thence 62. 88 feet along a curve to the
right having a radius of 868. 51 feet (the chord of which
bears S 10° 18'25" E 62 .87 feet) ; Thence 145.72 feet along
a curve to the left having a radius of 176. 18 feet (the
chord of which bears N 51°27'27" W 141. 60 feet) ; Thence
N 75°09'11" W 164 . 75 feet along the South line of said
Block 21 to the Southwest corner of said Block 21; Thence
N 14 °50'49" E 220. 00 feet along the West line of said
Block 21 to the point of beginning.
�i r f �t�trS
/� •
k}}}' ;•z yes:
sac 1 F' tro l.` F i /` t�•'\r - 0 I Ili !'
1 `h
e� E*e ! �. i'�*� jq` ',1 As t 4 .,� „ �, F
R �?, t dtR i• ..stir _
tog,,, ...ir, , ,,,, . 0 ih' 1111 • •■'-., tit,;,,,' i ,‘"!`.., '....?'-.3 OS
r �} a ', , ,1 , M
•
410.
700 EAST MAIN
GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PUD AMENDMENT
APPLICATION
Submitted by
The Elmore/Yow Group
c/o Garfield & Hecht
601 East Hyman
Aspen, Colorado 81611
( 303) 925-1936
Prepared by
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
210 South Galena Street, Suite 24
Aspen, Colorado 81611
( 303) 925-6958
and
STAN MATHIS ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING
119 South Spring Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
( 303) 920-1434
1
I.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. PROPOSED AMENDMENT 3
III. PROJECT PARAMETERS AND REGULATORY 4
COMPLIANCE
A. Comparison of Basic Project 4
Parameters
B. Compliance with Land Use 12
Regulations
IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 13
A. Growth Management 14
B. Planned Unit Development 21
C. Stream Margin Review 22
APPENDIX
A. Exhibit 1, Land Use Application Form
Exhibit 2, Certificate of Title
Exhibit 3 , Permission to Represent
B. Exhibit 1, Schmueser Gordon Meyer
Engineering Analysis
C. Exhibit 1, P&Z GMP Tally Sheet
i
S
I. INTRODUCTION
The following application requests approval to amend
the growth management and final PUD/subdivision plat
approvals granted to the so-called 700 East Main project,
an eighteen ( 18) unit residential complex to be developed
on the Mikkelsen/Bevan property in Aspen, Colorado (see
Land Use Application Form, Exhibit 1, Appendix A) .
The property is located adjacent to the intersection
of Spring Street and Main Street in the general vicinity
of the Concept 600 Building, Herron Park and the Roaring
Fork River. The current owner of the property and project
applicant is the Elmore/Yow Group of Wrightsville Beach,
North Carolina ( see Certificate of Title, Exhibit 2,
Appendix A) . The Applicant' s representative is Sunny Vann
of Vann Associates, Inc. , Planning Consultants ( see Per-
mission to Represent, Exhibit 3 , Appendix A) .
The application has been divided into three ( 3)
parts. The first part, or Section II. of the application,
describes the Applicant' s proposed amendment, while Sec-
tion III. compares the basic development parameters of
both the approved and revised project. The third part, or
Section IV. , addresses the proposed amendment' s compliance
with the applicable review requirements of the Aspen
Land Use Regulations. For the reviewer' s convenience, all
1
t ,
0• M
pertinent supporting documents relating to the project
(e.g. , proof of ownership, original P&Z GMP scores, etc. )
are provided in the various appendices to the application.
The 700 East Main project successfully competed in
the 1987 residential growth management competition. The
application was submitted by Fine Associates of Minneap-
olis, Minnesota, the prospective purchaser of the proper-
ty. Consent to the application was provided by the pro-
perty' s owners, Alice and Dorothy Mikkelsen, Louise Ware
and Albert Bevan. Although the project subsequently re-
ceived all required land use approvals, Fine Associates'
option to purchase the property expired prior to recorda-
tion of the final PUD/subdivision plat. Subsequent at-
tempts on behalf of Fine Associates to acquire the proper-
ty were unsuccessful, and the property was sold to the
Elmore/Yow Group in March of 1989. The final PUD/subdivi-
sion plat, however, has yet to be recorded.
While the Applicant has attempted to address all
relevant provisions of the Land Use Regulations, and to
provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evalu-
ation of the application, questions may arise which result
in the staff' s request for further information and/or
clarification. The Applicant would be pleased to provide
such additional information as may be required in the
course of the application' s review.
2
T S
•• i ••
II. PROPOSED AMENDMENT
In general, the scope of the Applicant' s proposed
amendment is limited primarily to revisions to the proj-
ect' s unit mix, site and architectural design, and employ-
ee housing commitment. All other aspects of the project
remain essentially unchanged. The nature and extent of
the proposed amendment, however, is summarized below.
1) The amended project contains twelve ( 12) free`
market units and four ( 4) one-bedroom employee
housing units in lieu of seventeen ( 17) free
market units and one ( 1) one-bedroom employee
housing unit. The free market unit mix has also
been revised.
2) All required parking, including employee gener-
ated parking requirements, is located under-
ground.
3) The amended project contains fewer hard surfaces
and more green space. The distance between
buildings within the interior courtyard has been
significantly increased.
4) The amended project' s architecture is more in
keeping with the Victorian theme that is consis-
tent throughout town.
3
T 1
•• ••
5) The above grade community/recreation room has
been relocated to the parking garage and the
exterior spa has been eliminated .
6) The amount of building frontage on Main Street
has been reduced.
7) Five ( 5) free market units are now oriented
towards the River.
8) The pedestrian sitting area on corner of Spring
and Main Streets has been expanded and relocated
within the property line.
III. PROJECT PARAMETERS AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Provided below is a comparison of the basic parame-
ters of the approved project to those of the Applicant' s
proposed amendment and a discussion of the amended proj-
ect' s compliance with the applicable provisions of the
City' s Land Use Regulations.
A. Comparison of Basic Project Parameters
The existing 700 East Main approval can be
characterized in terms of a variety of project parameters,
including, for example, unit count, unit mix, FAR, parking
and employee housing. These and other basic parameters of
4 •
5 1
•• _ ••
the approved project are compared to those of the proposed
amendment in Table 1 below.
Table 1
BASIC PROJECT PARAMETERS
700 East Main
Parameter Approved Amended
C' 1. Total Project Units 18 16
Free Market 17 12
Employee 1 4
2. Unit Mix
Free Market
2 Bedroom 9 --
3 Bedroom 6 7
4 Bedroom 2 5
Employee
1 Bedroom 1 4
3 . Total Project Bedrooms 45 45
Free Market 44 41
Employee 1 4
4 . Maximum Allowable F}oor 43 ,000 43 ,000
Area (Sq. Ft. )
5. Total Building Area (Sq. Ft. ) 82,9992 83,950
Area Assignable to F4R 41,329 42,500
Area Exempt from FAR 41,670 41, 450
6. Total Site Coverage (Sq. Ft. )
Building Footprints 19,600 23 ,060
Circulation 9,020 5,500
Open Space 31,396 31, 460
7. Building Setbacks (Ft. )
Spring Street (from curb) 26 30
Main Street ( from curb) 30 32
5
North Side (from property 17 17
line)
River (from edge) 32 32
8. Minimum Required Parking 45 45
@ 1 Space/Bedroom
Free Market Units 44 41
Employee Units 1 4
9. Total Parking Provided 45 50
Surface 4 --
Subgrade 41 50
10. Employee Housing
Total Employees Housed 1.75 7
Cash-in-Lieu Payment $685,000 $515,000
1 From executed December 19, 1988 PUD/Subdivision
Agreement.
2 From Preliminary PUD/Subdivision Application dated
March, 1988, page 14.
3 Includes parking garage and subgrade portions of
residential units.
4 Established by special review. Assumed requirement
is one ( 1) space/bedroom.
As Table 1 indicates, the amended project' s
basic parameters deviate to varying degrees from those of
the existing approval. The most significant deviations
occur with respect to the project' s unit count, floor
area, parking and employee housing. These parameters and
all other deviations from the existing approval are dis-
cussed in detail below.
6
z y
• • • •
1. Total Project Units. In order to provide a
more desirable free market residential unit, and to pro-
vide additional on-site employee housing, the approved
project' s total unit count has been reduced from eighteen
( 18) units to sixteen ( 16) units. As Table 1 indicates,
the amended project' s free market units have been reduced
to twelve (12) while the number of employee units has been
increased to four ( 4) .
2. Unit Mix/Total Project Bedrooms. In gener-
al, the approved project' s two ( 2) bedroom units have been
eliminated and replaced with three ( 3 ) and four ( 4) bed-
room units. As a result, the total number of free market
bedrooms has decreased slightly, while the number of
employee bedrooms has substantially increased. The total
number of project bedrooms, however, remains unchanged.
The approved project contained forty-four ( 44) free market
bedrooms and one ( 1) employee bedroom while the amended
project contains forty-one ( 41) free market bedrooms and
four ( 4) employee bedrooms.
3. Total Building Area. As Table 1 indicates,
the amended project' s floor area has increased by one
thousand one hundred and seventy-one ( 1, 171) square feet,
or approximately three ( 3) percent. This increase, howev-
er, is attributable solely to the Applicant' s inclusion of
three ( 3) additional employee housing units. The amended
7
•
project' s total floor area remains below the maximum
allowable. The area of the amended project which is
exempt from FAR calculations ( i.e. , the subgrade parking
garage, etc. ) has been reduced. As a result, the proj-
ect' s total building area remains essentially unchanged.
4. Total Site Coverage. While the area of the
site covered by building footprints has increased, the
amount of land area devoted to circulation has decreased.
As a result, the total area of the site covered by the
buildings and circulation elements remains relatively
unchanged.
5. Building Setbacks. The amended project
maintains or exceeds the building setbacks of the approved
project. Please note, however, that the extent to which
the lower patios along Main Street extend into the setback
has been significantly reduced, thereby increasing open
space and reducing visual impacts.
6. Parking. The approved project contained a
total of forty-five ( 45) parking spaces, or one ( 1) park-
ing space per free market/employee bedroom. Forty-one
( 41) of these spaces were provided within a subgrade
parking garage, while the remaining four ( 4) spaces were
located on grade adjacent to Spring Street. The Appli-
cant' s amended project provides fifty ( 50) spaces, all of
8
t.a • •
which are located sub-grade. The fifty spaces not only
meet the approved project' s one space per bedroom commit-
ment, but result in the provision of five ( 5) additional
parking spaces for residents/guest use.
7. Employee Housing. Fifty ( 50) percent of
the total project residents were to be housed by the
approved project. One and three-quarters ( 1-3/4) employ-
ees were to be housed on-site in a one ( 1) bedroom employ-
ee housing unit. The remainder of the fifty percent
commitment was to be met by the payment of a cash-in-lieu
fee of approximately $685,000. 00.
As Table 1 indicates, the Applicant' s amended
project will house seven (7) employees on-site in four ( 4)
one ( 1) bedroom units, an increase of five and one-quarter
( 5-1/4) employees or approximately three hundred ( 300)
percent. A revised cash-in-lieu payment of $515,000.00
will be paid by the Applicant in order to maintain the
original fifty percent employee housing commitment. The
Applicant' s revised employee housing calculations are
provided in Table 2 below.
Table 2
EMPLOYEE HOUSING CALCULATIONS
700 East Main
1. Total Free Market Population 41
7 - 3 Bedroom Units '@ 3 Residents/Unit 21
9
5 - 4 Bedroom Units @ 4 Residents/Unit 20
2. Credit for Replacement Units1 8. 25
2 - 3 Bedroom Units @ 3 Residents/Unit 6
1 - 2 Bedroom Unit @ 2 . 25 Residents/Unit 2.25
3. Net Free Market Population 32.75
4. Employee Housing Requirement @ 50 Percent 32.75
of Total Project Population
5. Revised Employee Housing Proposal
4 - 1 Bedroom On-Site Units @ 1.75 7
Employees/Unit
Cash-in-Lieu Payment for 25.75 $515,000. 00
Employees @ $20, 000/Employee2
1 From original GMP application.
2 Cash payment per employee based on approved PUD/Sub-
division agreement.
In addition to the changes in the above parame-
ters, the amended project differs from the approved proj-
ect with respect to such design features as the amount
building frontage on Main Street and the River, the inte-
rior distance between buildings and landscaping. These
differences are discussed below.
The design concept of the amended project is to
provide a residential neighborhood reminiscent of past
years when there were broad lawn areas and quiet pedestri-
an streets. A neighborhood where children and adults
10
e •
alike can play and meet with neighbors without crossing
busy streets. Here, people are the priority, not automo-
biles.
In comparing the amended site plan with the
original plan, differences in design are easily observed.
The length of building located along Main Street has been
reduced from one hundred and forty ( 140) lineal feet to
approximately one hundred and twelve ( 112) feet including
a twenty (20) foot wide green space leading into the
courtyard. Along the riverfront, the actual lineal feet
of building has been increased by approximately eleven
( 11) feet, from one hundred and eighty-one ( 181) feet to
one hundred and ninety-two ( 192) feet. This measurement,
however, includes a lap pool and a twenty ( 20) foot wide
river overlook. In the courtyard, the minimum distance
between units has substantially increased, from forty-four
( 44) feet to sixty-four ( 64) feet. The rearrangement of
the courtyard leaves space for a much larger unbroken area
of lawn.
The landscape plan, as it relates to the building
mass and layout, surrounds the project with native plant-
ings as an extension of the existing vegetation along the
Roaring Fork River bank. These plantings will consist of
cottonwood, aspen, and spruce with an under story of
native dogwood and ground covers. The plantings are
11
•
designed to break up building mass and to reflect existing
vegetation on surrounding properties.
The plantings within the confines of the project will
take on a more formal character. The interior courtyard
space established by the building layout will be strength-
ened with the placement of Norway Maples along the perime-
ter of the courtyard. The interior of the courtyard will
consist primarily of lawn with shrubs and _ground cover
located along the edges to further break up building mass
and to create a pleasant entry to each of the units.
B. Compliance with Land Use Regulations
The amended project has been designed in compli-
ance with all applicable requirements of the underlying
R/MF zone district. As the property is designated manda-
tory planned unit development, a reduction in the site' s
maximum allowable density is required due to the presence .
of steep slopes and the fact that a portion of the proper-
ty is located under water. The amended project' s minimum
land area requirement is calculated in Table 3 below.
Table 3
MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENT
700 East Main
1. Total Site Area (Sq. Ft. ) 60,016
2. Land Area after Slope Reduction and 50,497
Subtraction of Land Under Waters
12
•
3 . Minimum Required Lot Area per
Dwelling Unit (Sq. Ft. )
Studio 1,000
1 Bedroom Unit 1,250
2 Bedroom Unit 2,100
3 Bedroom Unit 3,630
4 Bedroom Unit 4,000
4. Proposed Unit Mix
Free Market
7 - 3 Bedroom Units
5 - 4 Bedroom Units
Employee
4 - 1 Bedroom Units
5. Minimum Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft. ) 50,410
7 - 3 Bdrm. Units @ 3 ,630 25,410
Sq. Ft. /Unit
5 - 4 Bdrm. Units @ 4,000 20,000
Sq. Ft. /Unit
4 - 1 Bdrm. Units @ 1,250 5,000
Sq. Ft. /Unit
1 Site area after slope reduction and subtraction of
land under water same as approved project.
IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
The proposed amendment is subject to both growth
management and planned unit development amendment review
procedures. In addition, stream margin review is required
as the revised buildings are located outside of the ap-
proved building envelopes. The requirements of each of
these procedures is discussed below.
13
4 .
A. Growth Management
Pursuant to Section 8-107 of the Land Use Regu-
lations, amendments to an approved GMP application are
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to deter-
mine whether the proposed amendments would adversely
affect the application' s eligibility for a GMP allocation.
In considering whether or not to grant an amendment, the
P&Z must determine that the GMP scores awarded the amended
application are equal to, or greater than, the scores
previously awarded the approved project. A category-by-
category summary of the project's original and revised
commitments and GMP scores is provided in Tables 4 and 5
below. A copy of the Planning and Zoning Commission' s
summary points allocation is attached hereto as Appendix
C, Exhibit 1.
Table 4
1987 RESIDENTIAL GMP APPLICATION
700 East Main
Staff PAZ
Category Score Score
I. Public Facilities and Services 10.5 11.2
1. Water Service (maximum 2 points) 1.5 --
a. Agreed to install isolation
valves, extend a deadend line
and to loop and interconnect
various lines in the area.
14
2. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points) 2 --
a. Agreed to "slip line" a part
of an off-site line.
3 . Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points) 2 --
a. Agreed to provide curb and
gutter, and on-site detention
system to reduce storm water
drainage impact on River.
4. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points) 2 --
a. Agreed to upgrade water
system and existing hydrant
and install new hydrant.
5. Parking Design (maximum 2 points) 2 --
a. 41 of 45 spaces provided sub-
grade. Existing Main Street
curb cut eliminated. Garage
Access 100 feet from corner.
6. Roads (maximum 2 points) 1 --
a. Agreed to ski season shuttle
for residents.
II. QUALITY OF DESIGN 12.5 13
1. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 2 --
3 points)
a. Average building height of 28
28 feet. Approximately 55
percent open space. Buildings
front on Main Street. Project
bulk to rear of site.
2. Site Design (maximum 3 points) 3 --
a.. Landscaping breaks up project
massing. Views of River from
15
4 .
Main Street preserved. Pocket
park at corner. Internal open
space maximized between build-
ings. All utilities under-
ground. Relocate existing
transformer. Sidewalks and
benches along right-of-way.
Peaked roofs for diversity.
3 . Energy (maximum 3 points) 2. 5 --
a. Insulation exceeds standards.
Passive solar orientation.
Low-E glazing and efficient
heating system. No woodburn-
ing devices.
4. Trails (maximum 3 points) 3 --
a. Sidewalks along perimeter of
site and along 280 feet of Neal
Street.
5. Green Space (maximum 3 points) 2 --
a. Standard level of landscaping.
30-40 percent of internal court-
yard covered with exposed aggre-
gate. Existing vegetation along
River and at corner of Spring and.
Main Streets retained.
III. PROXIMITY TO SUPPORT SERVICES 6 6
1. Public Transportation (maximum 3 --
3 points)
a. Project located within 2 blocks
of existing bus route.
2. Community Commercial Facilities 3 --
(maximum 3 points)
a. Project located within 2 blocks
of commercial facilities.
16
4 •
IV. EMPLOYEE HOUSING 10 9.7
1. Low Income Housing 10 --
a. 50 percent total project
residents housed.
V. BONUS POINTS -- 0.75
VI. TOTAL POINTS 39 40.6
1. Points in Categories I . through 39 39.9
V. (minimum 31. 8 points)
2. Bonus Points -- 0.75
As Table 4 indicates, the Planning Office' s
recommended score for the approved project was thirty-nine
( 39) points, substantially above the minimum threshold of
31.8 points required to be eligible for a growth manage-
ment allocation. The Planning and Zoning Commission
essentially concurred with the staff and awarded the
project 40. 6 points.
Table 5
AMENDED RESIDENTIAL GMP APPLICATION
700 East Main
Anticipated
Category Score
I. Public Facilities and Services 11
1. Water Service (maximum 2 points) 2
17
O •
a. Agree to install isolation
valves, extend a deadend line
and to loop and interconnect
various lines in the area.
2. Sewer Service (maximum 2 points) 2
a. Agree to "slip line" a part
of an off-site line.
3 . Storm Drainage (maximum 2 points) 2
a. Agree to provide curb and
gutter, and on-site detention -
system to reduce storm water
drainage impact on River.
4. Fire Protection (maximum 2 points) 2
a. Agree to upgrade water
system and existing hydrant
and install new hydrant.
5. Parking Design (maximum 2 points) 2
a. 50 spaces provided subgrade.
Existing Main Street curb cut
eliminated. Garage access 100
feet from corner.
6. Roads (maximum 2 points) 1
a. Agree to ski season shuttle
for residents.
II. QUALITY OF DESIGN 13.5
1. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum 2.5
3 points)
a. Less building mass along Main
Street. Opening between buildings
provides visual access to interior
courtyard. Project visually anchors
east end of Main Street. Use of
18
410 410
brick and stone, and the alignment
of Units 1-4, unifies project with
other major buildings along Main
Street. Height and massing of
buildings is generally smaller than
surrounding structures.
2. Site Design (maximum 3 points) 3
a. All parking underground. Landscap-
ing breaks up building mass. Build-
ing setbacks from River same as ap-
proved project. Internal open space
increased. Public seating area at
corner enlarged. Less hard surfaces.
All utilities underground.
3. Energy (maximum 3 points) 2. 5
a. Insulation exceeds standards.
Passive solar orientation.
Low-E glazing and efficient
heating system. No woodburn-
ing devices.
4. Trails (maximum 3 points) 3
a. Sidewalks along perimeter of
site and along 280 feet of Neal
Street.
5. Green Space (maximum 3 points) 2.5
a. Less hard surface, more green
space. More extensive plantings
of trees and shrubs. Southeast
corner of site extensively land-
scaped to provide visual terminus
to Main Street.
III. PROXIMITY TO SUPPORT SERVICES 6
1. Public Transportation (maximum 3
3 points)
19
• i
a. Project located within 2 blocks
of existing bus route.
2. Community Commercial. Facilities 3
(maximum 3 points)
a. Project located within 2 blocks
of commercial facilities.
IV. EMPLOYEE HOUSING 10
1. Low Income Housing 10
a. 50 percent total project
residents housed.
V. BONUS POINTS --
VI. TOTAL POINTS 40.5
1. Points in Categories I. through V. 40.5
(minimum 31. 8 points)
2. Bonus Points --
As discussed previously, the amended project is
essentially identical to the approved project with the
exception of architectural and site design. As a result,
the anticipated scores indicated in Table 5 above in such
categories as Public Facilities and Services, Proximity to
Support Services and Employee Housing are consistent with
those awarded the approved project. Obviously, the antic-
ipated scores indicated in the category Quality of Design
are subjective, represent the Applicant' s personal opin-
ions, and are subject to debate.
20
411 411
As Table 5 indicates, we believe that the amend-
ed project clearly meets the rescoring criteria of Section
8-107 of the Land Use Regulations. Furthermore, a compar-
ison of Tables 4 and 5 indicates that virtually all origi-
nal representations and commitments are matched or other-
wise exceeded by the amended project. As a result, the
Applicant respectfully suggests that the City' s criteria
for a GMP amendment are met by the revised project, and
that this application for amended growth management review
should be approved as submitted.
B. Planned Unit Development
Pursuant to Section 7-907 .B. of the Land Use
Regulations, all amendments other than so-called "insub-
stantial amendments" to an approved final PUD development
plan are subject to review and approval of the P&Z and
City Council. Such amendments are reviewed pursuant to
the provisions of the final PUD development plan process.
At present, the principal review criteria is that the
proposed amendment must be consistent with the approved
conceptual, PUD development plan. Proposed regulatory
changes currently under consideration by the City Council,
however, require that such amendments be "consistent
with, or an enhancement of, the approved final PUD devel-
opment plan" .
21
• •
As discussed under the preceding heading, the
Applicant believes that the amended project is, at a mini-
mum, the equal of the approved project and, in numerous
way, notably superior. Inasmuch as the amended project
will essentially comply with all conditions of the ap-
proved project' s final PUD development plan approval
(except as herein revised) , the Applicant' s receipt of
amended GMP approval should be sufficient to meet the
requirements of this section of the Regulations. All
documents and drawings required for the recordation of the
final PUD development plan will be submitted upon approval
of the amended project.
C. Stream Margin Review
Pursuant to Section 7-504 of the Land Use Regu-
lations, all development within one hundred ( 100) feet,
measured horizontally, from the high water line of the
Roaring Fork River is subject to stream margin review.
Given the proximity of Units 5 through 9 to the River,
review and approval pursuant to the City' s stream margin
regulations is required. The specific review criteria,
and the amended project' s compliance therewith, are summa-
rized as follows.
1. "It can be demonstrated that any proposed
development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will
22
S
not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel pro-
posed for development."
Units 5 through 9 are located above the high water
line and outside of the one hundred ( 100) year floodplain
boundary.
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."
To the best of the Applicant' s knowledge, no
trail alignments are proposed in the Parks/Recreation/Open
Space/Trails element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
which affect the project site.
3. "The recommendations of the Roaring Fork
Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for
development to the greatest extent practicable."
- The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan contains no site
specific recommendations with respect to the project site.
The proposed building envelopes, however, have been lo-
cated so as to preserve to the maximum extent feasible the
existing vegetation and natural appearance of the proper-
ty. Approximately twelve ( 12) existing cottonwoods of
varying size will have to be removed to accommodate the
amended site plan. All smaller trees will be transplanted
23
•
and additional landscaping installed to offset the loss of
vegetation. The extensive landscaping proposed by the
Applicant for the southeast corner of the property should
more than compensate for the necessary tree removal.
4. "No vegetation is removed or slope grade
changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the
stream bank."
No vegetation will be removed nor any slope
regraded such that the River would be adversely affected.
All disturbed slopes will be stabilized during construc-
tion and appropriate measures (e.g. , haybales, etc. ) taken
to prevent erosion.
5. "To the greatest extent practicable, the
proposed development reduces pollution and interference
with the natural changes of the river, stream or other
tributary."
Inasmuch as Units 5 through 9 are located well
above the high water line, the proposed development will
have no effect upon the natural changes experienced by the
Roaring Fork River. No pollution of the River will occur
as a result of the Applicant' s proposed development.
Currently, drainage runs uncontrolled off the
site, both to the River and to the Spring Street collec-
24
• PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.• - -EXHIBIT 2
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 60-, E. Hopkins,Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE , IN . a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent for
the State of Colorado hereby certifies that : LIONEL YOW is the owner
of the Parcel attached ne_reto on Exhibit "A" and JOHN ELMORE is the
owner of the Parcel attached hereto on Exhibit "B" .
This certificate is furnished for informational purposes only and is
not to be construed as an abstract of title nor a guarantee of title .
Certified this 17th day of March , 1989 at 12 : 00 P . M .
PITKIN COUNTY T TLE , INC .
BY :_ '__ �
authorize gnature
EXHIBIT "A"
Record o'clock.
, Recorder.
ALBERT W. BEVAN, JR.
whose address is 1719 SAND::RSON AVE.
Colorado :;pr_ngs, Co. 80915
County of El Paso ,State of
COLORADO , for the consideration of Ten
Dollars and other good .Ind valuable considerations
dollars, in hand paid,hereby:ell(s) and convey(s) to
LIONEL YOW
whose address is Yow, Yow, Coibrith, Fox & Pennington , County of
102 North Fifth Avenue, Box 479,
and State of No. Carolina the following real property in the
County c: PITKIN ,and State of Colorado,to wit:
LOTS A, B, C, D & E, ?LOCK 21, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN
ALSO KNOWN AS:
LOTS I, 2, 3, 4 & 5, I,LOCK 21, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN
1
ii
I
with all its appurtenances,and w.trrant(s) the title to the same,subject to reservation in U.S.
'1 Patent recorded in Book 18; at Page 69.
li
Signed this 10th day of March , 19 89 •
i ,r,!
ALBERT W. BEVAN, JR.
STATE OF COLOI•ADO,
Iss.
County of Pit k i n
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 10th
day of March ,19 89 ,by Albert W. Bevan, Jr.
My commission expires
Witness my hand and offi-ial seal. I
V1ne nt J.HIpsnWNo•sry Public 1
My Com l expires 12128(90.
601 E. 111 Notary Public
601 E.Hopkins
Aspen,Colorado 91611
Statutory Ackaowledpment.-1f by natnaal person or persons here Insert name or n• es;U by person acting In representative or
official capacity or as attorney-in-tact:hen Insert name of person as executor attorney-in-fact or other capacity or descrip-
tion;If by officer of corporation Wen insert name of such officer or officers as the president or other officers of such oor-
poratlon naming it
No.897. warranty Deed—short Farm—See.lle•1.43,-C.R.S.1963—Bradford Publishing Co.,1821-66 Stoat Street,Denver,Colorado—,o.7s
�� l
EXHIBIT "B"
Roc,aion No. _ .—. Rcanderr
Rccurded at
WARRANTY DEED
DOROTHY MARIE MIKKELSEN, Be;: 3132, Aspen, Colorado 81612
ARDITH LOUISE WARE, Box .32. Aspen, Colorado 81612: and
ALICE JUANITA MIKKELSEN :f6:ifi rly Alice Juanita Gallegos:
c/o Joe Rader, Suite 401. 1(60 Walnut Street, Boulder.
Colorado 80302
-whoseaddress-is
'County c_ ,State of
Colorado
,lint the consideration of
ten dollars ($10.00) -dollars,in hand paid,hereby sell(s)
NtnteX and convey(s)to JOHN ELMORE,
R r. °,�b1
3- whose legal address isYow, Yow, C lbrith, Fox & Pennington, 102 North Fifth Avenue,
Box 479, Wilmington,
County of ,and State of North Carolina 28402
the following real property in the County of Pitkin • ,and State of
Colorado, to wit: A pircal of land situate in the SE' SW1 of Section 7,
Township 10 South, Rar.;e 84 West of the 6th P.M., Tract 40, East Aspen
Additional Townsite, City of Aspen Pitkin County, Colorado, being the portion
of Block 21, East Aspen Townsite as described in Book 551 at Page 443 and Book
311 at Page 67, all of them alley of said Block 21 as described in Book 551 at
Page 441, that portion of Main Street described in Book 551 at Page 443, and
that portion of the nor:he:ly extension of Original Street as described in Book
311 at Page 67, more fuly described as follows. Beginning at the NW corner of
Lot"6 of Block 21, Eas-: Aspen Additional Townsite, thence S59°18'00"E 56.37
feet; thence S50°14'll'E ;-18.32 feet; thence S52°57'39"W 47.02 feet; thence
S49°58'47"W 21.17 feet to a point on the east line of Block 21; thence
S14°50'49"W 100.00 feet along the east line of Block 21 to the southeast corner
of Block 21; thence N7° °09'11"W 2.31 feet along the south line of Block 21;
thence 62.88 feet alonf a curve to the right having a radius of 868.51 feet
(the chord of which bei•:rs S10°18'25"E 62.87 feet); thence 145.72 feet along a
curve to the left havi:.g a radius of 176.18 feet (the chord of which bears
N51°27'27"W 141.60 feet); thence N75°09'11"W 164.75 feet along the south line
of Block 21 to the sout'twe>t corner of Block 21; thence N14°50'49"E 120.00 feet
along the west line of Blcck 21 to the southwest corner of Lot 1 of said Block
21, thence S75°09'11"E 150.00 feet along the southerly lines of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5 of said Block 21; thence N14°50'49" E 100.00 feet along the westerly line
of Lot 6 of said Block 21 to the point of beginning containing 45,016 square
feet more or less, als; known by street and. number as 700 East Main Street,
Aspen, Colorado 81611 with all its appurtenances, and warrants the title to the
same, subject to the e:.se:lent for Main Street, reservation in U.S. Patent in
Book 185 at Page 69, a::d '>uilding and zoning regulations and subject to the
first deed of trust exe:utsd simultaneously herewith from grantees hereunder to
benefit grantors.
Signed this QA' day of /Yf9,Qq/ , 19 89 •
DOROTHY • 'IE MIKKELSEN
Aoui1',
A'1.ITHfLOUI,SE '. /2e037,1
J.
A ICE , AN TA MIKKELSEN (fo erly I
STATE OF COLORADO, JUANITA J G G!S)
at x �14-� ay(, t-k11f Y
/ L•r r
ss. /QA
County of P.:tk_n ALICE JUAN TA GALLEGOS L • V •
The foregoing instrument was ack:.owi.dged before me this /0- day of P'i'w I ,1989 ,
by. DOROTHY MARIE MIKKE:.SE.i
•
My commission expires . Witness my hand and official seal.
Vlnosnt J.HIgena/Notr ry Public ��
My Commission explrsa 121:'8190. 1 t...Y'U1
el nddr
Aspen,Colorado opidnu181'; r
'If in Denver,inacn"City and."
}
No.897.Rev.12-85. WARRANTY nw (Short=arm; Bradford ILAliahing.5825 W.6th An.,takc■not.CO 80214—(330')233-6900 87
• • EXHIBIT 3
VANN ASSOC ATES, INC.
- Planning Consultants
March 20 , 1989
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Mr. Richman:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann
of Vanr, Associates , Inc. to represent The Elmore/Yogi Group
in the processinx of our application for an GMP,'PUD amend-
ment to the 70: East Main project. Mr. Vann is hereby
authorized to a.::t on our behalf with respect to all mat-
ters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned applica-
tion.
Should you have a:iy questions, or if 1 can be of any
further assistan:e, please do not hesitate to contact me
•
at 925-7460.
Sincerely,
• THE ELMORE/YOU GROUP •
•
Jo A. Elmore
•
• SV:cwv
230 East Hopkins Avenue•Asper, Colorado 81611 •303/925-6958
APPENDIX B
„����` 12 Grand Avenue, Suite 2i
/scrlMUESER oN M. rEr INC :,j=� ` -1enwood Springs, Colorado o•i 60
Oar pun (303) 945-1004
”"'MI'III EXHIBIT 1
\ellt3SII CONSULTING ENGINEERS&SURVEYORS/
March 15, 1989
Mr. Stan Mathis, Acme Mathis
P.O. Box 1984
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: 700 East Main Street
Engineering Analysis
Dear Stan:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize for you our analysis of site
engineering requirements for the proposed 700 East Main project. As
part of this analysis, we have also reviewed the technical data that is
of public record with respect to the previous proposed development on
the property. I have broken this analysis down into several major
categories for ease of review.
Water Utility
The project will be served by the City of Aspen Water Department. As
with the previous proposal, waterlines will be extended to the site,
then looped through the easterly portion of the project to provide
greater reliability and serviceability. Fire protection facilities
will be located in acproximately the same areas as previously
committed.
Sewer Utility
The project will be served by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Dist-
rict. Service on site will be straight forward with extensions from
the Spring Street sewer line into the project.
Sliplining -of off-site sewer lines will continue to be proposed. Slip-
lining will occur several ;plocks to the north of this project in the
vicinity of the Roaring Fork River. The sliplining will correct appar-
ent infiltration problems- wich currently exist in these lines.
Drainage •
•
Currently, drainage runs uncontrolled off the site both to the Roaring
Fork River and the Spring Street collection system. As with the pre-
vious design, it is proposed to collect all the drainage produced on
site, release at the historic surface runoff and groundwater recharge
rates, with surface runoff being discharged to the Roaring Fork River.
There will be no impact to the Roaring Fork River, either from a quant-
ity or quality standpoint.
r .
March 15, 1989
Mr. Stan Mathis
Page two
Attached hereto is a schematic layout of on-site engineered facilities.
This layout is intended to be schematic and show intent only. We are
continuing to proceed with formal engineering design of both on-site
and off-site facilities, and will provide the same to you in a timely
manner.
I trust the above discussion and the attached map is sufficient to
satisfy the City as to the intent of the facilities being proposed for
this project. As always, I will remain available to provide further
input or respond to any questions which may arise.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMUESER CORDON MEYER, INC.
i
De-. W. Go••on, P.E.
•.-sident
G:lec/•437
E los e
• •
APPENDIX C
r A 1 , ,
.,.,------. 5 - EXHIBIT 1
CI'T'Y OF ASPEN
RESIDENTIAL Gi TH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
POINTS AIT a'IaI - TALLY SHEET
Project: 700 Main
P&Z VdI'ING MEMBERS Ramon-3. Jasmine Roger Welton David Mari Jim _ Average
1. Public Facilities
and Services (12 pts)
a. Water Service 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 _
b. Sewer Service 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 _
c. Storm Drainage 2 _2 2 2 2 2 2 _
d. Fire Protection 2 2 2 2 2 2• 2 _
e. Parking Design 2 _2 '2 2 2 2 2 _
f. Road 2 1 1.5 1.5 1.75 1 2
SUBTOTAL 12 10.5 11 11 11.25 10.5 12 11.17
2. Quality of Design (15 pts)
a. Neighborhood 3 3 2 2.5 2.5 2 2 _
Compatibility
b. Site Design 2 3 3 3 2.5 2 3 _
c. Energy 2 _2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 '2.5 2.5 _
d. Trails 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 _
e. Green Space 3 3 2 2.5 2.5 2 2.5 _
SUBTOTAL 13 14.5 12.5 13.5 13 11.5 13 13
3. Proximity to Support
Services (6 pts)
a. Public 3 _3 3 3 3 3 3
Transportation
b. Community Carmel , 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 _
Facilities
SUBIJTAL 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6
4. Employee Housing (20 pts)
a. Low Income 10 3 10 10 10 10 '10 _
b. Moderate Income _
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL 10 _3 10 10 10 10 10 9.7
SUBTOTAL CATEGORIES 1-4 41 _39 39.5 40.5 41.5. 38 41 39.87
5. Bonus Points (5.3 pts) 2 • 0 0 0 1.25 0 2 .75
ZOkAL POINTS 1-5 43 39 39.5 40.5 41.5 38 43 40.62
1
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation (District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 •
Tele. (303) 925-3601 z• Tele. (303) 925-2537 •
•
•
• •
SEP — 18
Schrnueser Gordon Meyer
'1'7; lir3nd Ave. suite 219 •
•
Henwood Sorinds Cob , a 1•Fi01
. .
-•
RE: 7O ) E. Main St. (Cottonwood Pl3Ce?) • ..•
rye3.r :E:irs:
:-:orne time 3qo the superintendent for Vtn Wan Construction inquired
to :E:esNer service and our requirements_ in t3lkind with him it bec3me
:-•po3rent th3t the pleins for the sewer service hive chtinqed oonsider3bly
since we inititlly reviewed this developement in the conceptudi st3oe. if
ucur corning is still h3ndling this project, We would ilk to request :3
revised set of pl3ns to review before we can advise the project
superintendent. -
Sincerel ,
Thorn' :z;
rollection Stysterns Superintendent
Pl3nnino Office
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr. , City Manager
FROM: Cindy M. Houben, Senior Planner
RE: Cottonwood Park a.k.a. 700 E. Main Street GMQS, PUD
Amendment and Stream Margin Review
DATE: June 12 , 1989
REQUEST: To amend the 1987 GMQS, PUD and Stream Margin Review
approval for the 700 East Main project which has been renamed
Cottonwood Park.
APPLICANT: John Elmore/Lionel Yow.
ZONING: R/MF.
HISTORY: The 1987 GMQS and PUD/Subdivision proposal for 700 East
Main Received 40. 62 points under the scoring system from the
Planning Commission. The project included the following:
Units: 18 (17 free market, 1 employee)
Total Square Footage: 43 , 000 s. f.
Open Space: 31, 396 s. f. , 45. 8%.
Setbacks:
Main Street-30 '
Spring Street-26 '
North side (rear) -17 '
River side-32 '
Height: 28 ' + 5 ' to peak of roof.
Unit Mix: (1) 1 bedroom unit (employee)
(9) 2 bedroom units
(6) 3 bedroom units
(2) 4 bedroom units
The site plan for the 700 East Main project is attached. The 700
East Main project committed to many public benefits all of which
the Cottonwood Park current project proposes to uphold.
On May 30th the Planning Commission reviewed the amended proposal
and recommended approval with conditions. The Planning
Commission accepted the Planning Office rescoring of the project
(40 points) .
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The Cottonwood project proposes to
reconfigure the structures on the 60, 000+ square foot lot
including the following:
Units: 12 free market
3 employee
5 accessory
Total Square Footage: 43, 000 s. f.
Open Space: 38, 061 s. f. , 50%.
Setbacks:
Main Street-32 '
Spring Street-30 '
North side (rear) -32 '
River side-32 '
Height: 28 '
Unit Mix: (2) 1 bedroom units (employee) + 5 accessory studios'
(1) 2 bedroom unit (employee)
(7) 3 bedroom units
(5) 4 bedroom units
The proposed revised site plan is attached. For a comparison
chart of the, two projects, see Table 1, Basic Project Parameters
(attached) .
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1. Engineering Department: In a memo dated May 3, 1989, the
Engineering Department made the following comments:
1. The calculations which will quantify the historic
ground water recharge rate for the project will be
required.
2 . The applicant needs to submit a plan to the Engineering
Department which will follow the recommendations of a
report on slope repair for erosion areas submitted by
Chen & Associates on May 20; 1988 to the original
applicants of this project. ' Specifically, we are
interested in the plan for repair of the erosion scarp
adjacent to the property on the southeast corner. The
City agrees to provide and transport boulders which are
referred to in the above report and which will be used
in the repair of this erosion scarp.
2
l
3 . We recommend that the applicant grant a fisherman;s
easement in the Roaring Fork River and for a width of 5
feet along the west bank of the river.
2. Housing Authority: The Housing Authority has verbally
approved the proposal indicating that on site units are
preferable.
3. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: In a memo dated
5/3/89, Bruce Matherly of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District notes the following:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has sufficient line
and treatment capacity to serve this project at this time. The
applicants proposed site utilities and drainage plan shows that
all roof and surface drainage will be directed to a catch basin
that is not connected to the sanitary sewer, which is a
requirement of the District regulations.
The grease, oil and sand traps that are referred to on the
utility sheet, will need to be reviewed by the District, for
compliance with District regulations.
If the applicant would like to have the on site collection system
lines that are 8 ' in diameter maintained by the District, then
these lines will have to be reviewed for compliance with District
specifications.
The construction of this project will necessitate the slip lining
of=. a. downstream section of our collection system. The applicant
has agreed to cover this expense. The applicant should also be
reminded that all of the connection fees are due at the time of
connection to the District' s collection system. A tap permit
must be taken out with the District' s business office prior to
connection.
4. Fire Marshall: In a memo dated 4/17/89, Wayne Vandemark
notes the same sprinkler system is required by the units which
are in excess of 150 ' from an access roadway.
STAFF COMMENTS: The project must be reanalyzed to determine if
it meets Sections 8-107 and 7-407 which allows amendments to GMQS
and PUD projects. Additionally, the stream margin review
criteria must be reevaluated.
GMQS Amendment
Section 8-107 lists the following 3 activities which are
prohibited through the amendment process. Activities which have
these characteristics must submit a new development application.
3
S
Criteria 1: Any change which : is proposed to a Development
Application prior ' to its receipt of a development order. A
Development Application which has not yet received a development
order shall only be amended for purposes of clarification or
technical correction.
Response: The application for 700 East Main has received
approval for Final Plat by the City Council, however, the time
limit for filing the Final Plat has been extended by Council
until June 19, 1989 .
Criteria 2: Any proposal which would change the use of the
proposed development between residential, commercial or lodge.
Response: The application remains a residential application.
Criteria 3: Any proposal which the City Council determines to be
inappropriate by finding that it renders the proposal a new
application, and not an amendment, or by finding it to be
inconsistent with any action taken during the original project
review.
Response: The amendment application is substantially consistent
with the representations made by the original application
relative to:
a. area and bulk requirements;
b. multi-family residential use;
c. services commitments.
The areas which are inconsistent which the original application
are:
1. Total number of units-The project has decreased from 18 total
units to 15 total units with 5 accessory units (as defined by
Ordinance #47) . The number of free market units is 12 and the
number of employee (deed restricted) units is 3 . An additional 5
accessory units, restricted to ; residency occupancy, are also
included. There is now a 12 :8i free market/employee ratio of
units. The Planning Office feels that this is a substantial
improvement for the project. It' approaches the initial request
by staff to include 5 employee (deed restricted) on site units.
2. Unit Mix/Bedrooms-The proposal originally contained 2 bedroom
units. The amendment requests 3 and 4 bedroom units. The total
number of free market bedrooms is 41 as opposed to the approval
of 44 . However, the total bedroom count remains at 45 based on
the addition of 3 employee bedrooms and the 1 employee bedroom
committed to in the original proposal.
4
a
3. Square Feet-The total allowed. countable square footage of the
original application was 43 , 000 square feet. The applicants
commit to maintain that maximum. (The 5 proposed accessory units
350-400 square feet will be deducted from the free market unit
space. ) The size of each free market unit is outlined on the
attached Revised Open space calculations dated 5/9/89 .
4. Site Coverage- 22 , 525 s. f. of total site coverage is
proposed.
5. Parking-The applicants have committed to exceeding the number
of parking spaces which were originally approved. The original
application had 41 underground spaces and 4 surface spaces,
whereas the amended plan has 50 underground spaces. The
additional 5 spaces are not required for the 5 accessory units,
however, the applicant has chosen to provide spaces for these
units.
6. Employee Housing-The applicants are proposing 2 on-site 1
bedroom units and one 2 bedroom unit and a reduction in the cash-
in-lieu payment from $685, 000 to $440, 000. At the time this
amendment was taken to the Planning Commission the fee had been
miscalculated as $515, 000. The total number of units to be
housed by the original proposal and the amendment remains at 50%
of the project. However, the applicant now proposes to house 7
on-site employees vs. 1 3/4 employees on-site. The employee
commitment is based on the number of residents of the project.
This number has changed relative to the modified unit mix on-
site. The number of residents is 22 and the employee commitment
is based on $20, 000 which is what the low income guidelines
required at the time the original application was approved. The
Planning Office feels that the amendment request should be based
on current employee guidelines. Therefore, we recommend that the
cash-in-lieu payment be based on. the guidelines in place at the
time a building permit is requested.
7. Design-The architectural design of the buildings and the site
plan have been substantially revised (see attached site plans and
elevations) . Drawings comparing the two site plans and
elevations will be brought to the meeting.
Site Plan-The site plan has :been revised twice. The second
revision is dated 5/9/89 (attached) and reflects the
proposed accessory units to be placed in free market units
number 6., 7, 9, 10 and 11. The other employee units are
located on the north west portion of the site above the
entrance to the garage. The text and the site plan are
inconsistent. The site plan notes that 4 employee bedrooms
will be supplied in a configuration of 1 (2) bedroom unit
and 2 (1) bedroom units. . The text reflects that 4 (1)
bedroom units will be provided on site. The applicant has
verbally stated that the desire is to have 2 (1) bedroom
5
a 4
units and 1 (2) bedroom units. The commitment to the City
Council was to add 3 additional units.
The proposed site plan arranges the units into 4 buildings
on the site. The front building along Main Street sits back
32 feet from the property line and is apparently 125 feet in
length. As a comparison, the Original Curve Condominiums
have approximately 90 ' of frontage on Main Street and the
original application had 140 ' office buildings along Main
Street. The proposed height of the project. remains at 28 '
(33 ' to the peak of the roof) . The proposed amendment will
increase the visibility of the project as one approaches
from the east around Original curve, since units 5 and 6
will be of maximum allowable height whereas the original
approval had a lower recreational building which was only
partially visible from the public right-of-way.
The new proposal places more units along the riverfront.
The two buildings along the river contain 5 free market
units and 3 accessory units . The buildings are
approximately 60 ' and 80 ' in length as seen from the river.
The building to the rear of the site, containing 3 free
market units and two accessory units is approximately the
same dimensions as the front building along Main Street.
The free market units are now larger in size, however.
The amended landscaping plan continues to include the public
sitting areas (one along the river and an expanded area at
the corner of Spring Street' and Main Street. ) Additional
vegetation is proposed to screen the corner of the parcel as
seen_ from the eastern approach around Original Curve.
Architectural Design-The buildings have changed
significantly with regard to design. The proposal still
contains 3 story units which will be seen as 2 to 2 1/2
story units from the Main Street elevation.
The materials proposed to be used are stone (the same as the
Courthouse base) , brick and lateral wood siding. The
building is proposed to be accented with wrought iron
railings and ornamental columns. The new design contains
many more smaller features. ' There are more windows and a
greater number of pitched roofs than proposed originally.
Comparison drawings are attached.
In summary, the Planning Office feels that the increase in
employee housing is preferable to the existing approval. The
changes in the architecture of the project are subjective and we
recommended that the HPC review the design changes to give
guidance to the applicant. On May 28 the Historic Preservation
Committee reviewed the proposal and gave the following comments:
6
S •
1. Due to the site's prominent location as an entrance to
Main Street, only one block east of the west boundary
of the Main Street Historic District, referral comments
were sought from staff and the HPC. We were pleased
for the opportunity to comment.
2 . Upon staff' s initial review of the project (elevations,
renderings, model) with Architect Stan Mathis, we found
the general massing, scale, and height appropriate for
the site in its relationship to the Main Street
Historic District. We did, however, find certain
design elements to be inappropriate, and recommended
revisions, which the Architect made. The revised or
eliminated elements were multiple curved wrought iron
balconies and numerous small multi-pane "Queen Anne"-
type windows.
2 . The major building materials were chosen based upon
other significant structures along Main: The Sardy
House, the Hotel Jerome and the Pitkin County
Courthouse. The Committee found the materials of
brick, rusticated sandstone, wood shingles, and wrought
iron fencing to be appropriate.
4 . Staff and the HPC generally felt the project
appropriate for the site and compatible with the
neighboring Main Street Historic District. They felt
the contemporary row-house look with Victorian-inspired
elements was "pleasing" , and were particularly
supportive of the porch-element design.
Additionally, the Planning Office feels that the site plan
changes will alter the focus of the project making the units
relate more to the river. Overall, however, the Planning Office
does not feel the project is significantly modified relative to
dimensional, PUD or GMQS requirements.
PUD
Section 7-907B directs the review of the amendment to be
consistent with the approved final development plan (see
Ordinance #7, Series of 1989) . Ordinance # 7 also revises the
amendment criteria with the following language:
During the review of the proposed amendment, the
Commission and City Council may require such conditions
of approval as are necessary to insure that the
development will be compatible with current community
conditions. This shall include, but not be limited to,
applying to the portions of the development which have
not obtained building permits or are proposed to be
7
S
amended any new community policies or regulations which
have been implemented since the original approval, or
taking into consideration changing community
circumstances as they affect the project's original
representations and commitments.
The applicant may withdraw the proposed amendment at
any time during the review process.
The amended application has responded to the more recently
verbalized community need for employee housing. There is little
change, however, in the proposal with regard to the amount of
massing and bulk to be placed on the site. The proposal is not
affected by Ordinance #47 or by the recent demolition moratorium
imposed by City Council.
In general, the amendment has responded positively to community
needs. The application commits to the level of services provided
by the original application. Much of the PUD criteria has
already been covered under the GMQS discussion above. The
remaining details involve any revisions to the building schedule
(Section 7-903 .C. 2 . (a) (5) and the PUD agreement (Section 7-904) .
Both these items must be finalized prior to any final amendment
approvals.
GMOS Scoring
Below is a summary of the original P&Z score for the project,
dated January 19, 1988 compared to the amended P&Z score given at
their.. May 30: meeting. The City Council is not required to
rescore the proposal.
Original Amended
1. Public Facilities & Services 11. 17 11. 2
2 . Quality of Design 13 . 0 13 . 0
3 . Proximity to Support Services 6. 0 6. 0
4 . Employee Housing 9.7 10. 0
5. Bonus Points 0. 75 0
Total 40. 62 40. 0
As can be seen, the amended project equals or exceeds the
original score given, therefore, it is eligible for amendment,
pursuant to Sec. 8-107E of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
8
411 411
SUMMARY: The amendment proposal significantly changes the site
plan and the architectural design of the project. The
dimensional aspects of the project have not significantly
changed. The proposal now places more units along the riverfront
placing a greater massing towards Herron Park. The original
proposal placed approximately 80 ' of building mass in this area.
There are fewer units in the project containing the same overall
number of bedrooms. The applicants have responded to the need
for on site employee housing to a greater extent than the
previous proposal.
The architectural design is a subjective issue which the City
Council must review. The Planning Office feels that the
applicants have attempted to minimize the stonework used along
Main Street, however, the mass of the project (and previously
approved project) is substantial. The project mass will compete
with prominent public buildings such as the Courthouse and the
Catholic church. (See HPC comments. )
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the proposed GMQS and PUD amendments and
granted Stream Margin approval to the 700 East Main (Cottonwood
Park) project with the following conditions:
1. Prior to review by the City Council, the applicants
shall submit the following:
a. new grading and drainage plan;
b. new elevations representing the project as now
proposed;
c. a new landscape plan;
d. revised PUD agreements.
All of these documents shall be part of the documents
to be filed with the final plat documents.
2 . The calculations which will quantify the historic
ground water recharge rate for the project shall be
submitted prior to review by City Council.
3 . The applicant shall submit a plan to the Engineering
Department which will follow the recommendations of a
report on slope repair for erosion areas submitted by
Chen & Associates on May 20, 1988 to the original
applicants of this project. Specifically, the
Engineering Department is interested in the plan for
repair of the erosion scarp adjacent to the property on
the southeast corner. The City agrees to provide and
transport boulders which are referred to in the above
9
41. . f
report and which will be used in the repair of this
erosion scarp.
4 . The applicant shall grant a fisherman's easement in the
Roaring Fork River and for a width of 5 feet along the
west bank of the river.
' The applicants have addressed most of the above conditions to the
satisfaction of the Planning Office. We have not reviewed a
drainage and grading plan however. In addition, the City
Attorney has not had an opportunity to review the final
subdivision and PUD agreement documents (attached) .
CITY COUNCIL MOTION: "Move to approve the GMQS, PUD and Stream
Margin Review amendments to the 700 East Main (Cottonwood Park)
proposals with the following conditions:
1. The City Attorney shall review and approve the final
plat documents prior to signature of the final plat by
the City Council.
2 . The Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall reflect
the following:
The applicant shall submit a plan to the Engineering
Department which will follow the recommendations of a
report on slope repair for erosion areas submitted by
Chen & Associates on May 20, 1988 to the original
applicants of this project. Specifically, the
Engineering Department is interested in the plan for
repair of the erosion scarp adjacent to the property on
the southeast corner. The City agrees to provide and
transport boulders which are referred to in the above
report and which will be used in the repair of this
erosion scarp.
3 . The Planning Office and the Engineering Department
shall approve a grading and drainage plan prior to
signature of the final plat by the City Council.
4 . The employee housing cash-in-lieu commitment shall be
based on the low income guidelines at the time of
issuance of a building permit. The Subdivision/PUD
Agreement shall reflect this agreement. "
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
J
ccmemo.cottonwood
10
I% ,' •
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
k PRELIMINARY AFT
Dated J-
P.U.D.P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR CO e,
�gKEMS4�SCSSION
R j
\A[ " (7 00 EAST MAIN STREET) NOT FOR SIGNATURE
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of
1989, between JOHN A. ELMORE II and LIONEL YOW (the "Owners") , and
THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation (the "City") .
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Owners own that certain real property located in the
City of Aspen, County of Pitkin legally described as:
A parcel of land situated in the SE; SW', of Section 7 ,
Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal
Meridian, East Aspen Additional Townsite, Pitkin County,
Colorado, more fully described as follows. Beginning at
the N.W. Corner of Block 21, East Aspen Additional
Townsite; Thence S 75°09'11" E 150. 00 feet along the
North line of said Block 21; Thence departing said line
S 59°18 '00" E 56. 37 feet; Thence S 50° 14 '11" E 118 . 32
feet; Thence S 52 °57 '39" W 47 . 02 feet; Thence S 49 °58'47"
W 21.71 feet to a point on the East line of said Block
21; Thence S 14 °50'49" W 100. 00 feet along this East line
of said Block 21 to the Southeast corner of said Block
21; Thence N 75°09' 11" W 2 . 31 feet along the South line
of said Block 21; Thence 62 .88 feet along a curve to the
right having a radius of 868 .51 feet (the chord of which
bears S 10° 18 '25" E 62 .87 feet) ; Thence 145. 72 feet along
a curve to the left having a radius of 176. 18 feet (the
chord of which bears N 51°27'27" W 141. 60 feet) ; Thence
N 75°09 '11" W 164 . 75 feet along the South line of said
Block 21 to the Southwest corner of said Block 21; Thence
N 14 °50.'49" E 220. 00 feet along the West line of said
Block 21 to the point of beginning. \I.
and;
WHEREAS, Owners' predecessors in title, Dorothy M. Mikkelsen, /v
Ardith Louise Ware, Alice Gallegos Mikkelsen and Albert W. Bevan,
Jr. entered into a P.U.D and Subdivision Agreement for 700 East
Main Street with the City dated December 19, 1988, for the
development of a residential project (the "Original Project") ; and
WHEREAS, the Owners received a recommendation for approval of
an amendment to the Original Project's Growth Management Quota
System allocation, Planned Unit Development and Subdivision
approvals from the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on May 30,
1989: and is scheduled to have such amendment reviewed by the Aspen
City Council on June 12, 1989 (hereinafter such amendment to the
Original Project shall be referred to as the "Project") ; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Owners wish to enter into a new
P.U. D. and Subdivision Agreement for the Project which will
supercede the Agreement for the. Original Project; and
WHEREAS, the Owners have submitted to the City for approval,
execution and recordation a plat for the Project (the "Plat") and
the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plat on the
agreement of the Owners to the matters described herein, subject
to the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (the
"Code") and other applicable rules and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in
connection with its approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat
and such matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the
public health, safety and welfare, and pursuant to the Code, the
City is entitled to assurances that the matters set forth herein
will be faithfully performed by the Owners and the Owners'
successors and assigns; and
WHEREAS, the Owners are willing to enter into such agreement
with the City and to provide assurances to the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
contained herein, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the
Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Description of Project. The Project consists of 12
free-market residential living units consisting of nine three-
bedroom units (Units 1-9) and three four-bedroom units (Units 10-
12) . In addition, the Project will consist of three employee
dwelling units deed restricted to Housing Authority guidelines and
5 accessory caretaker units attached to Units 6, 7 , 9, 10 and 11.
Further, underground parking will be constructed for 50 cars.
2 . Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this amended
agreement by all parties hereto, the City agrees to approve and
execute the final plat for the Project submitted herewith and
reduced-size copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit
which conforms to the requirements of Section 7-1004 of the Code.
The City agrees to accept such plat for recording in the office of
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, upon payment of the
recordation fee and cost to the City by Owner.
3 . Construction schedule and Phasing. The City and the
Owners mutually acknowledge that exact construction schedules
cannot be determined at this time. However, it is anticipated that
construction of the Project will begin no later than three years
from the vesting of the Owners' property rights in the Project.
The anticipated construction schedule is as follows:
S
• a. Units 3 ,4 ,5 and 6, and the accessory unit to
Unit 6, and the subgrade parking garage are expected to be under
construction on or before June 1, 1990, and completed by June 1,
1993 .
b. Units 1, 2 , 7, 8, and 9 and the accessory units
to Units 7 and 9 will be under construction on or before June 1,
1991 and completed by June 1, 1993 .
c. Units 10 -
12, the employee housing units and
g
the accessory units to Units 10 and 11 will be under construction
on or before September 1, 1991 and will be completed by June 1,
1991.
d. The swimming pool is expected to be under
construction on or before June 1, 1990, and completed by June 1,
1993, and the common courtyard areas will be completed in
accordance with the completion of construction of the adjacent
Units.
e. The public improvements identified in paragraph
4 of this Agreement are expected to be under construction on or
before June 1, 1990, and completed by June 1, 1991, and each
element thereof shall be installed as soon as possible consistent
with adjacent Project construction. All such public improvements
shall be completed by Owners and accepted by the City prior to
issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the Project or within
three years of the date hereof, whichever first occurs.
4 . Landscaping Improvements. In accordance with the
Code, the landscaping improvements shall be installed as
represented and shown on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit B,
which plan shows the extent and location as well as the type of
plants to be installed, and all landscape features, flower and
shrub definition, proposed treatment of all ground surfaces (e.g. ,
paving, sod, gravel, etc. ) and the other elements of the landscape
plan. The landscaping shall be installed as soon as possible, no
later than the first planting season following the completion of
the construction adjacent to the area of planting. The Owners
shall promptly replace any plants which have not survived for a
period of two growing seasons following the final certificate of
occupancy for the Project.
5. Public Improvements.
a. Sidewalks and public seating. The Owners will
construct sidewalks in accordance with applicable City of Aspen
Engineering Department standards in conjunction with their
construction of the Project. These sidewalks located along the
east side of Spring Street between Main and the Creektree Driveway
and along the north side of Main Street from Spring Street to Neal
Street and along the south side of Neal Street to the Roaring Fork
River bridge will include a two-foot grass area between the curb
S
and sidewalk as represented and shown on the plans and
specifications attached hereto as Exhibit The curb along the
sidewalk on the north side of Main Street shall be nine inches
high. The Owners will install at least two benches for public
seating at the corner of Spring Street and Main Street; and one
bench and decorative rock formations on which it is possible to sit
at the river overlook along the north side of Main Street
overlooking Herron Park, as shown on the landscape plan. Owners
shall obtain any required permits from the Colorado Highway
Department for construction of the sidewalks along Main Street
prior to obtaining building permits on the Project.
b. Water lines. The Owners will provide an
interconnect for the Project by extending the dead-end water line
with two isolation valves as shown on the final plat.
c. Sewer lines. A plastic pipe slip line will be
installed on the last segment of the Rio Grande collection system
for a distance of 300 feet to the trunk line, in order to service
the Project.
d. Fire hydrants. The fire hydrant which
currently is located at the southwest corner of the Project will
be upgraded by either replacing the hydrant with one which has an
additional nozzle or, if so requested by the City of Aspen Fire
Marshall, by upgrading the existing hydrant with an alternative
similar system. In addition, the Owners will install a new fire
hydrant at the southeast corner of the Project and will sprinkler
all of the Units for fire protection safety.
e. River bank stabilization. No vegetation will
be removed nor any slope regraded such that the Roaring Fork River
will be adversely affected. All disturbed slopes will be
stabilized during construction and appropriate measures taken to
prevent erosion. Lincoln DeVore Testing Laboratory has prepared
a report, attached hereto as Exhibit , which makes certain
additional erosion-control recommendations and specifications
which, when implemented will prevent further undercutting of the
bank along the east side of the Project by the Roaring Fork River.
Currently, the River is undercutting its banks along the southeast
edge of the Project, on City property, and on the northeasterly
edge of the Project property.
The Lincoln DeVore report requires that boulders of a certain
size and specification must be used to prevent further erosion.
The City shall provide and deliver boulders meeting the
specifications of the Lincoln DeVore report in order to take steps
recommended in the report to stabilize the undercut eroded area
located on the City property and shall provide and deliver any
additional boulders available to the City to the undercut erosion
area on the Project property. The Owners shall provide any
additional materials and required' labor and shall install the
riprap as recommended in the Lincoln DeVore report in both the
undercut areas on the City property and on the Project property.
410 II/
In the event any further permits from governmental entities other
than the City are required for such installation, the party on
whose property the installation :is. to be located shall obtain such
permits.
6. Security for public improvements and landscaping.
In order to secure the performance of the construction and
installation of the landscaping and public improvements described
above, the Owners shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or
other guarantees in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the
sum of $183 , 233 .25. Said guarantee will be delivered to the City
prior to the issuance to the Owners of a building permit for the
Project. The guarantee documents shall give the City the
unconditional right, upon clear and unequivocal default by the
Owners in their obligations specified herein, to withdraw funds
against such security sufficient to complete and pay for
installation of such public improvements or Project landscaping.
As portions of the improvements are completed, the City Engineer
shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, he shall
authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion
of the improvements, except that ten-percent of the estimated cost
of the improvements shall be withheld for the benefit of the City
until the completion of all of the described public improvements,
and the retainage for the landscaping shall be withheld until two
growing seasons following the certificate of occupancy for the
Project. The Owners shall require all contractors to provide a
warranty that all improvements were constructed to accepted
standards of good workmanship for the benefit of the City for the
installation of the public improvements described herein for one
year from the date of acceptance. In the event that any existing .
municipal improvements are damaged during Project construction, on
request by the City Engineer, a bond or other suitable security for
the repair of those municipal improvement shall be provided by
wners to the City. Prior to construction of any, improvements of
the Project, the Owners will secure a new estimate of the cost of
installation of the public improvements and Project landscaping.
If the new estimate, as approved by the City Engineer, exceeds the
amount set forth in the first sentence of this paragraph, the
security will be increased in such amount. If, however, the new
estimate is lower, the security will be decreased by the amount
necessary to match the current estimate.
7 . Utility Easement and electrical transformers. A
utility easement, in the location as shown on the Plat, is
dedicated by the Owners for the benefit of the City and public
utility companies. In addition, the Owners will relocate the
existing utility transformers on the west part of the Project near
the vacated alley to an appropriate location north of the existing
transformer site.
8. Drainage. The storm sewer system and dry well for
site drainage, water retention and other site drainage features
will be installed in accordance with the representations, drawings,
plans and reports attached hereto as Exhibit
9 . Parking. Owners shall construct 50 subsurface
parking spaces (five of which will be for use by compact cars) .
The parking spaces shall be constructed prior to a certificate of
occupancy of the Units.
10. Employee housing requirements. Owners shall
construct housing for 5.75 employees on site in two one-bedroom
employee units and one two-bedroom unit, all of which will be deed-
restricted to the Pitkin County Housing Authority's low-income
guidelines, provided that the Owners shall have the right to
designate the occupant of such unit and give occupancy priority to
employees of the Project, and any occupant who is an employee shall
not be required to meet income or asset limitations of the
low-income guidelines. The units are initially intended to be
rental units, but the Owners reserve the right to sell the units
in accordance with the sales guidelines established by the Housing
Authority. In addition, the Owners will provide a payment-in-lieu
for 22 employees at the low income payment levels, for a total of
$515, 000. 00, to be paid prior to issuance of building permits for
the Project. The deed restrictions for the employee units are
attached hereto as Exhibit
The three previously existing units on the Project
may be reconstructed and are exempt from growth management,
employee housing and park dedication fees. Those previously
existing units are the Ware residence on Spring Street, the Bevan
residence at 120 North Spring Street and the former Mikkelsen
residence at 700 East Main Street ( demolition permit number 9758) .
The employee units are also exempt from Growth Management Plan
requirements and. the fee dedications.
11. Park dedication. The City agrees to accept park
development impact fees (Section 5-603) for the Project in lieu of
land dedications for parks. The employee units and the three
previously existing units are exempt from requirements for a park
development fee (Section 5-606) . The previously existing units
consisted of two three-bedroom and one one-bedroom units. The
resulting park development fees owed by the Project are as follows:
a. Nine three-bedroom units at $3 , 120. 00 each, for
$28, 080. 00;
b. Three four-bedroom unit at $3 , 120. 00 each, for
$9360. 00.
Thus, the total park development impact fee for the Project
is $37, 440. 00. This fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of
building permits for the Project.
12 . Condominiumization. The City has approved the
condominiumization of the Project, and the City agrees to accept,
execute and approve for recordation a condominium plat prepared in
• •
accordance with the Code. As the Owners have provided affordable
housing pursuant to Sec. 8-106 (E) (5) of the Code, the Project is
exempt from paying- the Affordable Housing Impact fee. The Owners'
shall record a condominium declaration and shall create a corporate
non-profit homeowners' association and articles of incorporation
and by-laws. The association shall be responsible for the
perpetual maintenance of'the.Project common elements and open space
in good repair and in a clean and attractive condition. Membership
in the homeowners' association shall inure to a Unit owner on the
transfer of title. The association board of directors shall
consist of at least three unit owners in the Project. Owners agree
to join any improvement district formed for the area in which the
Project is located.
13 . No fireplaces. The Project shall not contain any
wood-burning stoves, fireplaces or similar devices.
14 . Maximum floor area. The Project shall consist of
no more than 43 , 000 square feet.
15. Fisherman Easement. The Owners shall grant a
fisherman's easement along the west bank of the Roaring Fork River
and the easement shall be five feet in width and will be shown on
the Plat for the Project.
16. Material Representations. All material
representations made by the Owners on the record to the City in
accordance with the amendment of the Cottonwood Park Subdivision
and P.U.D. approval shall be binding on the Owners.
17 . Enforcement. In the event the City maintains that
the Owners are not in substantial compliance with the terms of this
Agreement or the final Plat, the City Council may serve a notice
of noncompliance and request that the deficiency be corrected
within a period of 45 days. In the event the Owners believe that
they are in compliance or that the noncompliance is insubstantial ,
the Owners may request a hearing before the City Council to
determine whether the alleged noncompliance exists or whether any
amendment, variance or extension of time to comply should be
granted. On request, the City shall conduct a hearing according
to its normal procedures and take such action as it then deems
appropriate.
18. Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent by
United States certified mail to the addresses set forth below or
to any other address which the parties may substitute in writing.
To the Owners:
John Elmore
P.O. Box 381
Wrightsville Beach, N.C. 28480
Lionel Yow
Yow, Yow, Culbreth, Fox &
Pennington
102 North Fifth Avenue
P.O. Box 479.
Wilmington, N.C. 28402
To the City of Aspen:
City Manager
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
with a copy to:
City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
19 . Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement.
shall run with and constitute a burden on the land on which the
Project is located and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit
of the Owners' and the City's successors, personal representatives
and assigns.
20. Amendment. This agreement may be altered or amended
only by written instrument executed by the parties.
21. Severability. If any of the provisions of this
agreement are determined to be invalid, it shall not affect the
remaining provisions hereof.
Attest: THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal
corporation
KATHRYN S. KOCH WILLIAM L. STIRLING, Mayor
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
JOHN A. ELMORE II LIONEL YOW
r •
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
Acknowledged before me , 198 by WILLIAM
L. STIRLING, Mayor, and KATHRYN S. KOCH, City Clerk.
My Commission expires:
Witness my hand and official seal .
Notary Public
Acknowledged before me , 198 by JOHN
A. ELMORE II :
My Commission expires:
Witness my hand and official seal .
Notary Public
Acknowledged before me , 198 by LIONEL
YOW.
My Commission expires:
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
c: \jeh\lu\elmore.pud
. III III
the approved project are compared to those of the proposed
amendment in Table 1 below.
Table 1
BASIC PROJECT PARAMETERS
700 East Main
Parameter Approved Amended
1 . Total Project Units 18 16
Free Market 17 12
Employee 1 4
2 . Unit Mix
Free Market
2 Bedroom 9 --
3 Bedroom 6 7
4 Bedroom 2 5
Employee
1 Bedroom 1 4
3 . Total Project Bedrooms 45 45
Free Market 44 41
Employee 1 4
4 . Maximum Allowable F}oor 43 ,000 43,000
Area (Sq. Ft. )
5 . Total Building Area (Sq. Ft. ) 82,9992 83,950
Area Assignable to FR 41,329 42,500
Area Exempt from FAR 41,670 41,450
6 . Total Site Coverage (Sq. Ft. )
‘ //05L/
Building Footprints 19,600 -2-37660
Circulation 9,020 5,500
Open Space 31,396 31,460-
7 . Building Setbacks (Ft. )
Spring Street (from curb) 26 30
Main Street (from curb) 30 32
5
r►
North Side ( from property 17 17
line)
River (from edge) 32 32
8. Minimum Required Parking 45 45
@ 1 Space/Bedroom
Free Market Units 44 41
Employee Units 1 4
9 . Total Parking Provided 45 50
Surface 4 --
Subgrade 41 50
10. Employee Housing
Total Employees Housed 1.75 7
Cash-in-Lieu Payment $685, 000 $515,000
1 From executed December
1988 PUD/Subdivision
19, 19 /
,
Agreement.
2 From Preliminary PUD/Subdivision Application dated
March, 1988, page 14.
3 Includes parking garage and subgrade portions of
residential units.
4 Established by special review. Assumed requirement
is one ( 1) space/bedroom.
As Table 1 indicates, the amended project' s
basic parameters deviate to varying degrees from those of
the existing approval. The most significant deviations
occur with respect to the project' s unit count, floor
area, parking and employee housing. These parameters and
all other deviations from the existing approval are dis-
cussed in detail below.
6
which are located sub-grade. The fifty spaces not only
meet the approved project' s one space per bedroom commit-
ment, but result in the provision of five ( 5) additional
parking spaces for residents/guest use.
7. Employee Housing. Fifty ( 50) percent of
the total project residents were to be housed by the
approved project. One and three-quarters ( 1-3/4) employ-
ees were to be housed on-site in a one ( 1) bedroom employ-
ee housing unit. The remainder of the fifty percent .
commitment was to be met by the payment of a cash-in-lieu
fee of approximately $685,000.00.
As Table 1 indicates, the Applicant' s amended
project will house seven (7) employees on-site in four ( 4)
one ( 1) bedroom units, an increase of five and one-quarter
( 5-1/4 ) employees or approximately three hundred ( 300)
percent. A revised cash-in-lieu payment of $515,000.00
will be paid by the Applicant in order to maintain the
original fifty percent employee housing commitment. The
Applicant' s revised employee housing calculations are
provided in Table , 2 below.
Table 2
EMPLOYEE HOUSING CALCULATIONS
700 East Main
1. Total Free Market Population 41
7 - 3 Bedroom Units @ 3 Residents/Unit 21
9
• i
5 4 Bedroom Units @ 4 Residents/Unit 20
2. Credit for Replacement Units' 8. 25
2 - 3 Bedroom Units @ 3 Residents/Unit 6
1 -- 2 Bedroom Unit @ 2. 25 Residents/Unit 2. 25
3. Net Free Market Population 32.75
4 . Employee Housing Requirement @ 50 Percent 32 .75
of Total Project Population
5. Revised Employee Housing Proposal
4 - 1 Bedroom On-Site Units @ 1.75 7
Employees/Unit
Cash-in-Lieu Payment for 25.75 $515,000.00
Employees @ $20,000/Employee`
1 From original GMP application.
2 Cash payment per employee based on approved PUD/Sub-
division agreement.
In addition to the changes in the above parame-
ters, the amended project differs from the approved proj- '
ect. _with respect to such design features as the amount
building frontage on Main Street and the River,.. the inte-
-- _
-riot
—distance between buildings_ and landscaping. These
differences are discussed below.
The design concept of the amended project is to
provide a residential neighborhood reminiscent of past
years when there were broad lawn areas and quiet pedestri-
an streets. A neighborhood where children and adults
•
10
r
. 0
0
•
. ...
. .
. .
. ,
i•
k,
• ,
. ,
• 1-. li ,,L_.11I I __
Nig giiii IT
•. .
, rz
1 ••-, Ili
r" 7-mik . :. . _.
f ,....,.
•, . -• _....,--.71 ...tr
. ......... /4. t. .
A t.ii ° al . . _ :::, ;
Ni IlliMil '
i
gi .•--..1
7=-.,,, 1
1 4 j
L lam ii"-- •. EMI' g 1
•____, -,
11 ••• • I+ I
„_____ ,
.._ . ..___ _
.
,_____
. .
,I ■ , •
••• •,
l' 1111
. .._...--1 •! 1
I I ' i. 1
I
II 1
. 1 1 1
. 1
,-. ___ _ -
J
r 1-4
• Sr - s:"aii.
ni. - BEal 1 ' I '.
\• : 11 - ' , MI
. -I . 7--- --- ,.: 11111111111:::•
A...4r,
1
I !-3> .r---::1 7 .
- Pm1 i. -
... _ , ._, . _,- 11111•111,t-i e
' —--- -- •
\ --- -1 1. 1 St :.
rri
. • ...7 - - ..?.. Li
.......
ILL 16..4
Al■ .:111■11111 I I
■ I I '''.11 '
1 • ._ ; ..._._-• .uPtii+e,
f ii41 I.1 t', i 42.111-i f
. f.
fi,
bt
1 --- ...
1
g
I
1 . .
•
r .
4-
.
0 .---
,
1. 0
• •••/
..1'''s:‘,s‘s,,s, o \Y
. -..
u■ •
•
.0 ;
• .). . ,..../ -
• "!2 • .. - ..
‘6 .7
Lt 0 .
•
L•■0 --. S.'. ., 1
-- ______i. 2_,:::,. . ............./----- ,40
. „ ' ,./
a .... .
(..,
0\4
, -
'-, -.>!- Z-. '• ° •• ' <.--.4 .. -,--
•..
--:;-::::.:-s-- rc- 0- .• '•- ' . -------- ----
.1 ,•./ ------- _.
-
------- -- --' co. ' .- •'.- .. •
. _.•- .-- , . ,
, . . ,.,•,
s k:-----I::--- .-:-----.
,
/
,'
cc cc , 4,,,-^,• ...•,• I
...1'. . ' 40,
fw
c.,
Ci:4—. 1647111Wfil".
,"--
,..) z•
o x _r ' 01 ......" ,
• N .• ; 1 61 ,
: i ,' 1 ‘, 4 41 'ai ." - II. I '''' •
<.--17---' / / /, 1 14)Mil,
47.•x , i i a , -„ ' ft
I I. i ft
• , .
IX' •,..
•II''t; iii„
, . MI - P11,:t tO•smilli , ,iglik - --- ;')01.18
0•ot ;w_it Ilk . r.4617-211k4'4..)1W4W4 -1,, :' .1.01fri z-,.,.1.:*,11 A'
L.:°•_.-'...:-- i 0-49110:116.0.—Z.---■ ./14)4%,‘ ‘s.• k. • ;,-----,,wraz=7 . N A,A; "I .
4: „......,___,, . ,-, ,..,,c ... •k •••• . •Nb.,_ k.,.....44..LEK& .p. r
.4...,"■,. ... row it
vi.- Ns Nmcoz■wo , •• N.
•:k . __..... .... .... xers.,‘,. . - vol,& , .elfs.0.3LCAT, \
■ ,„ Alik-,....'Y'—x...•fWapton•t..41 • • i, .. N (r I"' .'"'""/ Nor. Illi i' ifi
—_ 1 1111 KV 6•A.‘"&••lii.1 b'1 •%:),\ NO. . \
: ,..,,,,,14 ...,,./../ "'"'" ''..." - Nu.'it ..■ ..7 I - •
sr■ . 1.',,- ., 's 1,11 ,I, 0/.
141 I * f
u . .-,-,i; ,..:,.. ;. s....... .■-
- Nk.4141_, ,.... .• .• - ,-. ispiAliav• i- _ _
. ■. , . . • N.4,1:; iv .-- --,
. la ------l' qa 'N' •
, .kt, .,,,,, ■IN -4.• N''':z:..• FFA? ';-.:,.-;• .,
• ;1- • \ V> -.:.,i: 1L\ ,t• *,,..:3,!:::-,::•..:-:.c' \0,,,• c.,1 :,,..____;.,z‘ s
• < •
• ----4 , _. ••,.....:„,-.......:.,,Lan. i .- -,..:0:.,,,,..,•,:- .......-.A- .',.-.:.,...4.&...:::.•. •,.-. tor,' ,
• mo N: ir ,1... '''' : • :g;:' IV:,--SAII .•.•-•tfir! .•...7'..
. g..----•-•-'''' .I, ,0 .'7-... OA . . : :• ,:.: #A ,,,,iliii!1 -,::---,-- , .
mo
.0"41P1M6.--ii .
...-co. 4. i ';'-'.. , •‘. , '.--;1.'":--.,ffliMatallitteminingwo°11.-
1 , • __---
4..,;;..
-..u-
-,, INiff li. '''; I • "' s
•.:. IA"';'-... kvd •
1110:''' ''.. ‘L''7‘•". 'i te 4 it 1-- ,1411; '114.111 4 .
. ..
! t1/444 •- . - 4 1
•z,.
.'t°
Iff 40 "":4..-t;'-150 -1 -.1
. <
I> 3 zt- 'wed* :vt,'1 J‘ I iii 1 ,
irr . 2
WaNi-N .. • •
do.
.0...
lifsat..,IF -
!.., 2 a.cril k ‘,„ ,A.41..'i;:•;. .: I
th. cr., .9. . ,..il••- .
th.
; ' - Vi P ad'4111■...-E1111 .•-.4*V4rtirev?-Utairta'26 ':--- i ...
__eV_1W_ __
'1111 li • . 1:
IIP -, ' !7 7 !7 ,••
IFP ittlir 1.1-trOk .
-- ,
. .-
. .
' .i! • • '
\.1 .
1331:11/S ONItidS 'NI . I <.
‘S,
I.
.-- )•
4) d y ..... .... 4
•
Ut( ■-'S‘ Fl F. N .."'..4.= ,f,t . .- ..
' ` ■
.,
..------------..- •--
F, \
.,•
\-
. ••
. \
. ,
-.. -
r '
I cc
„.
., ..??
J,
......
i
a -
r,
, •' ' Q.) U .
.a
, -
- • -. 5-- -______
.:?
.'i
S
i 0
. I
. -
-y,
-1.
,,...
I.....
:
- E a gle s Club
Private Drive
In --
--....___
• , E_Lr ______--------.„ N.,k,
• .......„.,,_,_
e ,)
. -1 .-L----i_'•
•. 1
2 5 '---•,,
• 0
8
. 9.)•
a/ • • •
,—; • .9
. ... .
10
.-. .
--. I
, j...1 CO ' •
1 1
1
Co
- • ■_..1
= ,
a - limi. I
. 1 1 IIIIM1.0.1 .19 f—r-1—=. ii —
' J-
. • . -.T.- --.----1
I
. .
Il E._
( itl,
•. 1 1 ,
15. II . Recreation Center'
• •
. e
. .
. .
.1 . 1 2 13 17 0
•
1 4 16 ,
. • r
i
._,
..-. • ...I Li 1 •-•
. \\
1
1 0 _I_ _.. '')-- ....,.,..,...,-,
...) I
. ■.I.1 _.„.-____,.. ...,_
,
.' .
..
.., ■
i
. . \
,_ - -----___ • , -
---_-_. ,
-"V . — --ik ———I N.
-.- - ------L------- / 3o
.„.,,-11"......1 C....Q.3 • '
•
• • • . I
i .
C". • 0• • 41 0 I ---- _, • .4%) I c ,p„....-
.f • %I c.......1......-..,...-
. -
\i •
Main Street /
/
-.......,, ......,9 ...1e-.. -7.
.1............L.E...... pc..9,-....11., ,esc-e......2..6[.. E.--.2_......›So •-713 Iva_.2,.....n- ,,...4e..r-E.-
nr.vt20.61. ...CZ.POI.C.,02.el. Y C.. .ILO.,-,5... .1...bin...," r‘......e. r.. 64.11alies. i —
tt---...'
--.....ebr. 0...-..E./..,...nt ft,...,...,..... e. -C.•••••..r_..... p.....1 ....,pirover, ! r
C.e.e • / / , -
‘21....1.4e..1..br.• .
.
'
. / -•••••• .
j .
— --.
•
) • • i
,/ .....
7-tx.....- ...,ND L...jr. _.-,--- --.41-•64 c.--..5 ----- 4:
pc..12.4....41 ey..:).*-F-7E-Z. -•
. /
. . / .
p1.7,-0...-,..-rr_ .,C.I.P. ,•. -1..i.01-•-,7ra I.:::,...1...,-.7...... .-...i • -
5 b.•.c.-.-,‘,....,-- ..-.,-,-.-.. -1-••Je e.....r...1- 4./...V.I-cr.c......ow ....,G.- T.-...7...........,..L...-
....,c, ...-->-,-.... -...,-- .-...-.-Or...... C.........,....0.--e... '1,, .!..............,--e..
IJ.W.,.."..,.....K..e...•••t.eKt..,..44, estOOEC./2.,E.r.-er....-K_ .......•_ ..,....0.....‘r ,
,,,.., ,,,..........-... 1...0...,,,yr-rt.,ee._..,.,,,,so...r_... ...,•-•.-E--. 5- .
4..1.,....e..C...... Q.e....2.e...........,7.6....../e
• \
\ -v.
',P,S.t' -• • ••s.. • I
• • t . i
.. .
r,
p
II-
.
, • . ..
. . . . .
• .
-,::„.:.,:„.„.,.-..,? "4, ,,... A •'
, .
,_-
---------- „
..., . ,
r. •
Li . • •
. _
(
GOODHEim ASPEN MAIN . '
6 ROSS CONDO. ORIGINAL CURVE k■,_
''CONDO. CONDO. 1
'I
I Al
•
I
I EAGLES CLUB ■
• , ••
1 • '- - , -:-.
..1900 SECTIO cc" SECTIOIi At I
...
% ■ ,
POTE$TIAL VEHICULAR ENTRY
, , •
s I. lb'orrritats tffibctutlE
, .
.. -Z._
( I r .
_ :,.,.„..• .•. •
-4.11,ALL OtA4PS 1
CREEK ER'
o.A.AAH4 HA
U4 TO ......,
".. 64.10-114111,11
VA HT W __ ._--"- 4.1.61M i.
CONDE
4—L. RAMP TO . "C.: ..,. • * ...., covri.erock.
.,,, PARKING MON : 014 1: :II- :'a 1';
ILL al; , , "t•-...s",-,•.;,..\
..1 STRUCTURE 11 r 4.L4WertY II.
,......1 Ix..., . UNif.f.er....6, T.,.., • .:...;.:•1.1 '..ni.-: ' •
• so...,%.... . „11,,,,I
N i{III
Aff'trekLint.s. " i -
1 : ' .,.. 1:' - M.:I • !.1',.. ...s '`...,, 1----I
,r7" • %, s.,ip,:ss, ; .
UNIT 4 o 0 ,,,
TRASH 4NCt IE. EMPLOYE UNIT 12 , UNIT 11 ; UN L,,, , ,,uNIT.V.--, .. ,a •','.s. .
, .,. nil„,,••.,•
- • HOUSING', •
4! t :."7°.".-1
______
. . ., .• ; •• ...: :t ; ; : •,
• .44w• •,,,,
Lf110. 11111114....-:..•AsuCM: 1 or 1 / • :.•• \ .. 34: ••s• % ,' ,
• .341111diTILE---Z.AW.F.Fii•-.3• '.! ' % g '\s\s., % '
.. .0. s, so,. • ., / 0
123E1— UNITS. t .7;Jo.. •,.. • . - •• i
,.[ • ,
...AES. C OU ..,..e .,D -EC '1,..---NO: . • 1,
' IIIIIII — ,1_ • -. \ \ ,' , ,
. %. .::: . „ ,,
____ ,
-4-.1•P•I•e/TA.;AA* —I
.,'"'...'''..*'. 1-) / I 4,j'; %., ‘• la:. .. ,I I I
.•• ' L•Ifi•I i,
\ .31 ■.1;i j/ i /'i'',' li '
• ‘7.• 41^,
',,, ‘!,!* ' pFar 7; .tppi,&,;:?:::../1,,,,,,,,/ ,',•.',
,. A
------ ,
"41'.7--1-C Ler A- „
11 -
D
• / '- ----s's—— .7., 0.e,t,oti6, :' ;
•,..,.,.....
,
i— "S -..- , •,,,,,;„• ,. , ,
,,D s •T PEISTRIATTENTRY I'. ' • J J i
it RN 14. G .' . ,I , 7,..„__..U TAIN . - -- s 1 \s_ - II,,,y/. ,•//:„?....,_, . • •
1.1-1 - ,
'1, 1 , ;.! 77
____.) .,
,.
.1-,i. -/ t ,,,,,,,,./, ,,•• iION-yDUTN .
,ill I
I • , .,.., ,_ _///,_,• / / ' ,
.---4 I ‘,
7-- C TY_A_FD -E T,i .._.,:: T .____j ,
10 1,1
.," ' ,,,,• I • • •
cn , , - - . --r- •
....1...- 1... : _ _I--_,. A . f 1.to, • • I ■ ,
i .,---,-., .._._.1 li, • s , . ■ .„,k- ..
• — 1... • IIIIII UNIT 6 4 i "
CD !---
i . - - • I-
- ''-=---I \ — ----
1.= I fliv I
z I , lift—- —- - ,
4,•. s , e a 0
I;-==-= di •. )40, . . 1 • LC
rr , / . J------- - - . -if IllIr•I t I '
,
0_ I • I ■
. ■
. - • .. • ' i •) ' : •
• . ' L • „..iii,, ,.. • ; ,
co :•.:. 4',
1 ' - ■ UNIT 1 • klNIT 2 -A UNIT 3, ;air 1, %,...UNIT 5
UNIT 4 f, iim, . ,:-.._• : .- 11,1:01 I , .
i l' •I I/ : !NIA./ PL-0.1 K , 1 /I . '
, 'k \.---- 111111‘11, % , • •
. , e4r....-,-0,9,gt..-1-4y-p.
zi. , , - ' / 1 1 '" \ • 1,1 ;?0,., , , ., '., -..... .-•
17 1 i 1
4 • I 1 . I ,
' I L.'. --
/ 1 I rr-4.V:IS 121".'
e.../1°I.-1 •:i IT .
• / / 1,1,1
, . .. 1 • c
inztill - ;-,:._ LAP POOL (—Jr.17j I:,
. .
:::-/ j- r • • :tti-ii; ....Ill
,..../.
4-',.6-.4.__ _,_-- . -tt!'•••:!''..-- --N....-.•...... 00 RESTROOkAS.Z.-----,- I %I;■!
.-I r,v,■■---;.:
• i'' 1.---,.. --- ' "D ",...t'"- 1
..-. / 1....412 -.40, .6 ww. ‘ ■■,,I ,,
•,, „‘
.\ I' %'•;..,%\„‘,•,,,,•‘ \ ;•, ,\.0
6
...____ •
---•
\-.._.----_____________ - • •. IAN BB + +SECTION AA `0.,,,,.\\ s..,, ,\ s, \ - c5„,
•milio : ., ••.— • p„, „.,. •,•. s,, s, ss, ,, 4-
, .,‘,‘• ••% sss‘,. , s , o
! , •,• ., , • . , d-
, .
. , \--•• ... ,%:ss.•:.,s. s•, •
_10,..0 4,o 3 e4 Poo.tnon -.... t .. . • .s. „ , . . ,
ss ..:::,,,,s. • .... s• . ..
. ,
... . SEE LApirDARE c3.4 ,
' .-• .
, . E. MAIN STREET .• ___. - . .„. . . ,i'. .
•
. F
•
4S
f:
••..
t
..,
• t _
t.. 4110
I ;IT
• • e.
e_ :-_,',,•- e tfilUt•
:3, ,5,t :.----, ;.,,,z..-.; ,Pii• ,
,-.., ,..., ,..... , .. •
k . tx . . //
) k-7* oi,.. ,
. y „:----
,
:I 11, II ,,...i,
,
! 1
. .ip • si iitilloh,.. , ,..i,..,.
-/-- /
0
.
•
g !ill ! 111/1 II f-7<
,
..... .......,...„
c'ide. I , , . 11.i.,....
ni ,-..,, ,,,....!....tiiiipl •
1._-------,....,,
•,,,,s,..... -
-
rvIr , --. •
,, ,.....,.•;•.-.,-.,, ,:•:.1* ,
11 . i.. ., rill . .
,..,,,,t,,,,...„:„...„,,,..:,...,„,...„:„„ ,„...„ ,,
.;K.>,
ow.
PI 4t4§1
I a : .el, 11-..:...,•!.:,.....,, rg. ..'i t:44?/ /
l"e*S;1! li. •!..-'-.:'...f:-. ' It'AV it- - 7.....-. ,
__ .., s.--. .••!,..4 •••,e_______14,... --- .1e. .4: fi
• , •;i;prier,...-. kinimpollii,11111111- -4/". ■4.L'Allb -.„•:/P,4 4...../ /
,''' -: - : : : (::-!'• ::;
1
.111;'-'•!:.t. .
gi,al c
I ' ..1. •./ rn 11111146, 1 III 1
r. r.,:lir .71,11
,.,
amen.';•.;1. 1,3 IV,,,,,,..
r :i.". rA■ y,',14-,. I'''..-;. '
11111
. •,..
i , is . •.,,,,-.1. fit. 1r ,,,...t, Ir.,/ 4
es •
' All• pet
• IP la
.. .. i i'.1._. •afi 1111111::::411:41t-7:1°,/1
I '• ow ,44
, tRiiimig
; . Li 11,0,71n
o in , •na
- 10; :.
r- , rifithinkNO. itgroitli I p- I
• ..„}„,,, 11111111x? 1111311
1111H1=
:•• ‘:: , I.,:::::f74,:44t. 1.'.1.1....7
_ im*
I.
imakftd..,, . , - • 1
110,.....,...,.....„, , i... .,
,,,.. ... E
Awuata .
. e .
_II 1:11.,w114.;.,;:r I, owslin ,
... ,r IN u qi to -‘:,..'.;:N-1 .- • ',' ". ---, 7.
".' • :-L',, -!...-:;.' 10.
i '
.t‘fl, _ i . ■
. • • —v•i*: :".::?,,...oro i;^ '6.
'" .....›
./.1....tliall
mi:.... , ,,f.. 1
iffar ''. :. 4041
Clank er1111 -
wi
vi I
•
'1114
ci .b
. 4
:ipti.*Its,,a0 ..,0.I■0
Nti0:16'. 01;4 I
.11614 ''
,n . _•?.,., „..-..NED, :, .,,4"7.;t' ■I
gi
iV,°-• 0--•F i
mg NMI= I I 4:'., .0.-.A.*-• I
...P. 'IA:.
.• • ittO —• — • ni .1r,iscprA
•
,,,,. glimm14 4A f,:4t6I1 ,i'...:'-'e".:i?..,tis.rdill 1
il -.
-•01.,-.Z.-.... ■ Al ak 7 .....' ..'_..- *,..ilkkOM,',1".4111'
ON.
tfr—l' EB:_i_111 .1. I 1 11?1.;-.1.11'
1 J, '.Cii) .1, .. 1•'.
1 Vtlir Iii F . _ .4.., .:Ara7"°
• !,,,A4
jii.77—'egi ,,--- ----- ecv....-,.:-.:!"I:.'.,'hit:•72-TiP-",•4 li I
''.1CiiINI°.-Z-4 CI gh2L-Ili .■ .1,..,,. ....
i' I
■I 1111 i:::'-:; ',Iir•ill:.-,1-'..'...".i.I. ',t.
'' ' .7.- l'""It. .; ,-.4-. , -- , — 0
•.t'.t.:"1--`4.-",1 ',•:,.'..'..5,.!:::•P Ir I . ':".(:-'")111M1 111.11
In 1 ,4
,Ile---. lis litio
_ i) :,i hogiLVII Pitic.:=1:' i /..7.i.'4,:-■ _ .,...;,.:, • . ._4- •
li .....
•.- -..--. —....., ■`t-i:iigri) ii•11. 1•1111111111111111111114. ''
1,i_z- ,,,;,_ ,.: ,2 ', c7 e t 4' 4.
-. : !,‘)? •
V_ ti. 0 2; .--(1- i■
'4- c
• l'. "i:\ ,i E -T, ',ct z
C.,1-.7:_-• F :', 'E' -., '. F!. •1= f.-i T., ck ';c,, :.,, '‘,.•
ivells sulids
•
ki
I
t
1,
• = • .
•,� ii
-I • -
. • .1•011 117 --Dri"- Pi : ,-. It i
.. ........, •■■•••■•=e1www■wies M,
■M. ∎∎ k l elE -1
1 1• ::: T. ..,, 1.1 .
41.1 i
i
. sb
't !tl N i 1 III Ian i El ii 1E1 BA
_
• O;:i to 11® ---1
! C:::Z .
. tom' I I, 'u 1111_ a i ...._-.4 1,=moss to yam. a;saiiisl
iaui 1i ijJIIIII ' i!II
$i � ,
F .
i_ . - .. '(.. A 1111 . -2117.11 bd.. I .11111, . E, !'" 1,i Mini_.,,_,..:,7:11...._,...10--., . .::.:.. .
\ .
_J
C. __
_
1111 I 1 \..A1, —...--.—-—.—..al
Emus 4 IWO :t
r
• J • 1 ' = ; �/
•
r
l
-
3
• , .
: s
�
l l v _
a,
•
r 1(s -
^J
AI J 1.1.11.0ela IEB- too is. • c
. A 1 ] NILL,ri k_ itil ••• q
• 4....1 i e.- 1 tm i
- -I i ®_-_1EI ::=
0
•
. I •OM]
— •• _
11;11
aea.■r7 1r1•_,l11i1mM ffrsn.=iliim—mmemnilpaeIu l-i mntu irrl_.
• 1
11 7 lrs r is pr
_4 .. .. i
:
4. n n i
• • . . .
•
vim u u 1 ., .• .s' '
• Ia... 111 $ . . • F-
- <
. :I 1111111111111MIPAI •
. >
4, 171°. 'al
: II '...1H1 Noll
II l''
—i
; U I U. LU,
n IF fl . .
. . -
.
: . .
. .
• , . . w,
. ,
. .
w
• !
. .
. .
, ..
II
...
4. ' ' I I I I • F •
:
I r •
. .
: C
D
• ! ,
, • 1 i
. .
: Y '
. I ■ w -
, .
• ,
IIII
; .• 4 2
1 ,
. .
-e
1
la F1 ; ID . ' . .
1
1
T
.--:.
MCA
,.
,. .
lit .
- 1
. .
. ., .._. _.
. ..; I
.m1.
• • :-..- •MEI
•
. .. _:,
...:
„..
.•-
, .
', - ' ' ' 6 . . , _ '. _ olv, •_ ' -. . - ,
. - - , -- vo
A.p.,..er--40400- .
. , . .
2=1--e-. )-a. .4.?.1-_-xf-‘.,.,4_ , 4-,-(4 {.--.. XVz,e2 -dzo..74,,,,,,,„_,
: ._.: ' ' .Xil-e46-t-&---- KGeo.1-.-4-_-_>_-;-:,_ '-' ,- 7,03 _ _. 2,_(.q)(5_._),.:__ __: .. _
:__ : -.. .... ._ . Poi) asi-e-kryz ..-'_ ,r.c.__ ,_4 1.:__.:__7_-'7___9'0,-¢). ..___„z3a4,, ;_,2_,
- ::' - ._ .. ...,...a _ .)_1.1,4,t$_-17.7_ _ Ae.,..__d'- '_p'.1,0_?,,_,. 5_,‹,,_ ..,a4-7 __
. I__ ei):___71)—_______e',--re.-.7____
' , . .,4 . _ . J.._ ,. - __L:::_.ar;i0 -.17._-_ -__ _C__ .:.____:____ .._:_,. . _. _.
C/
.: . ___-:: . _ . '_.,, -/Pe:6-?.-r-.?.. _,6,12--(:4_,--._ ._?'. _ , . , _ •,3 . ‘eit;e> ....z.., t &.,. ,_,_ ). _.--(,t, . .___.. ._-(-- . f .2.,"0. -4. ei?, -
: . 61_-__,-. .<!_-_-!.. . -4-;7--_ __j/7_-_e,,,,, ,,_ __.-//14-T,,,,,,:.:. _es. e.,:ez__-ee,_),_ t _ ,,"__-______ _ _
7. : _- - .--- --_ _: --- - -
-.
1-i---1- -7 7'16‘;41 - tiee,"12"- '''''''' ` 24"")---, . 4-,: . '
_ v______. - -_h a .. _!1, 4)./4----.{ _--, k --`_: _ -.__- - -
.
.
. .. _ . _„:;i2.1.-p_...pa_f _:-.4._e.2 „e;(4-3, 76.. .„ _... .__ .4.,..,---___ __ ____ _
-;_ - ,..: ..:. _ r�
' ' - : --------- -/-1e;:).- --,0'0?-.??-4,--ciA , . '4(1.,-A,__[2c,, ,_____i_v_____-. --:4,,L)_,__,________ _
® __ � a
. .... ._ _ , _-___-__...._- ___ fit! P ...t :/ Qu o_ R -)—�—+- — _• '4.." f______ r _ o! p _`_,.�.t .._.
: . _ . . ._ -71P -1-1-7"--62(...", . _w____ if _ /..._ ___,_1_-___. _e....?.'..__I%_____-___--_-_/, ..:. ' /.....
_ _ _, / , _ i_elii:‘-.770,—.-.- _,_:._ __ ____ __
2 3 7-11----
2 - a
_ . . ,g...!__W-4-- e,, .; . :_ i __./°A,1'-„ -. ..,_ , , __ 5_p
4t)�
Suite 1916 .5iu1is, `1i:lephune lax.r ' •.
'
IDS Center 55102 612-332-256 612-31 18
t
S
V s•t
•
FINE �@ ` \. LO+-�w�. k (N..,1
June 8, 1989
>.i
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Aspen
City Hall ' "M
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: GMQS Procedure Issues
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Pursuant to Article II of the Aspen Municipal Code, this letter f''
is a request for an interpretation of Code provisions. Several
important questions have arisen with respect to the Growth 'M
Management Quota System relating to the 700 East Main project.
Specifically, these questions relate to Section 8-107 of the GMQS .?:
pertaining to amendments to Development Orders. As all of the w=
interested parties are now focusing on the Growth Management t'd'
allocations, the following questions have arisen: „•
1. Can a party seek review and approval of a new plan and
proposal by means of a Section 8-107 Amendment to a prior
development order granted on different plans?
(a) When a new and original development plan is presented
for its first review by means of a Section 8-107 Amendment, would
the prohibitions of Section 8-107 (B) (3) apply to "render the
proposal a new appplication, and not an amendment. . . "?
(b) Would the submission of new architectural plans, =;
drawings and specifications which are not "substantially similar"
to those of the original development order be beyond the `x
definition of an "Amendment” under Section 8-107 ("an amendment
is any request to change an element of the development order. . . )? �'r!
(c) Does permitting the initial review of a new
development plan as an amendement under Section 8-107 have the
effect of avoiding the competition mandated by the GMQS?
1,!t
Mayor anc Cit Council . .
Cit of Aspen . .
June 8, 1989
_2_
. . �
. . �
2, Can a party, other than the orginal applicant (or successor
to the applicant) , seek to amend a prior development order
granted to the original applicant without competing as a new
applicant?
We believe that these questions are of fundamental im ortance to -
t
the integrity of the GMQS system an must be addressed wit
respect to any request for an amendment to a development plan.
It is also our position that any amended plan for the 700 East
Main Project that did not infringe the copyrights of Fine
Associates and it architects, would by definition require a "new
application" and could not be construed to be an "amendment".
Resp tfully submitted,
. . . . 1.
Robert T. Kuepper
. ,r
R K:rd
. �
2
�
. . . '
\ \ 4
\ �
. . .
. . :
. . . . . . �
. . . . . q
«
^ . H
o /, g 7
® ' ARFIELD & HECHT, RC.
�1' PRELIMINARY AFT
gg X6,4 "U f� P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION. AGREEMENT FOR CO�gt�'e A JCUSSION
�o (700 EAST MAIN STREET) NOT FOR SIGNATURE
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of ,
1989, between JOHN A. ELMORE II and LIONEL YOW (the "Owners") , and
THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation (the "City") .
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Owners own that certain real property located in the
City of Aspen, County of Pitkin legally described as:
a.:
''- A parcel of land situated in the SE; SW; of Section 7,
-'• Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal
14`, Meridian, East Aspen Additional Townsite, Pitkin County,
Colorado, more fully described as follows. Beginning at
^kz the N.W. Corner of Block 21, East Aspen Additional
Townsite; Thence S 75°09'11" E 150. 00 feet along the
North line of said Block 21; Thence departing said line
S 59°18'00" E 56. 37 feet; Thence S 50° 14 '11" E 118 . 32
.,:..i.. feet; Thence S 52°57'39" W 47. 02 feet; Thence S 49 °58'47"
W 21.71 feet to a point on the East line of said Block
; : 21; Thence S 14 °50'49" W 100. 00 feet along this East line
" of said Block 21 to the Southeast corner of said Block
a,
21; Thence N 75°09'11" W 2 . 31 feet along the South line
s.:'._ of said Block 21; Thence 62 .88 feet along a curve to the
fir. right having a radius of 868. 51 feet (the chord of which
4: bears S 10°18 '25" E 62.87 feet) ; Thence 145. 72 feet along
-' a curve to the left having a radius of 176. 18 feet (the
*'' chord of which bears N 51°27'27" W 141. 60 feet) ; Thence
' N 75°09' 11" W 164 .75 feet along the South line of said
F Block 21 to the Southwest corner of said Block 21; Thence
, .,. N 14 °50'49" E 220.00 feet along the West line of said
' '" Block 21 to the point of beginning.
}'
and;
WHEREAS, Owners' predecessors in title, Dorothy M. Mikkelsen,
., Ardith Louise Ware, Alice Gallegos Mikkelsen and Albert W. Bevan,
Jr. entered into a P.U.D and Subdivision Agreement for 700 East
F Main Street with the City dated December 19, 1988 , for the
";:
development of a residential p ro j ect (the "Original Pro j ect") ; and
erg..
°'' WHEREAS, the Owners received a recommendation for approval of
", an amendment to the Original Project's Growth Management Quota
s;. System allocation, Planned Unit Development and Subdivision
;_ approvals from the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on May 30,
-4'. 1989 and is scheduled to have such amendment reviewed by the Aspen
; City Council on June 12 , 1989 (hereinafter such amendment to the
if. Original Project shall be referred to as the "Project") ; and
r _
U:
4
MEMORANDUM
To: Cindy Houben, Senior Planner
From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner
Re: Cottonwood Park Development
Date: June 2 , 1989
In response to your request for referral comments from the Aspen
Historic Preservation Committee on the proposed design elements
of the new Cottonwood Park Development, the following comments
are made:
1. Due to the site's prominent location as an entrance to
Main Street, only one block east of the west boundary
of the Main Street Historic District, referral comments
were sought from staff and the HPC. We were pleased
for the opportunity to comment.
2 . Upon staff's initial review of the project (elevations,
renderings, model) with Architect Stan Mathis, we found
the general massing, scale, and height appropriate for
the site in its relationship to the Main Street
Historic District. We did, however, find certain
design elements to be inappropriate, and recommended
revisions, which the Architect made. The , revised or
eliminated elements were multiple curved wrought iron
balconies and numerous small multi-pane "Queen Anne"-
type windows.
2 . The major building materials were chosen, based upon
other significant structures along Main: The Sardy
House, the Hotel Jerome and the Pitkin County
Courthouse. The Committee found the materials of
brick, rusticated sandstone, wood shingles, and wrought
iron fencing to be appropriate.
4 . Staff and the HPC generally felt the project
appropriate for the site and compatible with the
neighboring Main Street Historic District. They felt
the contemporary row-house look with Victorian-inspired
elements was "pleasing" , and were particularly
supportive of the porch-element design.
1
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy M. Houben, Senior Planner
RE: Cottonwood Park a.k.a. 700 E. Main Street GMQS, PUD
Amendment and Stream Margin Review
DATE: May 16, 1989
REQUEST: To amend the 1987 GMQS, PUD and Stream Margin Review
approval for the 700 East Main project which has been renamed
Cottonwood Park.
APPLICANT: John Elmore/Lionel Yow.
ZONING: R/MF.
HISTORY: The 1987 GMQS and PUD/Subdivision proposal for 700 East
Main Received 40. 62 points under the scoring system from the
Planning Commission. The project included the following:
Units: 18 (17 free market, 1 employee)
Total Square Footage: 43, 000 s. f.
Open Space: 31, 396 s. f. 4 5. b 610
Setbacks:
Main Street-30 '
Spring Street-26 '
North side (rear) -17 '
River side-32 '
Height: 28 ' + 5 ' to peak of roof.
Unit Mix: (1) 1 bedroom unit (employee)
(9) 2 bedroom units
(6) 3 bedroom units
(2) 4 bedroom units
The site plan for the 700 East Main project is attached. The 700
East Main project committed to many public benefits all of which
the Cottonwood Park current project proposes to uphold.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The Cottonwood project proposes to
reconfigure the structures on the 60, 000+ square foot lot
including the following:
Units: 12 free market
• •
3employee
zig accessory
Total Square Footage: 43, 000�s.,f.
Open Space: 3 , O 1*0 ! = 91p
Setbacks:
Main Street-32 '
Spring Street-30 '
North side (rear) -32 '
River side-32 '
Height: 28 ' 4 5tdtpe jaf r-oiot,.-ti,
Unit Mix: (2) 1 bedroom units (employee) + 5 accessory studios' ?
(1) 2 bedroom unit (employee)
(7) 3 bedroom units
(5) 4 bedroom units
The proposed revised site plan is attached. For a comparison
chart of the two projects, see Table 1, Basic Project Parameters
(attached) .
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1. Engineering Department: In a memo dated Mary 3, 1989, the
Engineering Department made the following comments:
1. The calculations which will quantify the historic
ground water recharge rate for the project will be
required.
2 . The applicant needs to submit a plan to the Engineering
Department which will follow the recommendations of a
report on slope repair for erosion areas submitted by
Chen & Associates on May 20, 1988 to the original
applicants of this project. Specifically, we are
interested in the plan for repair of the erosion scarp
adjacent to the property on the southeast corner. The
City agrees to provide and transport boulders which are
referred to in the above report and which will be used
in the repair of this erosion scarp.
3 . We recommend that the applicant grant a fisherman;s
easement in the Roaring Fork River and for a width of 5
feet along the west bank of the river.
2. Housing Authority: cfkke 1 leer:
Wri'd erYreGIO-P
® •
' I
ii 3. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: In a memo dated
1 5/3/89, Bruce Matherly of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
11 District notes the following:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has sufficient line
II and treatment capacity to serve this project at this time. The
applicants proposed site utilities and drainage plan shows that
all roof and surface drainage will be directed to a catch basin
that is not connected to the sanitary sewer, which is a
1 requirement of the District regulations.
11 The grease, oil and sand traps that are referred to on the
utility sheet, will need to be reviewed by the District, for
! i compliance with District regulations.
I
If the applicant would like to have the on site collection system
lines that are 8 ' in diameter maintained by the District, then
these lines will have to be reviewed for compliance with District
it specifications.
The construction of this project will necessitate the slip lining
of a downstream section of our collection system. The applicant
has agreed to cover this expense. The applicant should also be
1 reminded that all of the connection fees are due at the time of
connection to the District's collection system. A tap permit
1 must be taken out with the District's business office prior to
connection.
1
4. Fire Marshall: In a memo dated 4/17/89, Wayne Vandemark
notes the same sprinkler system is required by the units which
are in excess of 150 ' from an access roadway.
STAFF COMMENTS: The project must be reanalyzed to determine if
it meets Sections 8-107 and 7-407 which allows amendments to GMQS
i and PUD projects. Additionally, the stream margin review
criteria must be reevaluated.
GMQS Amendment:- Section 8-107 lists the following 3 activities
which are prohibited through the amendment process. Activities
which have these characteristics must submit a new development
application.
ii
ii Criteria 1: Any change which is proposed to a Development •
Application prior to its receipt of a development order. A
Development Application which has not yet received a development
order shall only be amended for purposes of clarification or
technical correction.
Response: The application for 700 East Main has received
it 3
1
' I
I ; ,
• •
� I 11
a0,Mn\•."..A.�ri
approval for Final Plat by the City Council, however, the.^filing
G•4- -er€ Final Plat has been extended by Council until June 19, 1989.
11
Criteria 2: Any proposal which would change the use of the
proposed development between residential, commercial or lodge. .
Response: The application remains a residential application.
jl Criteria 3: Any proposal which the City Council determines to be
1 inappropriate by finding that it renders the proposal a new
11 application, and not an amendment, or by finding it to be
inconsistent with any action taken during the original project
, review.
,
Response: The amendment application is substantially consistent
1 with the representations made by the original application
i relative to:
, , a. area and bulk requirements;
b. multi-family residential use;
� 1 c. services commitments.
, 1
The areas which are inconsistent which the original application
are:
I
. ' 1. Total number of units-The project has decreased from 18 total
V units to l6 total units with 5 accessory units (as defined by t---
1 Ordinance #47) . The number of free market units is 12 and the
number of employee (deed restricted) units is a. An additional 5 L--'
ii/ accessory units, restricted to residency occupancy, are also
included. There is now a l2 :�' free market/employee ratio of
units. The Planning Office feels that this is a substantial
improvement for the project. It approaches the initial request
by staff to include 5 employee (deed restricted) on site units.
� i 2. Unit Mix/Bedrooms-The proposal originally contained 2 bedroom
units. The amendment requests 3 and 4 bedroom units. The total
' ' number of free market bedrooms is 41 as opposed to the approval
j of 44 . However, the total bedroom count remains at 45 based on
the addition of 3 employee bedrooms and the 1 employee bedroom ..
1 committed to in the original proposal.
I
i ; 3. Square Feet-The total allowed countable square footage of the
r ! original application was 43 , 000 square feet. The applicants
11 • commit to maintain that maximum.
- S re -Peonage—however,
hqd '"inre ed"'�pp -ox mat-eIg---1-7TT1 =quaxe eet basved on
Sc lvtfg-To" of the.-3.-new empiyoyee- uanats. (The 5 proposed accessory
units 350-400 square feet will be deducted from the free market
l unit space. )
The size of each free market unit is outlined on the attached
Revised Open space calculations dated 5/9/89. The largest free
4
' I
1 '
1 ,
,
III •
market unit is 1, 868 square feet of countable FAR. The units
internal space is actually square feet. The size of the 4
II deed restricted affordable units is square feet of countable
, 1 FAR for a total of square feet of internal square footage
Il per unit. The original application committed to 600 square feet
1 for the one bedroom deed restricted unit. e� A
4. Site. Coverage- T'
, , 5. Parking-The applicants have committed to exceeding the number
il
of parking spaces which were originally approved. The original
application had 41 underground spaces and 4 surface spaces,
whereas the amended plan has 50 underground spaces. The
additional 5 spaces are not required for the 5 accessory units,
I however, the applicant has chosen to provide spaces for these
units.
il
6. Employee Housing-The applicants are proposing 3 additional on
site 1 bedroom units and a reduction in the cash-in-lieu payment
from $685, 000 to $515, 000. The total number of units to be.
II housed by the original proposal and the amendment remains at 50%
it of the project. However, the applicant now proposes to house 7
∎0 Emp1 on-site employees vs. 1 3/4 employees on-site. (See Table 2-
II
loyee Housing Calculations, attached. )
7. Design-The architectural design of the buildings and the site
\\ r plan have been substantially revised (see attached site plans and
elevations) . Drawings comparing the two site plans and
elevations will be brought to the meeting.
_
', � �ti,,� a Site Plan-The site plan has been revised twice. The second
; � r revision is dated 5/9/89 (attached) and reflects the proposed
Ap accessory units to be placed in free market units number 6, 7, 9,
P-, ,
""� 10 and 11. The other employee units are located on the north
west portion of the site above the entrance to the garage. The
- I text and the site plan are inconsistent. The site plan notes
' ' that 4 employee bedrooms will be supplied in a configuration of 1
j � (2) bedroom unit and 2 (1) bedroom units. The text reflects that
I 4 (1) bedroom units will be provided on site.
c`iar'°"fred' r'itr—to--an, ,,.,ante-a3s: The applicant has verbally
II stated that the desire is to have 2 (l), bedroom units and 1, (2)
bedr om units. A rJ th 1...a,� c.., t.,..2•4.4 to 4_3
II
I The proposed site plan arranges the units into 4 buildings on the
� site. The front building along Main Street sits back 32 feet
from the property line and is apparently 125 feet in length. As
a comparison, the Original Curve Condominiums have approximately
1 90 ' of frontage on Main Street and the original application had
140 ' office buildings along Main Street. The proposed height of
III the project remains at 28 ' (33 ' to the peak of the roof) . The
� j proposed amendment will increase the visibility of the project as
1 one approaches from the east around Original curve, since units 5
L 5
II
d
I
I I
1 i
.
and 6 will be of maximum allowable height whereas the original
approval had a lower recreational building which was only
partially visible from the public right-of-way.
The new proposal places more units along the riverfront. The two
buildings along the river contain 5 free market units and 3
accessory units. The buildings are approximately 60 ' and 80 ' in
length as seen from the river. The building to the rear of the
site, containing 3 free market units and two accessory units is
II approximately the same dimensions as the front building along
Main Street. The free market units are now larger in size,
however.
j The amended landscaping plan continues to include the public
sitting areas (one along the river and an expanded area at the
corner of Spring Street and Main Street. ) Additional vegetation
is proposed to screen the corner of the parcel as seen from the
eastern approach around Original Curve.
1 Architectural Design-The buildings have changed significantly
with regard to design. The proposal still contains 3 story units
which will be seen as 2 to 2 1/2 story units from the Main Street
elevation.
The materials proposed to be used are stone (the same as the
Courthouse base) , brick and lateral wood siding. The building is
proposed to be accented with wrought iron railings and ornamental
_ columns. The new design contains many more smaller features.
1 . There are more windows and a greater number of pitched roofs than
opose. origi all Comparison drawings are attached.
tr.: Section 7-907BP di is the review of
� �_� the amendment to be
consistent ujajc* the approW final development plan (see
Ordinance #7) . Oidinance # 7Arevises the amendment criteria with
the following language:
During the review of the proposed amendment, the
ii Commission and City Council may require such conditions
of approval as are necessary to insure that the
development will be compatible with current community
ii conditions. This shall include, but not be limited to,
applying to the portions of the development which have
not obtained building permits or are proposed to be
amended any new community policies .or regulations which
have been , implemented since the original approval, or
taking into consideration changing community
circumstances as they affect the project's original
representations and commitments.
i The applicant may withdraw the proposed amendment at
any time during the review process.
i ' 6
ii
HHH
II
I1
IThe amended application has responded to the more recently
j1 verbalized community need for employee housing. There is little
' I change, however, in the proposal with regard to the amount of
1 , massing and bulk to be placed on the site. The proposal is not
� affected by Ordinance #47 or by the recent demolition moratorium
II imposed by City Council.
I ,
In general, the amendment has responded positively to community
needs. The application commits to the level of services provided
1 I by the original application. Much of the PUD criteria has
' I already been covered under the GMQS discussion above. The
, Ii remaining details involve any revisions to the building schedule
(Section 7-903.C.2 . (a) (5) and the PUD agreement (Section 7-904) .
I , Both these items must be finalized prior to any final amendment
approvals.
GMQS Scoring: The original score she is attached to this
I packet. It is dated January 19, 1988. The Planning Office &/iz4,
the only areas which are affected by the amendment
are as follows:
1
1. Public Facilities & Services (same)
2 . Quality of Design
it
, I a. Neighborhood Compatibility
b. Site Design
I
II c. Green Space
I
it 3 . Proximity to Support Services (same)
I I
I ! 4 . Employee Housing
Please see the attached score sheet which addresses these
modifications. The Planning Office has not recommended a
I significant change in the scoring of the project. PC���+�
,ado ° -ems. a° -a^-A--p � ?�, `ter �..e
I�
{ Stream Margin R view: Section 7-504 of the Land Use Code
j outlines the following criteria for Stream Margin Review. The
' application originally received stream margin review because the
proposal did not significantly impose on the river or the river
I ; bank. The applicants have revised their amended site plan
; i _ (attached) to pull the units further away from the river bank
' ! than was proposed by the first proposed amendment. Due to the
H proposed design changes, the applicants are required to revise
1 the drainage and grading plans. These must be submitted prior to
any final approvals for the amendments.
7
` I
11
111 •
Criteria 1: It can be demonstrated that the proposed development
ii will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed
for development.
i
1 Response: Units 5 through 9 are located above the high water
line and outside of the one hundred . (100) year floodplain
boundary.
Criteria 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: To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, no trail
alignments are proposed in the Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails
; element of the Aspen Area comprehensive Plan which affect the
✓ project site. .the Engineering Department has suggested that a
fisherman's easement be granted at this time.
Criteria 3: The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway
Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent practicable.
Response: The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan contains no site
1 ; specific recommendations with respect to the project site. The
proposed building envelopes, however, have been located so as to
preserve to the maximum extent feasible the existing vegetation
and natural appearance of the property. No trees along the river
bank and slope will need to be removed by the revised site plan
dated 5/9/89. Smaller trees which are affected towards the rear
of the parcel shall be replaced.
Criteria 4: No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made
that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
1 Response: No vegetation will be removed nor any slope regraded
such that the River would be adversely affected. All disturbed
slopes will be stabilized during construction and appropriate
measure (e.g. , haybales, etc. ) taken to prevent erosion. A
revised grading plan is necessary to determine if the grading
will affect the slopes and cause potential erosion.
Criteria 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: Inasmuch as Units 5 through 9 are located well above
the high water line, the proposed development will have no effect
upon the natural changes experienced by the Roaring Fork River.
These units have been moved back an additional 20 ' for a total of
52 ' from the river. No pollution of the River will occur as a
result of the Applicant's proposed development.
8
II
II
lil
•
•
Currently, drainage runs uncontrolled off the site, both to the
River and to the Spring Street collection system. As with the
approved project, it is proposed to collect all the drainage
produced on-site, release at the historic surface runoff and
groundwater recharge rate, with surface runoff being discharged
to the River.
) - Criteria 6: Written notice is given to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a
1 water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Response: No alteration or relocation of the existing water
course will be required.
Criteria 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: . -r-E; 15Mer. alteration or relocation of the water
course is proposed, no such guarantee is required.
1
Criteria 8: Copies are provided of all necessary federal and
state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year
floodplain.
Response: No federal or state permits are required to construct
III the proposed development.
! I
SUMMARY: The amendment proposal significantly changes the site
plan and the architectural design of the project. The
dimensional aspects of the project have not significantly
changed. The p c29Aal now places more units along the riverfront
placing a - - Treging -lsofontowards Herron Park. The original
II proposal placed approximately 80 ' of building mass in this area.
1 There are fewer units in the project containing the same overall
number of bedrooms. The applicants have responded to the need
for on site employee housing to a greater extent than the
previous proposal.
The architectural design is a subjective issue which the Planning
Commission and City Council must review. The Planning Office
Ij feels that the applicants have attempted to minimize the
II stonework used along Main Street, however, the mass of the
project (and previously approved project) is substantial. The
project mass will compete with prominent public buildings such as
the Courthouse and the Catholic church.
1
From the historic prospective, Roxanne Eflin has made the
following comments regarding the proposal:
0 r11 y-4-- . .e.
-11'T bir/1104,
— o rni.. -fa'z-ate -�
vQ4I aA4 }
Woltedr 414
II
I
III •
i
I •
li
1
Overall, the Planning Office feels the score for the proposal
would remain the same as the previous score (see attached score
11 sheet) . The Planning Commission must rescore the project and
11 forward a recommended amended score to the City Council along
ii
I with a recommendation for the proposed PUD and stream margin
1i review.
II The Planning Office recommends conceptual approval of the
proposed amendments, but feels that details are lacking with
H regard to the revised grading plan, drainage plan, landscaping
11 plan, site plan elevations and revised PUD agreements. All of .
these details must be reviewed A F
prior to final approval by the
i
City Council. sA3A-M
1 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
1i proposed GMQS, PUD and Stream Margin Review amendments to the 700
East Main (Cottonwood Park) project with the following
iH conditions:
H
t
1. Prior to review by the City Council, the applicants
�
� I shall submit the following:
1I a. new grading and drainage plan;
,4,�j).,, v t„� p,,,,.-d,p� nterki ev
ter ',,, b. new elevations osa
1 c. a new landscape plan;
1' h ^'. . d. revised PUD agreements.
' I All of these documents shall be part of the documents
H to be filed with the final plat documents.
II 2 . The calculations which will quantify the historic
ground water r.echarge, rate for the project 0/.4.
be
f I e +red.S p r` l /T ct 4-1 LI CG ,
kt
3 . The applicant . eeds- to submit a plan to the Engineering
1 .H
Department which will follow the recommendations of a
1 ' report on slope repair for erosion areas submitted by ]
Chen & Associates on May 20, 1988 to the original -
applicants of this project. Specifically, we 4-a'"-`
1t interested in the plan for repair of the erosion scarp 0
H adjacent to the property on the southeast corner. The
City agrees to provide and transport boulders which are
referred to in the above report and which will be used
in the repair of this erosion scarp.
1f
4 . We recainme-nd `h�athe applicant6 grant a fisherman;s
1 easement in the Roaring Fork River and for a width of 5
feet along the west bank of the river.
1 5. i q , '� �� ' ■1 /1,(A1-144--,PC/41-4.7'e, Agewv--,----16S fq-1.,‘ ilP , 74"4—'
C Vic; 1:1,17e- -j--e?
I
• •
pzmemo.cottonwood
II
II
!
II
� I
it
II
I
II
{ !
it
I1
ji
Ii 11
' I - , `
a ,.., .....
° TO' ; FROM ,,,,
_.of • \//.�.,r ////�/'(� l I - / n _7 .. ., , .. ,. , ,
.,, , ,,
I r• ins%a a. 'a a „m B a s.,> ,V. e. x
SUBJECT ' t - DATE '
►'I Q,c Ca�.o c,..�o_ c� I /7. / r9
,i. .�.
MESSAGE -•
J'
_
II
3 a i .. • .2.5:0) 9 % ras-s P-bo&H. -e. v-L Q.a-(,: .
r . 1l _ .-::--= i�c.- c. c . b'Q--)O CA). c rck ct - . •
cc-� k∎.5 J_.• 6 13 CO ve\-e� 0edltS1 , c'f-c_�e-Sj p& os -
a.n G 1/y- 26/. = A eo€6 S `Q Ca . . .
I
c 9 .. 60: -- sg 1_).o4a JC e . -�(u.sff�` beio c4)
--_ ��-
•
SIGNED
-
NORM, 45 468 NO 'REPLY NECESSARY , ' - REPLY REQUESTED - USE REVERSE SIDE.•
LY PAK (50 SETS) 4P468 . . ' ' ' carbon less
,11 �j
, \�N ATHIS •
architecture anc planning G�Ko�C �{gvFc>j
pia box 1984
seen, coloraco 81612 Ase t4 ctA PE/r
PE a TT8 W d FA
12F--VISE-POPE,“ SPACE Gal-Cup 5
L0-t-4Tt 6010th rti
Acotsrep € .oua.i 60,411 0
Forn'r iat ik 2 1,0G4
�JerSc-cr. Cc 6E 22525 — 22,525
CYPEA,1 SPACE- • 211112 A
c WV'ES rEVE-Sr4.l��u
I . AYS Ate 'Pool AREA
-n.o 111112. = `.5 5.3 1 OPEO
56,41-1
SPACE
'Nara: Tizeotrus AtTocAnmi 12-ATID 45-6Z s7:11
-64A4P-044,Z3
S
May 9, 1989
Cindy Houben
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Dept.
201 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Cottonwood Park G.M.P. Amendment
Dear Cindy:
Per our discussion with you and Jim Gibbard of the
Engineering Department visit yesterday concerning our •
Cottonwood Park at 700 E. Main Street project, please :accept
this letter of clarification and the attached revised site
plan.
In response to your concerns of the siting of townhouse
units 5 and 6 overlooking the Roaring 'Fork River, we have
determined that by eliminating the 20 foot wide pedestrian
access between Units 2 and 3 , Units 5 and 6 may be pulled
back 20 feet to the west, away from the River. However, the
elimination of the 20 foot wide access impacts our open
space calculations, necessitating the removal and relocation
of the managers office/housing unit that fronts on Spring
Street. By re-configuring the employee housing units at the
north end of Unit 12 and expanding the footprint, we will be
able to provide the same number of affordable housing
bedrooms (4) to which we have previously committed. The
STAN site plan indicates 1-2 bedroom unit on the first floor with
a small office to be used by the resident manager. On the
MAulS second floor will be 2-1 bedroom affordable units.
ARCINTECTURE In addition we propose to provide five additional
accessory units of approximately 350-400 square feet each.
PLOW These are shown on the revised site plan. The accessory
units will be located at the parking garage level . They all
l Post will have separate entrances with light, ventilation and
Office egress to meet or exceed code.
Box
1984
Aspen In response to Jim Gibbard's concerns that some of the
Colorado previously committed off-site improvements were not shown,
81612
303/920-1434
•
l
40 41
Cindy Houben
May 9, 1989
Page -2-
it is our intent to provide any improvement to which the
former application committed. We will submit our own
solutions to these improvements to the engineering
department for their review and approval.
Please call if you have any questions or require
further information.
Best Regards,
t -;
Stan Mathis /YA
km
zole2e,A oven ee 0_6, 604-^Low 5
VivAA 4 . I-A freA ; \ 6,901fr
I 'frit, — fefrA414,1e \ 1.9zi•
__ _..........___.
luv,
- ..„..,
_
, lie ui 4s eio ,
di- •
I-) 1612. 641744A /eAl- :
Kt?.
, WI ' st
IclIs ..._____----- I.-.- (if 22•I-
( omit
0 1454
°I K Iv
iv 1 olf
11 1 0410
(( I eicoe
111- i 7.
1644/210162, I 0 z-0 44Z'
0 • GC,
4014. I 1 7.
-11,k 2-t oc54 '2.0414 ..
78e19 4iigi
4'4'
TtAiAhvicto. Atalik- 10
-r-m417 . 1 p 1
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department 44'
DATE: May3 ' 1989'
RE: 700 E. Main Street (Cottonwood Park) GMQS/PUD Amendment
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department recommends that the following be required
before final plat approval:
1. The calculations which will quantify the historic ground water
recharge rate for the above project will be required.
2 . The applicant needs to submit a plan to the Engineering
Department which will follow the recommendations of a report on
slope repair for erosion areas submitted by Chen & Associates on
May 20 , 1988 to the original applicants of this project .
Specifically, we are interested in the plan for repair of the
erosion scarp adjacent to the property on the southeast corner.
The City agrees to provide and transport boulders which are
referred to in the above report and which will be used in the
repair of this erosion scarp.
3. We recommend that the applicant grant a fisherman' s easement
in the Roaring Fork River and for a width of 5 feet along the
west bank of the river.
jg/700Main8
cc: Chuck Roth
4
Aspen (9 onsolidated Sanitation Distrrict
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601 Tele. (303) 925-2537
•
1�May fi 3, 9'8.9 •
Cindy Houben
Planning ;Office `
130 S. Galena St. _ 3
Aspen, CO 8161.1
Re : 700 East Main GMQS/PUD
Amendment
Dear Cindy:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has sufficient line
and treatment capacity to serve this project at this time. The
applicants proposed site utilities and drainage plan shows that
all roof and surface drainage will be directed to a catch basin. ••.
• that is not connected to the sanitary sewer, which . is a
requrement of the District regulations.
The grease, oil and sand traps that are referred to on the
utility sheet, will need to be reviewed by the District, for
compliance with District regulations.
If the applicant would like to have the on site collection system
lines that are 8" in diameter maintained by the District, then
these lines will have to be reviewed for compliance with District
specifications.
The construction of this project will necessitate the slip lining
of a downstream section of our collection system. The applicant
has agreed to cover this expense. The applicant should also be
reminded that all of the connection fees are due at the time of
connection to the District' s collection system. A tap permit must
be taken out with the District' s business office prior to
connection.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
cc: Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
•
•
•
•
9,01
•
•
411
IOF
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 700 EAST MAIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PUD AMENDMENT
•
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, May 16, 1989, at a meeting to begin at 4 : 30 P.M. before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an
application submitted by Sunny Vann on behalf of his client, The
Elmore/Yow Group, requesting an amendment to the approved final
development plan for 700 East Main Street, which is to be called
Cottonwood Park. The property is located between Spring Street
and Original Street and is bordered on the west by the Concept
600 Building, on the north by the Eagles, on the east by the
Roaring Fork River and Herron Park and across Main Street by the
Original Curve Condominiums.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin County
Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, (303) 920-5090.
s/C. Welton Anderson, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission
Published in. The Aspen Times on April 20, 1989 .
City of Aspen Account.
•
•
MEMORANDUM
•
To: Cindy Houben. Planning
From: Wayne Vandemark, Fire Marshal
Re: 700 E. Main ( Cottonwood Park)
Date' Aril #17 " 1989"'
I have reviewed the application submitted by Sunny Van Re:
Cottonwood Park. The Fire Department' s response time is between
three and four minutes . We do have a problem with access to the
North East portion of the project. The Uniform Fire Code states
that if any portion of a building is in excess of 150 ' from an
access roadway one shall be provided. We would accept a residen-
tial sprinkler system in the determined units. Sprinklering the
entire project is the real answer to .life safety and property
preservation. Many insurance companies will grant a 15-20%
reduction in premium costs on a completely sprinklered building.
•
41k, AgiL
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
April-.,4 2:989
Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
P. O. Box 8485
Aspen, Colorado 81612
RE: 700 East Main Street (Cottonwood Park) GMQS/PUD
Amendment
Dear Sunny,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that your application is complete.
We have scheduled your application for review by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 16, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 4 : 30 P.M. The Friday
before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy
of the memo pertaining to your application is available at the
Planning Office.
The Code requires that a sign be posted in a conspicuous place on
the property and adjacent property owners be notified 10 days
prior to the hearing. I will send you a copy of the public
notice for this purpose.
If you have any questions, please call Cindy Houben, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
i 5
'March241989
Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
P. O. Box 8485
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: 7OO ' East Main PUD Amendment
Dear Sunny, '
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that your application is not complete. We are unable
to schedule it for review at this time.
The project violates the minimum lot area per dwelling unit
requirement for the zone district. This requirement can't be
varied by PUD. The amendment is located outside of the approved
envelopes for Stream Margin, therefore please address these
criteria also. Please also make the other minor changes which
Alan discussed with you on the phone today. You may pick up all
copies of the application text and submit corrected copies, which
include the additional requested information.
If you have any questions, please call Alan Richman. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
ds
H .111, 411
1 MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Debbie Skehan
From: Alan Richman
Postmark: gw2410,%3 2: 31 PM
Subject:F-30(h,E'.74Mg),*(Cottonwood Park)
Message:
Please send Sunny a letter telling him his application is
incomplete. The reason it is incomplete is that the project violates
[ the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standard for the zone
district, a requirement which can't be varied by PUD. Also, tell him
that because the amendment is outside of the approved envelopes for
stream margin, he must address these criteria too. Suggest that he
retrieve the written copies (not the drawings) and correct them, per
my directions on the phone today. Once we receive a corrected,
• complete submission, we will refer. Thanks!
, 1
X
,
,
, 4.•
II
_ ,4(-‘
QTY OF ASPEN
RESIDENTIAL GRO E! MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
POINTS ALLOCATION[CATION - TALLY SHEET
Project: 700 Main
P&Z VOTING MEMBERS Ramona Jasmine ne Roger Welton David Mari Jim _ Average
1. Public Facilities
and Services (12 pts)
a. Water Service 2 1.5 1:5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 7 � ��
b. Sewer Service 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
c. Storm Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 _
d. Fire Protection 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 _
e. Parking Design 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
f. Road 2 1 1.5 1.5 1.75 1 2 ih�
SUBTOTAL 12 10.5 11 11 11.25 10.5 12 11.17
2. Quality of Design (15 pts)
a. Neighborhood 3 3 2 2.5 2.5 2 2 _
Compatibility - I/6
b. Site Design 2 3 3 3 2.5 2 3 1 , 9. 5
c. Energy 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 _ ,
d. Trails 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
e. Green Space 3 3 2 2.5 2.5 2 2.5
SUBTOTAL 13 _14.5 12.5 13.5 13 11.5 13 13
3. Proximity to Support
Services (6 pts)
a. Public 3 3 3 3 3 . 3 3 _
• Transportation
b. Community Comml 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Facilities
SUBTOTAL 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
4. Employee Housing (20 pts)
a. Low Income 10 8 10 10 10 10 10
b. Moderate Income _
c. Middle Income
SUB'IC:MIL 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 9.7
SUHICJIAL CATEGORIES 1-4 41 39 39.5 40.5 41.5 38 41 (...39.8'
5. Bonus Points (5.3 pts) 2 0 0 0 1.25 0 2 .75
TOTAL POINTS 1-5 43 39 39.5 40.5 41.5 38 43 40.62