HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Stevenson Agate Lodge Redevelopment.1983-84 i.
r ASPEN/PITKIN PANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303)925-2020
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113 - 63721 - 47331 - 52100
63722 47332 GMP/CONCEPTUAL
52100 GMP/PRELIMINARY
63723
47333 - 52100 GMP/FINAL
63724 - 47341 - 52100 SUB/CONCEPTUAL
63725 - 47342 - 52100 SUB/PRELIMINARY
63726 - 47343 - 52100 SUB/FINAL
63727 - 47350 - 52100 EXCEPT/EXEMPTION
63728 - 47350 - 52100 REZONING
63729 - 47360 - 52100 SPECIAL REVIEW
County
SUB-TOTAL
00113 63711 - 47331
63712 - 52200 GMP/GENERAL
- 47332 - 52200 GMP/DETAILED
63713 - 47333 - 52200 GMP/FINAL
63714 - 47341 - 52200 SUB/GENERAL
63715 - 47342 - 52200 SUB/DETAILED
63716 - 47343 - 52200 SUB/FINAL
63717 - 47350 - 52200 SPECIAL REVIEW
63718 - 47350 - 52200 REZONING
63719 - 47360 - 52200 SPECIAL APPROVAL
PLANNING OFFICE SALES SUB TOTAL
00113 - 63061 - 09000 • 52200 COUNTY CODE
63063 - 09000 - 52200 ALMANAC
63062 - 09000 - 00000 GMP
63066 - 09000 - 00000 COPY FEES
63069 - 09000 -
OTHER
SUB-TOTAL •
TOTAL
Name:
Address:
r'1 Phone: � ' —
Protect
Check
No
Additional Billing: Date:
No. of Hours:
•
_ CITY OF ASi EN
MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN, AICP
Assistant Planning Director
-
--V
r) .
f— 1
.:.)•s.LA....1\....'G).... j L ;r-
---.A----c--ANA.,- (--) ' ■ir-
v,----)
1 --.,
-/
‘) \ CJL---t..C _ - ---A) ' (
.... c
, ,N \
. ,... -
A, ..._,-
.... ---, -- , ,
____. : •-,---) .----4,,\I-4_ \,-",--- /A-no
( k A 1
...., ..-
1
N
\ ( \
----k ) \,'2 `, •,,_
k..0 \ \\
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Discussion of the Agate Lodge as a PUD
DATE : October 2 , 1984
Tom Wells, on behalf of Butch Clark (the property owner) , is requesting
that you consider an approach to the mandatory PUD on the Agate
property that does not require the review of architectural design.
Section 24-8 .9 of the Municipal Code requires that the Preliminary PUD
Plan "be in sufficient detail to enable the Planning Commission to
evaluate the architectural , landscaping and design features of the
planned unit development. " Subsection (a) goes on to say, "the plan
should show the location and floor area of all existing and proposed
buildings, structures and other improvements, including maximum
heights, types of dwelling units . . . "
Subsection (b) asks for a construction schedule, indicating dates of
construction commencement and completion and subsection (c) reads that
"preliminary elevation and perspective drawings of proposed structures
and improvements shall be included. "
The proposal by Tom Wells is for full subdivision of the property into
single-family and duplex lots which would be sold as building sites
with no architectural design. The Planning Office feels that the PUD
overlay was placed on the property because of its visually sensitive
location at the entrance to Aspen, and that it is therefore important
for us to review more than a site plan for this property.
There are two responses to this request, if you are inclined to go
along with the concept. One is to sponsor a rezoning to remove the
mandatory PUD from the property, leaving it zoned R-6 . A second
approach is to amend the PUD section of the Code to allow this degree
of flexibility.
The Planning Office feels that the removal of the PUD is not advisable.
The underlying rationale for designating the property PUD continue to
apply whether the site is to be developed as a lodge ( its use at the
time of the overlay placement) or long-term residential (its present
use) . Seventh Street is one of the busiest streets in town and the
intersection which is the entrance curve to town is second only in
traffic volume to the Mill and Main intersection. The PUD overlay
will allow for innovation in the site plan, retention of some major
trees, provision of a buffer along seventh , and clustering of lots or
structures.
We also do not support amendment of the PUD sections of the Code. The
specifics of landscaping, building sizes and appearance, and construc-
tion timetables are all important elements of a Planned Unit Development
review.
To summarize our consideration of this request, we want you to consider
the following points :
1 . It is advantageous to the City of Aspen for the Agate Lodge
block to be redeveloped.
2 . The present owner is reluctant to develop it as a Planned
Unit Development, but, if keeping the PUD overlay on the
property is in the best interests of the City , another
developer may be willing to take on the project.
3 . The block is one of the most visually sensitive in Aspen and
should be developed in a manner which enhances the image of
the community.
4 . Dealing with this property through only the subdivision
process gives you very minimal control over the final product.
5 . The elements of the PUD section which are being asked to be
waived are the very basic elements of that section and are
fundamental to the planning and review of a PUD site plan.
In summary, the Planning Office is not aware of any convincing arguments
for the removal of the PUD overlay from the property, nor do we support
the concept of amending the PUD Code sections. It is likely, in our
opinion, that a subsequent purchaser would desire the flexibility
offered by the PUD in developing a site plan for the block.
— 2 —
THOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
314 SOUTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303 925-7817
SE-P-
17 1984
•
•
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne , Planning Office
RE: Redevelopment of the Agate Property - Conceptual Subdivision
PUD
DATE: April 3 , 1984
LOCATION: All of Block 17 , City and Townsite of Aspen (Lots
A, B , C , D, E, F, C , H , I K, L, M , N, 0 P, 0 , R and
S)
ZONING. R-6 PUD
APPLICANT'S EOUE.S_T-
The applicant proposes to demolish all structures presently existing
on Block 17 and to build six single-family homes and two duplexes .
The requested approvals needed include full subdivision, PUD and
eenelemnatiem_
REFERRA __COMMENTS:
The City Transportation Director points out that the bus stop at
Bleeker and 7th has been utilized by both the City and County for
years, and recommends that a bus shelter be constructed on 7th Street
(approximately 75ft. north of Bleeker) .
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District responded that they can
serve the project. They caution that the trunk line is quite shallow
in this area and may have to be accommodated if basements are planned.
The Housing Authority notes that pursuant to the affidavit submitted
by the owner of the Agate on November 8 , 1983 , five of the twenty-
four units listed fall within the present employee housing guidelines.
These five units consist of eleven (11) bedrooms. Their recommendation
is conditional approval based on the following conditions :
1. That the developer , under the condominiumization requirement,
provide eleven (11) bedrooms of middle income, deed restricted,
rental units in a manner consistent with the Aspen/Pitkin
County employee housing guidelines.
2. The applicant will file the deed restriction with the City
Clerk and Recorder ' s Office prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
The Water Department sees no problem in supplying the development
with Aspen Water . Their requirements are :
1 . Application must be made to permit the necessary taps and
fees paid for any new construction.
3. Disconnection of any abandoned services at the main.
3 . Individual service and meter for each single family home
and/or duplex.
The Building Department cites Section 24-3 . 7 (f) ( 3) which deals with
corner lots and Section 24-3 . 7 ( f) ( 6 ) dealing with yards adjacent
to arterial roadways , and has determined that 6th and 7th Streets
require 10 foot setbacks while Hallam and Bleeker Streets require
a 6-2/3ft. setback . If the alley is not vacated, the rear yard must
be 15 feet and the -swimming pools encroach-. - The- Building Department - -
considers the media rooms to be bedrooms and feels parking should
Page 2
be provided for them.
The comments of the Director of Parks concerning removal of trees
to accommodate construction are attached. He focuses on seven particular
trees and feels that any of the other trees of significance on the
property can be transpolanted "with a high degree of success. " Three
of the trees he singles out (A, B and C) are being retained in the
site plan . Trees designated D, E , F and G all fall within units .
Attempts should be made to design around them.
The comments from the Fire Department were submitted for the previous
plan . Since the access solution is unchanged , their comments are
still valid. They found no deviations in the project from the 1979
Uniform Fire Code . They did say , however , that "firefighter and
apparatus access to the center of the block as developed and landscaped
per your plans will be extremely difficult when compounded by winter
conditions. "
The City Engineering Department' s comments are attached.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW
Background
At your meeting of December 20 , 1983 , you held a pre-application
conference with representatives of the Stevenson Building Company
concerning redevelopment of the Agate property. At that time, their
concept was to construct six duplex structures with access from Bleeker
and Hallam Streets ( requiring 12 curb cuts ) . The structures would
have been in excess of the allowable FAR, thereby requiring a variance.
The parcel (Block 17) is a mandatory PUD. A PUD overlay is often
placed on a property with particular sensitivities or constraints
(e . g . , steep slopes , proximity to floodplain) . In this case , the
PUD overlay was likely placed on the parcel because of its location
at the entrance to town, the fact that the entire block is in one
ownership and would probably be planned as an integrated project ,
and to allow greater flexibility in the site and architectural designs.
At the meeting, you expressed concern over the mass of the buildout ,
the proposed access solution and the difficulties associated with
emergency and utility access . The applicants revised their plan
to the present submission based on those comments .
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW
The plan before you proposes six single-family houses and two duplexes
(a reduction of two units from the twelve previously proposed ) .
These units are exempt from Residential Growth Management Competition
by virtue of the fact that at least this requested number of units
has been verified as existing in the present Agate Lodge .
The unit verification completed by the Building Department and the
Planning Office indicated that 24 units make up the Agate Lodge (eight
of these are in the Lodge building) . All the units have been used
for long-term rental . Since the applicant proposes to condominiumize
the two duplexes , the question of the reduction of low and moderate
income housing was addressed. Five units (for a total of eleven
bedrooms) fall within employee housing price guidelines. The applicants
will replace that number of bedrooms in an off-site location and
are meeting with the Housing Authority to explore options.
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development overlay (as per Section
24-8 . 1) is to encourage flexibility , innovation and variety in the
development of land and to provide performance criteria for planned
unit developments (PUD) which will :
" (a) Promote greater variety in the type , design and layout
of buildings;
Page 3
(b) Improve the design, character and quality of new development;
(c) Promote more efficient use of land and public streets ,
utilities and governmental services ;
(d) Preserve open space as development occurs;
(e) Provide procedures so as to relate the type ,' design and
layout of residential development to a particular site
and thus encourage the preservation of the site' s unique,
natural , and scenic features ; and
(f) Achieve a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding
areas. "
The objective is to create a more desirable environment than would
be possible through strict application of other Code sections. Density
cannot exceed the allowable density of the underlying zone in which
the PUD lies and the maximum density shall not be allowed as a matter
of course . "The actual density for any planned
accordance
shall be determined in the PUD plan finally approved
with the purposes and requirements of this article. " (Section 24-
8 . 4)
The applicant has chosen not to make use of the PUD overlay , but
rather to develop the parcel under conventional R-6 zone parameters .
As stated in their application, they "decided to approach the project
in a more conventional manner , i. e. , developing single-family houses
and duplexes on the existing lots without a change in existing lot
lines . " They submit that this approach will break up the massing
of a clustered project and will be more consistent with the West
End residential neighborhood.
Each single-family residence will be located on two existing townsite
lots and each duplex will be located on three existing townsite lots .
Subdivision will occur along these lines . All setbacks and floor
area ratios will comply with the requirements of the R-6 zone . The
conceptual site plan does not provide sufficient detail to determine
if the setbacks are all in compliance. The preliminary plat submission
will require greater detail for this determination. It appears that
the swimming pools may encroach in the rear year setbacks on the
present plan. One variance that the applicant intends to request
is in the height requirement. The maximum height for principal buildings
in the R-6 zone is 25 feet . The single family structures proposed
are 32 feet high and the duplexes are 32 . 6 feet high . This variance
can be requested as per Section 24-8 .3 and the applicant must justify
to your satisfaction the necessity of an increased height. The allowable
floor area ratio on this site (for 6 single-family houses and 2 duplexes)
is 28 , 440 square feet , and the proposed project floor area is 28 , 238
square feet. We find these to be somewhat bulky structures , and
the applicant should submit their reasons for the requested variance
at preliminary submission.
The criteria for determination of density to be allowed under mandatory
PUD ( Section 24-8 . 13 ) generally do not apply to this parcel . The
site is on City water , sewer and other utilities are in place , the
City street system is the access and the parcel is flat and buildable.
The alley through the middle of the block has not been vacated.
Criteria (8) in this section raises the one element of concern :
(8) The placement and clustering of structures and reduction
of building height and scale to increase open space and
preserve the natural features of the terrain.
As evidence by the comments of the Director of Parks, at least two
trees of considerable significance are being sacrificed by this con-
ventional approach to the siting of structures.
The applicant has proposed extensive new landscaping to be introduced.
The alleyway will be landscaped and is proposed for use as an interior
Page 4
pedestrian access that still accommodates emergency access and maintenance
access to utilities. Updated comments from the Fire Department will
be part of the Preliminary Plat review.
The Planning Office and Engineering Department were encouraging the
applicant to use the alley for active access and to thereby remove
parking from view of the general public and eliminate curb cuts .
The applicant feels very strongly that the alley should not be used
for access. The application proposes a total of nine curb cuts (which
is a reduction from the current situation) . Section 19-101 allows
that in the R-6 zone there can be one 10 foot wide curb cut for each
building site with 60 feet or less frontage . If the building sites
have over 60 feet of frontage , the curb cut shall be 10 feet for
a single driveway or 18 feet for a double driveway . There may be
slight adjustments in the locations of these cuts required by the
Engineering Department, but they are generally allowed under the
Code. }
parking spaces . The residential units
The applicant proposes applicant
contain a total of 26 bedrooms and 10 "media rooms" . The app
acknowledges that these "media rooms" may be utilized in some instances
as bedrooms . At one parking space per the 36 potential bedrooms ,
the 44 proposed exceed a one space/bedroom norm by eight spaces .
This number should be more than adequate since a bus stop exists
at the corner of 7th and Bleeker Streets and all ski buses stop within
one block of this development (in front of Poppie' s Bistro) .
Since the applicant is proposing full subdivision, the common facilities
maintenance agreement of Section 24-8 . 19 is not applicable . -4-
-r-e-gu-ireme-nts for cohddomin-iumization have been- addressed earlier.
-The four units will be restricted to six-month minimum leases and
a Statement of Subdivision Exception and Condominum Declarations
-must---be submitted to the City Attorney' s Office for approval prior
to recordation.
In summary , we feel that this is a generally acceptable concept for
the development of this parcel . The design flexibility offered by
the PUD overlay could have been utilized, in our opinion, to produce
a more innovate site plan and structures that would be more architectur-
ally varied. The plan, however , adheres to the requirements of the
underlying zone , making it difficult to find fault with specific
aspects of the proposal.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Office recommends that you recommend to Council approval
of the Conceptual Submission for subdivision/PUD for the redevelopment
of Block 17 . -11.e--further recommend that you recommend approval of
subdivision exception for the condominiumization of the two duplex
-structures. .
The following conditions are recommended:
1. The Engineering Department be consulted for determination
of location of curb cuts, trash areas , alley width, etc. prior
to submission of Preliminary Plat.
2 . A license be obtained for use of the alley as proposed.
3. The Aspen Fire Department submit assurance that the alley
proposal is adequate for emergency access.
4. Detailed reasons for the necessity of the requested height
variance be submitted for review at Preliminary Plat.
5 . Detailed landscaping plans be outlined as per Section 24-
8 .16 .
6. A specific design concept for the bus stop at 7th and Bleeker
be generated by the applicant and Transportation Director.
Page 5
/" ' The employee housing solution be submitted to and accepted
by the Housing Authority prior to the review of preliminary
plat.
A Statement of Subdivision Exception and Condominium Declara-
tions be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and
recordation.
9. The applicant must agree (as part of the Statement of Sub-
division Exception) to join future improvement districts
in the event they are formed.
10 . The three requirements of the Water Department be met.
11 . Adherence to all setback requirements as outlined by the
Building Department or detailed requests for variances
for review at Preliminary Plat.
\[
4
ZONING COMPLIANCE INFORMATION
R-6 PUD Allowable Actual
Floor Area Improvements 28440 28238
Set backs from lot lines sides 5 (min) 5
Minimum lot size - single family 6000 (min) 6000
Minimum lot size - duplex 9000
(min) 9000
Minimum front yard 10 (min) 25
Minimum rear yard 15 (min) 15
Curb cuts
-- 9
w
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JON DAVID SEIGLE OF COUNSEL
JAMES H. DELMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW JEFFREY H. SACHS
B. JOSEPH KRABACHER 201 NORTH MILL STREET
RICHARD J. DELACENSERIE• ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
NANCY J. DELACENSERIE• (303) 925-8700
'ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ONLY
February 21, 198 71
LFEB_221984
Alan Richman
City of Aspen Planning Department ASPEN / PITKN CO.
130 South Galena PLANNING OFFICE
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Agate Lodge Application
Dear Alan,
Please find enclosed twelve (12) site plans and typical
elevations for the proposed development of Lots A, B, C, D, E, F,
G, H, I, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S, Block 17, City and
Townsite of Aspen (Agate Lodge property) . I am also enclosing
twelve (12) surveys of the property.
You will notice that the enclosed site plans reflect a
significant departure from the earlier proposal which was
submitted to the Planning Office and the Planning & Zoning
Commission for their review. After considering the comments of
the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Planning Office and
looking closely at the neighborhood, Stevenson Building and
Design decided to approach the project in a more conventional
manner, i.e. developing single-family houses and duplexes on the
existing lots without a change in existing lot lines . This
approach will be more consistent with the residential nature of
the west end and would break up the massing of any clustered
project.
Each single-family residence would be located on two
existing townsite lots and each duplex would be located on three
existing townsite lots. All set backs and floor area ratios
would be in compliance with the underlying R-6 zone requirements.
The applicant proposes to do extensive landscaping of the site
which includes substantial landscaping to the alleyway. Unlike
almost any other block in town, the applicant will landscape the
alley and, as shown on the plan, intends to have a winding
roadway constructed either with brick pavers or, more likely,
with pressed concrete. Essentially this would be for interior
pedestrian traffic but would allow for emergency access by fire
vehicles as well as access for maintenance of any underground
utilities. It is contemplated that the trash will be handled by
each structure having concealed recessed container area. The
Alan Richman
Page Two
February 21 , 1984
applicant does not want to place dumpsters on the property as it
feels that that would be very unsightly given the extensive
landscaping that will be done. No trash would ever be placed on
the streets and the trash company would merely go to the recessed
concealed receptacles in each structure.
The applicant does not request any variation from the zoning
code required except for a height variance. The single-family
residence roofs are 32 feet high and the roofs on the duplexes
are 32 . 6 feet high.
There are 26 bedrooms in the project plus 10 rooms
designated as a "media room" . Conceivably these media rooms by
some other person could be utilized as a bedroom. If this were
the case , there would be 36 bedrooms in the project and the code
requires parking of one space per bedroom. Each unit has a
two-car garage and ten of the twelve units have additional
two-car parking in the driveways for a total of 44 spaces .
Further, the application contemplates a total of 9 curb
cuts . All curb cuts are in compliance with Section 19-101 of the
Code. These 9 curb cuts will be a reduction in the number of
existing curb cuts .
After giving due consideration to the constructive comments
of both the Planning Office and the Planning & Zoning Commission,
the applicant has determined that the development as contemplated
by the site plan is the most appropriate for this "gateway piece"
to Aspen. The visual impression of one entering Aspen of this
property will be that of a conventional west end neighborhood
rather than that of a "condominium complex" . As I indicated in
our initial letter of November 16 , 1983 , I think that the City is
presented with a rare opportunity in having Stevenson Building
and Design, one of America ' s premium builders and interior design
groups , be involved in the redevelopment of the Agate property.
Thank you very much for your assistance in processing this
application. I believe that the application as now submitted
fully complies with the requirements of Section 24-8. 1 et. seq.
I further believe that the applicant, given the explanations set
forth in this letter, has fully complied with the provisions of
Section 24-8 . 5 (i) in that the design concept as set forth in the
site plan is clearly within the intent and purposes of the PUD
process. I would appreciate it if you would please distribute
the enclosures for review as promptly as possible and schedule
this matter as quickly as your schedule permits.
Alan Richman
Page Three
February 21 , 1984
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed or require
any different information, please contact me immediately so that
we will not jeopardize any tentative schedules established.
Sincerely yours ,
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
By i
JDS/aop Jon David Seigle
Enclosures
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen , colorado 81611
303-925-2020
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: COLETTE PENNE, Planning Office
FROM: JIM HOLLAND, Director of Parks
DATE: November 30, 1983
RE: STEVENSON BLDG. CO. - REDEVELOPMENT OF AGATE PROPERTY
I am returning the Site Plan and the Property Survey with the following
comments. It will be necessary for you to look at those sheets in order
for you to determine to which tree or building I am referring. Since the
landscaping is only "conceptual" at this point of the submittal process, I
found it necessary to make a few assumptions as to which specific trees
might be affected by this development. There are a lot of beautiful ever-
greens on this property, and I appreciate the fact that this issue is
being brought out early in the process.
My comments will be directed at 7 trees in particular. The developer
should be able to transplant any of the other trees within the property
with a high degree of success.
A & B (SEE SITE PLAN)
These are two of the largest Spruce in town. They cannot
physically be transplanted, and chances are good that they'll
outlive all of us if we don't bother them. Given the fact
that they are not within the construction area, nor or they
prohibiting the owner from "economic enjoyment of the pro-
perty" [Sec. 13-76(d) (6)] , I can't think of any other justi-
fication for disturbing these two trees at all. According
to the Site Plan, it appears the designer agrees since they
are shown intact.
C
This 12" Pine also appears intact on the Site Plan. If it
were smaller and the designer wished to relocate it, I would
be more than happy to agree, even though it is in the public
R.O.W. . This tree is too close to the street and intersection,
but I don't think it would be worth the risk of losing it to
chance a transplanting.
D
This 14" Pine appears to be in the way of one of the conceptual
units. I wouldn't give it a 10% chance of survival during trans-
planting. Given the other number of nice trees on this property,
I would recommend designing around it if possible. If not, then
cut it down and replace it with comparable substitutes elsewhere
in the development.
E
This 20" Spruce is about as close to a perfect tree as you can
get. This is the classic example of a tree that one should
design structures around in order to preserve them. If you try
to move this tree, its chances of survival are minimal. I
would strongly recommend doing everything possible in order
to leave this tree undisturbed.
F
This 17" Spruce is a close runner-up to "E". It's a beautiful
tree also, which appears to fall into the conceptual construction
area of a unit. I would recommend first trying to design around
it. The best I'd give it on a transplant would be a 50/50
chance of survival. It would be a shame to lose a tree like this.
G
This 14" Spruce appears to fall within a unit also. While it
too would be better off, if it could be designed around, at
least its chances of survival after transplanting would
represent a marginally acceptable risk in my opinion.
Thanks.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering _A-
DATE: March 28 , 1984
RE: Stevenson Bldg. Co./Agate Lodge Conceptual
Subdivision/P. U.D.
My apologies for the tardiness of this reply.
Having reviewed the revised submission for conceptual subdivision
and P.U. D. approval for the Agate Lodge property, the Engineering
Department has the following comments :
1. The revised treatment of the alley is a significantly better
design than that suggested by the prior application. Subject
to approval by the Fire Department, it would appear that emergency
access could be maintained by the landscape and roadway plan.
The utility corridor is also maintained although access to
underground facilities would be complicated by the landscaping
and brick or concrete roadway. One suggestion might be that
the project be granted a license for the alley , much like the
one for the Aspen Alps on Ute Avenue, allowing them to landscape
and maintain the alley with a provision that the owner ' s would
be required to replace the landscaping or custom roadway in
the event a franchised utility needs to excavate to expose their
facilities.
2 . The reduction to nine curb cuts would also represent an
improvement although two of the cuts onto Hallam violate 19-101
(d) requiring twenty five feet between driveways.
3 . The applicants proposal with respect to trash facilities
is excellent in theory. It still requires access from the street
frontage for collection purposes, however , and subsequent prevention
of a proliferation of trash cans in driveways or on the street
may be difficult.
JH/co
Agate
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Stevenson Building Co. - Redevelopment of Agate Property
DATE: December 20, 1983
LOCATION: All of Block 17 , City and Townsite of Aspen
ZONING: R-6 PUD
Stevenson Building Company has made application for the redevelopment
of all of Block 17 (which currently is the Agate Lodge) . A conceptual
site plan was submitted to our office which proposed the construction
of six duplex structures in place of the existing units. The Engineer-
ing Department and Parks Department had substantial objections to the
placement of structures, and upon recommendation of the Planning Office
the applicant is re-designing the site plan. Several options are being
considered concerning number and configuration of structures .
Some 24 units make up the Agate Lodge, 8 of which are found in the
Lodge building. All units have been used for long-term rental in
the recent past. Five units (for a total of 11 bedrooms) fall within
employee housing price guidelines. It appears from our discussions
with the applicant' s representatives that the maximum number of units
they will construct will be 12 and they have met with the Housing
Authority to explore options for meeting employee housing provisions.
Other pertinent information for your consideration is that several
very significant trees exist on the property which we would hope to
see preserved, and the alley has not been vacated possibly limiting
the applicant' s design flexibility. This entire block is a mandatory
PUD, which will allow some flexibility in site design.
Since time for conceptual PUD review was scheduled on this agenda, the
applicants want to make a brief presentation and ask you to voice
preliminary concerns and thoughts to incorporate in their planning.
Given the very sensitive nature of this property and its influence on
the perceptions of visitors and residents of the entrance to Aspen,
we ask that you aid the applicant in developing a project which will
be of benefit to the community.
MEMORANDUM
TO: qty Attorney, Paul Taddune
City Engineering Dept. , Jay Hammond
,,Housing Director, Jim Adamski
ASpen Water Dept. , Jim Markalunas
`, As en Consolidated Sanitation District, Heiko Kuhne
.„-Parks Department, Jim Holland
Chief, Steve Crocket
uilding Department, Bill Drueding
Transportation Dept. , Greg Fitzpatrick
FROM: Janet Weinstein, Planning Office
RE: Stevenson Bldg. Co./Agate Lodge - Subdivision/PUD Conceptual
DATE: February 28 , 1984
Enclosed for your review is a resubmission made by Jon Seigle on be-
half of his client Stevenson Building Company for the reconstruction
of the Agate Lodge property (Conceptual Subdivision/PUD Submission) .
This resubmission is significantly different from the one you reviewed
previously and this office would appreciate it if you could please
conduct a thorough review of the new materials and return your revised
comments to Colette Penne no later than March 20, 1984 , in order to
give Colette adequate time to prepare for this case ' s presentation
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on April 3 , 1984 .
Thank you.
CITY OF 4 :ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colored-o 81611
303-925-2020
TO: City Planning Office - Colette Penne
FROM: City Transportation Director - Duane A. Fengel
DATE: November 22, 1983
SUBJ: Agate Property Redevelopment
The location of this development happens to incorporate a bus stop
location that both the City and County have utilized over the years.
If it is possible, I would recommend a bus shelter be constructed
on 7th Street - east side - approximately 75' north of Bleeker.
Thank you for your consideration, and the information on this
development.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601 Tele. (303) 925-2537
—r74 tLdA4.r_ ertoTrcr CA•1- fie rA !3 y TNr=
C. -Sta'-, , i-s SA .- t YRTto r, l'/ ST.ei t r l- t T/{ DI+R_
Si i s 1.4-0Nr/ .a.._.
F THE /�0e 4 P a t r /3 v/a i►..s 4-'��� /4#4,-p..! /3/'� s -r ..r J ,�.. �-,�a•y
E gs. w r�� /`-eel 7-0 a c-tc&
TIe �.�-rte
#4. /rr- / $- '. 1 rE 5/4 o / rhi /s Ara.a.q
pitkin county
506 east main street
aspen, colorado 61611
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: James L. Adamski, Director of Housing
DATE: December 7, 1983
RE: Stevenson Building Co. - Redevelopment of Agate Property
NAME OF APPLICANT:
Stevenson Building and Development Company of Colorado
NAME OF PROJECT:
Redevelopment of Agate Property
NATURE OF THE PROJECT:
The Agate Property (owned by Butch Clark) has 24 units on it,
five of which fall within our present employee guidelines.
The applicant intends to develop the property with six
condominiumized duplex structures consisting of twelve free
market units.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING STOCK:
The owner (C. M. Clark) presented an affidavit, dated
November 8, 1983 , stating that the property unit description
consists of 24 units ranging in bedroom size from studios
to four (4) bedroom units. Of these twenty-four units, five
fall within the present employee housing guidelines. These
five units in total account for 11 bedrooms.
Housing Authority
December 7, 1983
Page Two
HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION
It is the Housing Authority' s recommendation that the
Stevenson Building Company application be conditionally
approved based on the following conditions:
1. That the developer under the condominiumization require-
ment, provide 11 bedrooms of middle income, deed restricted,
rental units in a manner consistent with the Aspen/Pitkin
County employee guidelines.
2 . The applicant will file the deed restriction with the
City Clerk and Recorder' s Office prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
A f `
,
0 1983 • a
PLANNING OFFICE,,'
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: JANET WEINSTEIN, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS /
DATE: MARCH 2, 1984
RE: STEVENSON BLDG. CO./AGATE LODGE
We have reviewed this application and see no problems in the City supplying
this project with water as there are existing buildings on the property
which are presently supplied with Aspen water. By copy of this memo we are
advising the applicant of our requirements concerning the existing service
to this property. They are:
1. Application and permit of necessary tap fees for any new
construction.
2. Disconnection of any abandoned services at the main.
3. We will require individual service and meter for each single
family home and/or duplex.
If you have any questions concerning this, please don't hesitate to contact
us.
JM:lf
cc: Jon David Seigle, Sachs, Klein & Seigle
-0- 5TifFa s
1i11 DEC 0 { 1983 1 1q
Aspen Volunteer Fire Department U '' -
Plans Check Committee ASPEN / H-K t°.
\ PLANKING OFFICE
December 5, 1983
Planning Office
Pitkin County
Aspen, CO 81611
Attn: Colette Penne
Re: Stevenson Building Company
Redevelopment of Agate Property
Persuant to the 1979 Uniform Fire Code, no deviations were determined with your
project as outlined.
Please note however, firefighter and apparatus access to the center of the
block as developed and landscaped per your plans will be extremely difficult when
compounded by winter conditions.
Thank you very much for your solicitation. _
Sincere , - �/ r ��
Darryl A/ ob
Paul R Hamwi
Steve Prudden
/ 7 -
3
? l
C"'
t
.D
! ri
MEMORANDUM .7: 1
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Dept. MAR 12 V U
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Loll nCE
DATE: March 8 , 1984
RE: Agate Lodge
Section 24-3 . 7 (f) (3) reads , "Corner Lots . On a lot bordered on two (2)
sides by intersecting streets , the owner shall have a choice as to
which yard shall be considered as the front yard, such yard to meet
minimum setbacks for a front yard in that district. The remaining
yard bordering a street may be reduced by one-third of the required
front yard setback distance for the district. "
Section 24-3 . 7 (f) (6) reads , "Yards adjacent to arterial roadways.
On a lot bordered by a designated arterial roadway, the minimum
front yard setback distance for the district shall be applied to the
portion of the lot adjacent to the arterial roadway, regardless of
building orientation. Where a lot is bordered on two (2) sides by
intersecting arterial roadways , the provisions listed under the corner
lot situation shall apply. "
The applicant indicates 5 ft. "setbacks from lot line sides" .
Considering the above code sections , the R-6 zoning would require
that 7th Street and 6th Street have a 10 ft. setback while Hallam
Street and Bleeker Street maintain a 6-2/3 ft. setbacks .
If the alley is not vacated the rear yard setback would, in an R-6
zone , be 15 ft. This would include an encroachment of swimming
pools.
The media rooms , containing closets and light and ventilation, would
be considered bedrooms by the Building Department and this application
should reflect that when it concerns parking.
WD/ar
cc: Pasty Newbury, Zoning Official
Jim Wilson, Building Official
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen , colorado 81611
September 29, 1983
Mr. Jon Seigle .
Sachs, Klein and Seigle
201 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Jon,
This letter is in response to your letter to me concerning the possible
reconstruction of the Agate Lodge . The property you refer to is zoned R-6
and contains an indeterminant number of long term units in a multifamily
configuration. The use is nonconforming in the R-6 zone district.
For me to identify for you the processing requirements for rebuilding the
units, I would need to know exactly the type of units you propose to construct.
The R-6 zone permits the construction of single family and duplex units .
Should you choose to build such units no rezoning of your property would be
necessary, although you would need to comply fully with the subdivision regula-
tion to create the desired number of lots .
Should your client wish to build units in a multifamily configuration, it will
be necessary for you to rezone the property to RMF. Private applications for
rezoning are only accepted on February 15 and August 15 of each year.
Should your client wish to build units in a row house or townhouse configura-
tion, it may only be necessary for you to rezone the property to R-6/PUD. I
refer you to Section 24-8.13(b) of the Code which reads as follows :
" (b) In mandatory PUD districts there shall be encouraged the
clustering of buildings and row houses may be authorized.
However, nothing herein shall be construed to permit the
construction of multifamily or apartment houses unless
otherwise permitted by the applicable zone district."
Given the nature of the property in question, I feel confident that the Planning
Office would encourage the use of PUD to cluster buildings , preserve open space
and achieve desired site design considerations . Therefore, it is likely that
we would permit you to apply under the provisions of conceptual PUD and, if the
project was found to be acceptable by P&Z and Council , to proceed with the
actual R-6/PUD rezoning at preliminary and final plat. '
Letter: Mr. Jon Seigle
September 29, 1983
Page Two
I suggest that you continue to work with the Building Department to verify
the number of existing units on the property for purposes of GMP exemption
and that you involve the Planning Office when you have completed an accurate
count. I also suggest that when you have decided on your design and are
clear on the details of your proposal , you call us to set up a pre-applica-
tion conference.
Please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions .
Sincerely,
Alan Richman, Assistant Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
AR:klm
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE
JEFFREY H. SACHS 1303) 925-8700
HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JON DAVID SEIGLE 201 NORTH MILL STREET
JAMES H. DELMAN ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
RICHARD J. DELACENSERIE'
NANCY J. DELACENSERIE• September 26 , 1983
'ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ONLY
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning Department City of Aspen
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Stephen Chefan/Agate Lodge
Dear Alan:
This firm represents Stephen Chefan who has a contract to
purchase the Agate Lodge which is more specifically described as
Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I , K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S,
Block 17 , City and Townsite of Aspen.
It is Mr. Chefan' s intention to tear down the existing
improvements and renovate the property with multi-family units ,
either in a townhouse, condominium, or duplex configuration.
Based upon our telephone conversation today, without respect to
the number of units that will be developed by my client, it is my
understanding that it is your office' s position that any
development will require full compliance with the subdivision
regulations. I would appreciate a confirmation of our telephone
conversation regarding the appropriate procedure for the
redevelopment of the property. Also, I am presently working with
the Building Department for confirmation of the number of
existing units and also will provide you with a tenant survey for
purposes of the compliance with the condominiumization ordinance.
Your response to this letter will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
By
David Seigle
JDS/nlw
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Planning .Department
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer i;,.A�
DATE: December 5, 1983
•
RE: Stevenson Building Agate . Lodge Conversion •
We realize this is a .P .U..D. project and, therefore , variances
of height , setbacks , etc . , are to be considered by P&Z . •
1 ) Letter of November 16 , 1983 , page 2 1 . Setback Requirements .
Section 24-3 . 7 (6)
I feel that 7th Street is required to be a 10 ' setback as a designated
arterial roadways for setback purposes only as stated, "regardless
of building orientation. " The front setback should still be
determined. by building orientation and access. It would appear
to me that Hallam and Bleeker are the frontyards, requiring that
the alley be a rearyard setback of 15 ' , not 6th Street.
Section 24-3 . 7 (3 )
•
In, this particular situation either Hallam and Sleeker Streets would be
6 2/3 ' setback, not 5 ' .as indicated in the proposal because of. the
corner lots . Sixth Street would be required 10 ' .
It is my understanding that Section 24-3 . 7 (3) and Section 24-3 . 7 (6 )
are written to allow building setback from corner for purpose of
driver visibility, not to determine which are frontyards for the
purpose of building orientation or to take advantage of a ,
more desirable rearyard setback.
•
2 ) Parking and Bedroom •
•
In reviewing the preliminary plan supplied by idle applicant, Models
D & B both show "Den which contains' closets baths ,- light ' and
ventilation and egress . The, building. department would consider
this configuration as that of a bedroom. ' The applicant, therefore,
has four additional bedrooms: requiring four more 'parking places .
3 ) Have we considered existing bedroom count versus added bedrooms
for park dedication fee purposes?
4 ) The "amenities building" 'by the pool appears to show a 3 ' and a
5 ' distance between principal buildings . . The R-6 code requires 10 '
between accessory and principal building.
5.) In scaling the renderings provided, it appears the height variance .
needed may actually be between 3 ' and 5 ' , not 3 ' . The, required height
on an R-6 lot is 25 ' as per definition.
cc : Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official ``
Jim Wilson, Building Official
•
Paul Taddune , City Attorney
BD/ar
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering —
DATE: December 6, 1983
RE: Stevenson Building Co. - Redevelopment of the
Agate
Having reviewed the above application, and made a site
inspection, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
The proposed redevelopment of the Agate property suggests six
duplex structures over the entire block. This conceptual
subdivision and P.U.D. application would require vacation of
the City alley within the block as well as creation of some
15 curb cuts from adjacent streets. The City Engineering
Department would not support the vacation request nor would
it support the current site plan for the following reasons:
1. Extensive landscaping of the vacated alley would
preclude fire or emergency access to the interior
of the site.
2 . Landscaping and improvements in the vacated alley
would make normal access to utility lines within
the alignment extremely difficult if not impossible.
3. T1e15 curb cuts proposed from adjacent streets
would eliminate substantial amounts of on-street
parking and several of the cuts would violate code
section 19-101 (d) requiring a minimum 25 feet between
driveways.
It is generally our policy to evaluate vacations on a case by
case basis with particular attention to how the site plan
serves to improve area circulation or otherwise compensates
for the rights being vacated. We do not generally support
vacation requests for developments that do not provide good
circulation alternatives or good utility corridors . In this
case it would appear that the vacation is intended to
accommodate the bulk of the proposed structures by pushing
all access, trash, and utility requirements onto the adjacent
streets.
JH/co
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, Colorado 81611
303-925-2020
WATER DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: COLETTE PENNE, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
DATE: NOVEMBER 29, 1983
RE: REDEVELOPMENT OF AGATE PROPERTY - STEVENSON BUILDING CO.
We have received the Stevenson application pertinent to the redevelopment
of the Agate property. Since the property is presently serviced by the
Aspen Water Department and located within the City of Aspen, water will be
available to the new development upon application and payment of any fees
required as prescribed by ordinance. Should the new development require
new service lines, it is the policy of the Water Department to require aban-
donment of the old service lines at the point of attachment to the main
prior to connection of the new services.
JM:lf
7/1'
� ! rye 7177 ._.
! I i
l ' 1
r
iv / i- i tN CO.
PLANNING OFFICE
. ,
I'
'77,':7.717,r7c.74777nr., •
• iUtj• _ ! ...!'';' Yi'7 ,i ;•. !II,.
H ' 1
... ..r 1. , ,.. , . . .
-.. , i H
', .' --)1
.1 il' Wi CO.
FLWN;NG OFFICE
t -.::.
..:7:. [. .. ...,7 ,...., . .... . . . . . . . .._... :. . . .:... ., ...._...... ._
- Re(juilLc: 1AcAing Planning. a.i(i, Zoilii; ec: 101:1 7. .. :. ,EC .W,11:. 20 , -.1 ..
Chairman. Perry. Parvey called. the meetHnq Le order at 5 : 05 with David White,
Paul Sheldon, Wolton Anderson aaem:ine Tye.,::c and Roger flunk present .
Commissioner Karen Smiih , representjni. tho Asper, Chance subdivision , f.3D.:Li
Comments this is on The agenda for J.hluary 3 , and they woula like to
have P & Z come i.e a site -; :isparifien at 4 : 1'5 at ute avenue
and Aspen Alps no ad. Pls . Sitlith said they will have the
p.J.operty staked out so teL CeffnS`L;i6fl can see what is
relative to their review.
Minutes Ms . Tygre moved to approve the uijiiL of Nuember 22 , 1983
seconded by White , All in 2,.yor , mrytion carried.
Stevenson
Building Co .
Redevelopment Colette Penne , planning office, said this is a conceptual PL...
of Agate and subdivision review. When. the site plan was submitted,
Property the engineering departmenr had problems with it . The aprdi-
cants would like to readdress the site plane At this meetin,
they would like to introduce themselYes and talk about their
plan, essentially a pre-appl.ication conforenoe . Ms . Penne
said the plan is to level the Agate lodge of 24 units , 8
of which are in the lodge . There are 12 units that can be
verified , and the applicants plan is to build six duplexes .
There are. some concerns with this block , the alley is not
vacated throughent the block . There are large trees on the
property that will have to be dealt with, and. the six duple::e
. will exceed the FAR.
Walt Wanicke presented a booklet of other projects their
company has done. The approach is to build and offer turnke7
fully furnished houses for living. Warnicke said they would
• like to discuss this site with P & Z because it is on the
entrance to Aspen . Ms . Penne said when the conceptual plan
was done , the applicant was operating with the set back of
R-6 zone , not realizing in a PUL) they could be varied. The
staff feels the plans can be changed. The engineering depayt
meat has problems with the curb cuts and with the vacation
of the alley.
Harvey asked the size of the property. Jon Siegle said it in
54 ,000 square feet not including the alley. Siegle said they
anticipate an FAR of 31 , 200 square feet. Siegle said the
applicant is acknowledging displacing employee bedrooms and
is committed to replacing these bedrooms in the community
but not on site ; The expenses of doing that is tied into the
concept of having 31 , 200 square feet. These will be 12 free
market units . The applicant will replace 11 bedrooms , not
units .
Ms . Penne said if the alley is vacated, probably the square
footage would go into the project area. Hunt said these are
residential units , and the applicant would have to present
good arguments for vacating the alley, like how the trash.
will be removed . Hunt said he is not disposed to giving up
alleys , especially from a. service view point . Siegle said
he looked into why this has been zoned PUD and one reason
may be the view plane coming into Aspen.
Ms . Penne said the applicant would like some reaction to
removing the trees or designing around them, and the questici
of excess FAR, should it be lenient because of the IbiD.
Harvey said he would like the trees preserved, if possible ,
and the plan designed around the existing. trees . Sheldon
agreed it is easy to build a building and hard. ..ta build a
tree .
hoggiar Meeting Planning and Zenina demdsnlon Deegher 20 , 1983
Hunt said he dii( ndt noe anv edyantage to the city in havin•
si gupleis w: th a 1,Hgep fhnh dvofage Inad and ine applign
J s not pul....f• g an ce;Jdloige innin.Hig on sie . Hunf said he
J s not te1 il*2 disgeHed fo an ihofeased 1:idH Siegig said
with Lhe eilejog hohssg• reghLAtons and the dost of doifg
btnsiness in 2\ 1 , the agJicanL feels in ..:)rder fo do this
I roject and 21: et. the employee housi.-ng ocidd,scilont , they ned.
the efra sdnafa fotage. iegdo. naid L'h, rn i.J.:.c! :-)111 ai(j1)
consigerations which. chHaate tne
Harvey pointed cub the TA.T nreline was written. bec.eJnse of
th perceived. Ika5sing or duple7 and single family dwollind -•
Harvey said. he ides no hnow if the hispilieant d,an deal with
the perceived size , or can. deal with the so that they do 'non
lock like mammoth buildings . Hal.vcd,: said he is not inclined
to say right id,,,T tne coision will vary the IJ'ARd The I-'AR
is a way to control the visual impact. Harvey said. if the
applicant can handle the visual lindact, he would be wii] ] ing
to lock at it . Siegle said. with the square footage and the
PUD, the applieat can mitigate the visual massing .
Sheldon asked the height lirroitation . Ms . Penne said it is
25 to 28 feet . One of the c..,1plicants said the highest ridge
is 3 1-32 feet . Sheldon. asked if they planned to underground
. • the utilities . Warnicke answered yes , Anderson. pointed ouf
a PUP designation is nof meant as a benefit for the property
owner but to a], low the P & Z to say there are reasons certain
things should be varied if there is a benefit to the entire
community. Anderson said he would he to increase the
FAR just because this is a PUP. Anderson said he would like
- to reduce the number of curb cuts wherever possible. Anderso:
said he would. like the trash access to be handled on site.
Warnicke said the only feedback they have received on the
alley is about access for fire fighting equipment . Ms . Penne
pointed out the engineering department has objected to 15
curb cuts . One of the applicants pointed out there are only
six. Sheldon said the alley is also right of way for pedes-
trian traffic. In the West End there are no sidewalks and
people use the alleys . Sheldon said he would like some
pedestrian way through this alley.
White said he is not real disposed to increasing the FAR.
White said he would like to see something aesthetic at the
entrance to town, and would not like to see six buildings
all the same . White would like to see what the city would
get from the street vacation, and doe's not generally favor
street vacation_ White said he would like to keep the trees
- • as much as possible. Siegle said one of the suggestions
was to see how the Commission felt about rezoning this parcel
to R/MF to allow the square footage they need.
• Anderson said under PUD, there can be different configuration:
clusters or row houses without rezoning. Anderson said rezon-
ing to R/MF would not get very far . Sheldon asked what is
the allowable FAR. Ms . Penne said 27 , 000 square feet and
the applicant is asking for 4 , 000 above that . Warnicke said
they have tried many ways to cut the size down, and losing
square footage means losing the project. Warnicke said if
the applicant cooperates in every other way, saving trees,
moving buildings , keeping the alley open, elevation changes ,
do they stand a chance of increasing the FAR.
Anderson said he is 60 per cent: keeping the underlying FAR,
and /10 per cent to see if somothing creative can be duveloped
to mitigate the project. Ms . Tygre said she is 1.00 per cent
opposed to increasing the PAR. The P & Z worked hard. on a
response to the community that people did not want to see
n cj i1 1 h t.1 _� Plan sine . t ) l. i December 0 , 198
. _ . L ..
houses tit, loo bed too big for the rte . The coo unI :y
wanted smuller houseo and more 1 ai, : ca uing i_.:�+<_ T said
. .t rgr:. aC i
t. iC_ t ix i ,:c:f,G to a COL of work on the VAR and unless the
applicant can. show. av ,"helmiug reasons h these
should be this size , `bP will not. support it . Mr. `_Cygre
noted this s i t o is at the entrance to Aspen, and she would
L i_!;<'. the project smaller ,
Ilse,- said he is )S per cent for using the underlying. zone
y,.
rX.L`ill".1.C. �. > >J:!, There is a slight chance they can. come up
with good arguments . Hunt. said. if t;Ilr'. acquisition costs nrc
too high,h t.l:�.� project. should no be done White said. he :i
75 C�,7
15 to U0 per cent t against n changing. the• FAR. Sheldon. agreed
,
with Jasmine and said he feels very strongly about this .
If the price of land is too high , it will come down some
time . Sheldon said this project high , too big and
too dense.
Harvey said the 1? & Z are not economic arbitrators in this
community for profits of a project . Harvey said anything_
oi that site would be an improvement Vc _
the Agate . Harvey
said he would like to see the proper .y redeveloped. Harvey
s ,
.��� 0 there is a public hearing- process for this for the
applicant to answer the net hbcrs and the P & Z ' s concerns .
Zia r•, ey said he could not see that. 250 square feet per unit
will break the project .
Andrews/Pletts
Stream Margin .
Review and Colette Penile, plann:nC office, said there are two requests
Commercial CMP herein; stream margin review and GH.P exemption. The buildings
Exemption are in the S/c/_C and are requesting accessory units . Ms .
Pletts is requesting an increased green house adding 731/2
square feet to the interior space. Ms. Penne said this will
be an artist ' s studio, and the applicant feels they need
the light . It does increase the FAR and the possibility of
this being commercial square footage increased by 131/2.
Ms . Penne. showed the Commission the proposed green house
window. There is a loft illegally placed which the applicant
proposed to rip out and replace. Ms . Penne said the decks
. . do not count in FAR but are important to the stream margin
review. Ms . Penne said she had just received the final
product and final numbers . The total exuansion. of 274 . 23
square feet is the green house, loft and new stairway. The
. staff is putting this through the commercial GMP because
there is a chance it could be converted to commercial square
footage . The staff is recommending approval of this request.
•
• In terms of the stream maraing review, there are three decks
being added. The staff does not feel there is any effect on
the stream. The decks are on the second story and on the
side of the building nearer the park than the stream. Tom
Crews , architect for the applicant, showed plans , showed the
river bank . One deck has been constructed and is supported
from the ground with a 6 by 6 on a concrete foundation. The
deck on the east side of the building would. be of similar
construction, and the other ,deck would he cantilevered from
the second floor so that there is nothing going into the
ground.
Hunt asked about the location of the river channel . Crews
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks Department
City Engineer
Housing Office
City Attorney
City Water Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Chief
Building Department
Transportation Department
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Stevenson Building Co. - Redevelopment of Agate Property
DATE: November 18 , 1983
Attached is material submitted by Jon Seigle on behalf of Stevenson
Building and Development Company of Colorado for the redevelopment
of the property on which the Agate Lodge is located (corner of
Bleeker and 7th Streets) . The Planning Office would like comments
from you and specifically would like your comments with regard to
the following in addition to you general comments:
PARKS - A detailed look at the Conceptual Landscape Plan to help
determine the feasibility of transplanting mature trees to this site.
ENGINEERING - Specifically address the vacation of the alley, whether
or not the alley has already been vacated, and if not, the advisability
of doing so.
HOUSING - A recommendation on deed restricting a specific percentage
of units based on the requirements of Section 20-22 of the City Code.
TRANSPORTATION - Is there a need for any particular mass transit
facilities on-site, i.e. , bus shelters.
This case goes before the Planning and Zoning Commission on December
20, 1983 . In view of the complexity of this case, we would appreciate
receiving your comments no later than December 5 , 1983 , in order
for this Office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation.
Thank you.
.5 e-g. "P/i/c t' ° 9)c f/L-E - OF /W iz' AK/47-/=-
oCOGSlti/
�� b(� n-rt- r�
COMBINED APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION AND PUD
Applicant ' s Name: Stevenson Building and Development
Company of Colorado
Name : C. M. Clark
Applicant' s Attorney: Jon David Seigle, Sachs , Klein & Seigle,
201 N. Mill , Suite 201 , Aspen, Colorado
81611
Applicant' s Architect: John Payne, 2170 S.E. 17th Street,
Suite 207 , Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316
David Finholm, 0023 Pacific Avenue,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Property Description: A development consisting of six duplex
townhouses located on Lots A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R,
and S, Block 17 , City and Townsite of
Aspen
Present Zoning: Planned Unit Development Overlay, R-6
Present Improvements : Eight lodge units , sixteen multi-family
units , one garage and storage building
t
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The property that is the subject matter of this application
is one of the most unique properties in Aspen. The uniqueness of
this property is evidenced by the special attention that City
Council has given it by its designation as a mandatory planned
unit development overlay district. For unlike most other
mandatory planned unit development overlay districts, it has not
been so designated because of any topographical or other
developmental problem, but rather because this property
represents Aspen' s "first impression" to those entering the City.
The property is bounded by Sixth Street, Hallam Street, Seventh
Street and Bleeker Street. The property is presently known as
the Agate Lodge. This application contemplates the total and
complete demolition of every one of the existing fourteen
buildings on the property.
Applicant is a Colorado corporation which is headed by Mr.
Stephen Chefan. Mr. Chefan is a nationally recognized builder
from Florida who has been a summer visitor to Aspen for the last
six years. Mr. Chefan is known for the high quality of his
projects, both from a land use perspective and from an aesthetic
perspective. Applicant intends to develop the property with six
condominiumized duplex structures consisting of twelve free
market units. The thrust of this project, beside its tasteful
design, will be its landscaping to mirror the landscaping of the
Villas of Aspen. This will result in an understated first
impression of Aspen. A unique property such as Block 17 ,
requires a unique development. Applicant feels that his proposal
is consistent with the uniqueness of the property and the City of
Aspen.
Accompanying Material :
Exhibit 1. City Map, scale 1" = 400 showing project location,
all adjacent lands owned by or under option to subdivide are
commonly known landmarks and zoning on and adjacent to property.
(Requirement 20-10 (b) (1) and 24-8 . 7 (a) )
Exhibit 2. Sketch plan of proposed development showing property
boundaries, predominant existing site characteristics , public use
areas and existing and proposed land use patterns, including
street system of both the tract proposed for development and
adjacent land. (Requirement 20-10 (b) (2) and 24-8. 7 (a) )
Exhibit 3. Tabulation of data for the development listing:
Proposed name , acreage, number, size and type of proposed lots,
structures and/or units and the development' s total projected
population. Requirement 20-10 (b) (3) and 24-8 . 7 (a) )
Exhibit 4 . Disclosure of ownership listing the names of all
owners of the property described in the sketch plan including all
mortgages , judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
of record affecting the property covered by such plan.
(Requirement 20-10 (b) (4) and 24-8. 7 (a) )
Exhibit 5. General landscaping plan and elevation (Requirement
24-8. 7 (e) )
Exhibit 6. Statement of intention with reference to future
ownership of all portions of the planned unit development.
(Requirement 24-8. 7 (c) ) : The project will consist of six
condominiumized duplexes . The common areas will be owned and
maintained by a condominium association.
-2-
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
JEFFREY H. SACHS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE
HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW (303) 925-8700
JON DAVID SEIGLE
201 NORTH MILL STREET
JAMES H. DELMAN ASPEN. COLORADO 61611
B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
RICHARD J. DELACENSERIE'
NANCY J. DELACENSERIE• November 16 , 19 8 3
'ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ONLY
Alan Richman HAND DELIVERED
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Agate Lodge Conversion
Dear Alan:
Pursuant to our discussion of a few days ago, the following
information is submitted to supplement our land use application
on behalf of Stevenson Building and Development Company of
Colorado.
You have requested additional information to satisfy Section
24-8 . 1 of the City Code - Planned Unit Development (PUD) .
Section 24-8 . 2 - PUD Design Approaches. The project will
utilize a combination of several of the design approaches set
forth in this section including "Averaged Lot Area" . The project
is a condominium project with common areas and does not envision
separate and distinct lots. This approach is particularly
appropriate due to the blend of densities in this neighborhood.
Across the street from the project is a multi-family apartment
building containing condominiumized apartment units. This
massive structure is not compatible with any of the existing
buildings in the neighborhood, however, it does exist and creates
visual impact. Diagonally across from the proposed project is
the forest service building having a very low profile and sparse
landscaping. Directly across Seventh Street is the Aspen Villas
with significant landscaping and clustered multi-family
condominium apartments.
The applicant proposes to locate the buildings to be
constructed on the site in a manner which provides open space
within the project and large setback areas along Seventh Street.
A review of the site plan indicates a 25 foot setback from
Seventh Street where the zoning code only requires 10 feet (front
yard) . It is within this 25 foot area that the applicant intends
to provide significant landscaping in order to beautify and
enhance the "Gateway to Aspen" . Under current zoning, the
applicant could have created a much more intense massing of
building areas which would have been compatible with the
multi-family apartment house across Hallam Street but would not
have been compatible with the applicant' s aesthetic values for a
beautiful entry to the city.
Alan Richman
• November 16 , 198_
Page 2
The PUD will also utilize the Architectural Cluster in order
to allow the use of interior courts and common areas while
condominiumizing to provide separate ownership of the units. The
variations from the zoning code requirements requested by this
project and a brief discussion of those which are not requested
is as follows :
1 . Setback requirements. The applicant requests a zero
lot line setback variation for the side yard lot lines of
contiguous lots within Block 17 in order to cluster the proposed
buildings. Otherwise, the applicant does not request any
setback variations. In fact, the applicant will exceed existing
setbacks for this district. According to the code, Seventh
Street, as an arterial roadway, is treated as a front yard
requiring a 10 foot setback. The applicant' s site plan indicates
a 25 foot setback. The Sixth Street side of the project will be
the rear yard requiring a 15 foot setback with the site plan
indicating a 20 foot setback. Side yards (abutting Bleeker
Street and Hallam Street) are only required to have 5 feet of
setback with the site plan indicating 15 to 20 foot setbacks.
The applicant' s reduction of distance between the structures and
the zero lot lines will permit additional landscaping to be
utilized together with architecturally designed placement of the
buildings in order to improve the overall views and amenities of
the project.
2 . Distance Between Buildings. The applicant does request
a variance in code requirements for distances between two of the
buildings. There is approximately 8 feet between each of these
buildings which results in a 4 foot separation measured from an
imaginary center line between the 8 foot distance. This is
necessary in order to accommodate the architectural cluster of
the project.
3 . Parking. The applicant does not seek a parking
variation due to the following parking plan. The plan indicates
26 bedrooms with the code requiring parking of one space per
bedroom. Two indoor garage spaces per unit will be provided plus
apron parking for an additional two cars per unit. It is also
anticipated that approximately 7 additional outdoor parking
spaces will be disbursed throughout the project. Therefore,
parking will be provided well in excess of current code
requirements. The applicant has the ability to provide
additional parking over the excess presently planned, however, to
do so would reduce usable common areas and landscaped open space.
4 . Height Variation. The applicant requests a height
variance of approximately three feet. This is necessary to
accomplish the architectural cluster and provide additional open
space which would not otherwise be available if the buildings
were required to be spread out at a lower elevation. The
landscaping plan and existence of mature trees on the property
together with the architectural design of the rooflines will not
result in any adverse visual effects as a result of this height
variance.
• Alan Richman
November 16 , 198.,
Page 3
5 . Floor area ratio. The applicant requires a variation
from the floor area ratio limitations in order to construct an
additional 3 , 000 feet disbursed throughout the entire project.
On a unit by unit basis, this only results in approximately 250
square feet over the permitted FAR for each unit. The FAR
variance is necessary in order to permit the applicant to develop
the project according to his well established and nationally
recognized design criteria. The applicant has successfully
developed properties in other parts of the country winning
national acclaim for his unique concept. Every room in the
project has a distinct function and purpose. Although we are
seeking only 250 square feet over the allowable FAR, this 250
square feet is an integral requirement of the overall design
concept. The applicant provides fully furnished living units
including linens, silverware, a fully stocked wine room,
televisions, stereos and even a stocked kitchen and pantry at the
time of purchase. All a buyer need do is bring their toothbrush
in order to move into the unit. Therefore, the additional 250
square feet is not 'needed merely to build a larger room that may
or may not be fully utilized by the ultimate purchaser or to reap
additional per foot profits for the developer, but rather to
complete a design and use concept that is totally new to Aspen
and one which will provide a unique and very attractive life
style for its occupants.
The applicant has carefully analyzed the design
possibilities and has determined that in the absence of the
additional square footage, the project will not fit within his
design requirements and, therefore, the City may well lose this
rare opportunity to have a high quality developer share his
expertise with our community and provide a superior project which
will enhance the entrance to Aspen and eliminate an unsightly and
deteriorating existing development. The applicant believes that
the removal of the Agate Lodge facilities and their replacement
with a beautiful and sensitive project will do more than visually
enhance the entrance to Aspen, it will also provide a new concept
in residential living amenities to our community. We believe
that the compromise of this nominal square footage through a
floor area ratio variation is well justified by the benefits to
the community.
The general provisions of Section 24-8 . 5 (i) require the
applicant show the reasonableness of his application and its
compliance with the intent and purposes of PUD. Based upon the
foregoing, it is self-evident that the design concept of this
application is clearly within the intent and purposes of a PUD.
The only adverse effect related to this project is if it is not
approved by the City and the Agate Lodge remains in its present
condition. All other impacts of this development are carefully
and totally mitigated and the ultimate result will be a
significant enhancement and improvement to the "Gateway to
Aspen" .
Alan Richman
November 16 , 198.)
Page 4
You have requested information concerning the alley running
through the project between Bleeker Street and Hallam Street. At
the present time the applicant has been unable to determine from
the engineering department whether or not this alley has been
vacated. If the alley has been vacated then this issue is
totally resolved, however, if the alley has not been vacated the
applicant would request as part of this application the vacation
of the alley with the applicant' s granting of necessary utility
easements to the extent such services are presently located
within the alley or are anticipated. The applicant will provide
additional information concerning the status of the alley as soon
as it is available from the engineering department.
Under separate cover, the project architect is providing a
cross section visual elevation of the project as it will appear
to someone entering the City.
Thank you very much for your assistance in processing this
application. I look forward to our presentation before the
Planning and Zoning Commission on December 20 , 1983. Would you
kindly schedule approximately one hour for the presentation as
representatives for the applicant expect to provide information
to the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning the applicant' s
background and examples of his other projects so that they will
be better able to evaluate this particular developer' s likely
ability to construct the project as represented and in a manner
which will benefit the entire community.
If you have any questions concerning the enclosed or require
additional information, please contact me immediately so that we
will not jeopardize our scheduling.
Very truly yours,
SACHS , KLEIN & SEI6LE
By:
Herbert! S. Klein
HSK:bsr
cc:Lou Scholnik
BUILDING SITES 54000 SF
ALLEY EASEMENT 5580 SF
TOTAL LAND AREA 59580 SF (100%)
UNITS
A B C D
6 Units 2 Units 2 Units 2 Units
1st Floor 1225 SF 1452 SF 1540 SF 1933 SF
2nd Floor 935 SF 1050 SF 1228 SF 1368 SF
Total Heated 2160 SF 2502 SF 2768 SF 3302 SF
Basement 465 SF 500 SF 488 SF 696 SF
2nd Flr. Deck 82 SF 193 SF 252 SF 264 SF
Building
Footprints 7350 SF 2864 SF 3080 SF 3867 SF
Amenities
Building 120 SF
Total Footprint Land Area 17281 SF (29%)
Pool & Deck 1216 SF (2%)
Drives & Parking 6247 SF (10. 4%)
Walks & Patios 8766 SF (14 . 7%)
Landscape 23363 SF (43. 9%)
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
JEFFREY H. SACHS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE
HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1303) 925-8700
JON DAVID SEIGLE
201 NORTH MILL STREET
JAMES H. DELMAN ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
RICHARD J. DELACENSERIE•
NANCY J. DELACENSERIE' November 10 , 19 8 3
'ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ONLY
Colette Penney
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Stevenson Building and Design Company
Application for Subdivision and PUD
Dear Colette,
Please find enclosed a memorandum to me from Nancy
Delacenserie regarding her search of the building records and the
tax records regarding the date of construction of the
improvements on Block 17 .
According to our search, the Building Department has no
records either of building permits or certificates of occupancy
for any of the structures on the property. Patsy Newberry can
recall from her personal knowledge the date of construction of
some of the structures and that is set forth on the memorandum.
I hope this provides your office with some of the
information it needs in determination of the number of units on
the property. I will be out of town from November 11th until
November 28th. However, in my absence, Herb Klein will be
handling this case . Please feel free to call him if you have any
questions .
Sincerely yours ,
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
By
J tavid Seigle
JDS/aop
Enclosure
cc : Lou Scholnik
COMBINED APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION AND PUD
Applicant ' s Name: Stevenson Building and Development
Company of Colorado
Name: C. M. Clark
Applicant' s Attorney: Jon David Seigle, Sachs, Klein & Seigle,
201 N. Mill , Suite 201 , Aspen, Colorado
81611
Applicant' s Architect: John Payne, 2170 S.E. 17th Street,
Suite 207 , Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316
David Finholm, 0023 Pacific Avenue,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Property Description: A development consisting of six duplex
townhouses located on Lots A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H, I , K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R,
and S, Block 17, City and Townsite of
Aspen
Present Zoning: Planned Unit Development Overlay, R-6
Present Improvements: Eight lodge units , sixteen multi-family
units, one garage and storage building
r
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The property that is the subject matter of this application
is one of the most unique properties in Aspen. The uniqueness of
this property is evidenced by the special attention that City
Council has given it by its designation as a mandatory planned
unit development overlay district. For unlike most other
mandatory planned unit development overlay districts, it has not
been so designated because of any topographical or other
developmental problem, but rather because this property
represents Aspen' s "first impression" to those entering the City.
The property is bounded by Sixth Street, Hallam Street, Seventh
Street and Bleeker Street. The property is presently known as
the Agate Lodge. This application contemplates the total and
complete demolition of every one of the existing fourteen
buildings on the property.
Applicant is a Colorado corporation which is headed by Mr.
Stephen Chefan. Mr. Chefan is a nationally recognized builder
from Florida who has been a summer visitor to Aspen for the last
six years. Mr. Chefan is known for the high quality of his
projects, both from a land use perspective and from an aesthetic
perspective. Applicant intends to develop the property with six
condominiumiz-ed duplex structures consisting of twelve free
market units. The thrust of this project, beside its tasteful
design, will be its landscaping to mirror the landscaping of the
Villas of Aspen. This will result in an understated first
impression of Aspen. A unique property such as Block 17,
requires a unique development. Applicant feels that his proposal
is consistent with the uniqueness of the property and the City of
Aspen.
Accompanying Material :
Exhibit 1. City Map, scale 1" = 400 showing project location,
all adjacent lands owned by or under option to subdivide are
commonly known landmarks and zoning on and adjacent to property.
(Requirement 20-10 (b) (1) and 24-8. 7 (a) )
Exhibit 2. Sketch plan of proposed development showing property
boundaries, predominant existing site characteristics , public use
areas and existing and proposed land use patterns, including
street system of both the tract proposed for development and
adjacent land. (Requirement 20-10 (b) (2) and 24-8. 7 (a) )
Exhibit 3. Tabulation of data for the development listing:
Proposed name, acreage, number, size and type of proposed lots,
structures and/or units and the development' s total projected
population. Requirement 20-10 (b) (3) and 24-8. 7 (a) )
Exhibit 4 . Disclosure of ownership listing the names of all
owners of the property described in the sketch plan including all
mortgages , judgments, liens, easements , contracts and agreements
of record affecting the property covered by such plan.
(Requirement 20-10 (b) (4) and 24-8. 7 (a) )
Exhibit 5. General landscaping plan and elevation (Requirement
24-8. 7 (e) )
Exhibit 6. Statement of intention with reference to future
ownership of all portions of the planned unit development.
(Requirement 24-8. 7 (c) ) : The project will consist of six
condominiumized duplexes. The common areas will be owned and
maintained by a condominium association.
-2-
BUILDING SITES 54000 SF
ALLEY EASEMENT 5580 SF
TOTAL LAND AREA 59580 SF (100%)
UNITS
A B C D
6 Units 2 Units 2 Units 2 Units
1st Floor 1225 SF 1452 SF 1540 SF 1933 SF
2nd Floor 935 SF 1050 SF 1228 SF 1368 SF
Total Heated 2160 SF 2502 SF 2768 SF 3302 SF
Basement 465 SF 500 SF 488 SF 696 SF
2nd Flr. Deck 82 SF 193 SF 252 SF 264 SF
Building
Footprints 7350 SF 2864 SF 3080 SF 3867 SF
Amenities
Building 120 SF
Total Footprint Land Area 17281 SF (29%)
Pool & Deck 1216 SF (2%)
Drives & Parking 6247 SF (10. 4%)
Walks & Patios 8766 SF (14. 7%)
Landscape 23363 SF (43 . 9%)
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
JEFFREY H. SACHS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE
HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW (303) 925-8700
JON DAVID SEIGLE
201 NORTH MILL STREET
JAMES H. DELMAN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
RICHARD J. DELACENSERIE•
NANCY J. DELACENSERIE• November 16 , 19 8 3
'ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ONLY
Alan Richman HAND DELIVERED
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Agate Lodge Conversion
Dear Alan:
Pursuant to our discussion of a few days ago, the following
information is submitted to supplement our land use application
on behalf of Stevenson Building and Development Company of
Colorado.
You have requested additional information to satisfy Section
24-8 . 1 of the City Code - Planned Unit Development (PUD) .
Section 24-8 . 2 - PUD Design Approaches. The project will
utilize a combination of several of the design approaches set
forth in this section including "Averaged Lot Area" . The project
is a condominium project with common areas and does not envision
separate and distinct lots. This approach is particularly
appropriate due to the blend of densities in this neighborhood.
Across the street from the project is a multi-family apartment
building containing condominiumized apartment units. This
massive structure is not compatible with any of the existing
buildings in the neighborhood, however, it does exist and creates
visual impact. Diagonally across from the proposed project is
the forest service building having a very low profile and sparse
landscaping. Directly across Seventh Street is the Aspen Villas
with significant landscaping and clustered multi-family
condominium apartments.
The applicant proposes to locate the buildings to be
constructed on the site in a manner which provides open space
within the project and large setback areas along Seventh Street.
A review of the site plan indicates a 25 foot setback from
Seventh Street where the zoning code only requires 10 feet (front
yard) . It is within this 25 foot area that the applicant intends
to provide significant landscaping in order to beautify and
enhance the "Gateway to Aspen" . Under current zoning, the
applicant could have created a much more intense massing of
building areas which would have been compatible with the
multi-family apartment house across Hallam Street but would not
have been compatible with the applicant' s aesthetic values for a
beautiful entry to the city.
Alan Richman
November 16 , 1983
Page 2
The PUD will also utilize the Architectural Cluster in order
to allow the use of interior courts and common areas while
condominiumizing to provide separate ownership of the units. The
variations from the zoning code requirements requested by this
project and a brief discussion of those which are not requested '
is as follows:
1 . Setback requirements. The applicant requests a zero
lot line setback variation for the side yard lot lines of
contiguous lots within Block 17 in order to cluster the proposed
buildings. Otherwise, the applicant does not request any
setback variations. In fact, the applicant will exceed existing
setbacks for this district. According to the code, Seventh
Street, as an arterial roadway, is treated as a front yard
requiring a 10 foot setback. The applicant' s site plan indicates
a 25 foot setback. The Sixth Street side of the project will be
the rear yard requiring a 15 foot setback with the site plan
indicating a 20 foot setback. Side yards (abutting Bleeker
Street and Hallam Street) are only required to have 5 feet of
setback with the site plan indicating 15 to 20 foot setbacks.
The applicant' s reduction of distance between the structures and
the zero lot lines will permit additional landscaping to be
utilized together with architecturally designed placement of the
buildings in order to improve the overall views and amenities of
the project.
2 . Distance Between Buildings. The applicant does request
a variance in code requirements for distances between two of the
buildings. There is approximately 8 feet between each of these
buildings which results in a 4 foot separation measured from an
imaginary center line between the 8 foot distance. This is
necessary in order to accommodate the architectural cluster of
the project.
3 . Parking. The applicant does not seek a parking
variation due to the following parking plan. The plan indicates
26 bedrooms with the code requiring parking of one space per
bedroom. Two indoor garage spaces per unit will be provided plus
apron parking for an additional two cars per unit. It is also
anticipated that approximately 7 additional outdoor parking
spaces will be disbursed throughout the project. Therefore,
parking will be provided well in excess of current code
requirements. The applicant has the ability to provide
additional parking over the excess presently planned, however, to
do so would reduce usable common areas and landscaped open space.
4 . Height Variation. The applicant requests a height
variance of approximately three feet. This is necessary to
accomplish the architectural cluster and provide additional open
space which would not otherwise be available if the buildings
were required to be spread out at a lower elevation. The
landscaping plan and existence of mature trees on the property
together with the architectural design of the rooflines will not
result in any adverse visual effects as a result of this height
variance.
Alan Richman
November 16 , 1983
Page 3
5 . Floor area ratio. The applicant requires a variation
from the floor area ratio limitations in order to construct an
additional 3 ,000 feet disbursed throughout the entire project.
On a unit by unit basis, this only results in approximately 250
square feet over the permitted FAR for each unit. The FAR
variance is necessary in order to permit the applicant to develop
the project according to his well established and nationally
recognized design criteria. The applicant has successfully
developed properties in other parts of the country winning
national acclaim for his unique concept. Every room in the
project has a distinct function and purpose. Although we are
seeking only 250 square feet over the allowable FAR, this 250
square feet is an integral requirement of the overall design
concept. The applicant provides fully furnished living units
including linens, silverware, a fully stocked wine room,
televisions, stereos and even a stocked kitchen and pantry at the
time of purchase. All a buyer need do is bring their toothbrush
in order to move into the unit. Therefore, the additional 250
square feet is not needed merely to build a larger room that may
or may not be fully utilized by the ultimate purchaser or to reap
additional per foot profits for the developer, but rather to
complete a design and use concept that is totally new to Aspen
and one which will provide a unique and very attractive life
style for its occupants.
The applicant has carefully analyzed the design
possibilities and has determined that in the absence of the
additional square footage, the project will not fit within his
design requirements and, therefore, the City may well lose this
rare opportunity to have a high quality developer share his
expertise with our community and provide a superior project which
will enhance the entrance to Aspen and eliminate an unsightly and
deteriorating existing development. The applicant believes that
the removal of the Agate Lodge facilities and their replacement
with a beautiful and sensitive project will do more than visually
enhance the entrance to Aspen, it will also provide a new concept
in residential living amenities to our community. We believe
that the compromise of this nominal square footage through a
floor area ratio variation is well justified by the benefits to
the community.
The general provisions of Section 24-8 .5 (i) require the
applicant show the reasonableness of his application and its
compliance with the intent and purposes of PUD. Based upon the
foregoing, it is self-evident that the design concept of this
application is clearly within the intent and purposes of a PUD.
The only adverse effect related to this project is if it is not
approved by the City and the Agate Lodge remains in its present
condition. All other impacts of this development are carefully
and totally mitigated and the ultimate result will be a
significant enhancement and improvement to the "Gateway to
Aspen" .
Alan Richman
November 16 , 1983
Page 4
You have requested information concerning the alley running
through the project between Bleeker Street and Hallam Street. At
the present time the applicant has been unable to determine from
the engineering department whether or not this alley has been
vacated. If the alley has been vacated then this issue is
totally resolved, however, if the alley has not been vacated the
applicant would request as part of this application the vacation
of the alley with the applicant' s granting of necessary utility
easements to the extent such services are presently located
within the alley or are anticipated. The applicant will provide
additional information concerning the status of the alley as soon
as it is available from the engineering department.
Under separate cover, the project architect is providing a
cross section visual elevation of the project as it will appear
to someone entering the City.
Thank you very much for your assistance in processing this
application. I look forward to our presentation before the
Planning and Zoning Commission on December 20 , 1983 . Would you
kindly schedule approximately one hour for the presentation as
representatives for the applicant expect to provide information
to the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning the applicant' s
background and examples of his other projects so that they will
be better able to evaluate this particular developer' s likely
ability to construct the project as represented and in a manner
which will benefit the entire community.
If you have any questions concerning the enclosed or require
additional information, please contact me immediately so that we
will not jeopardize our scheduling.
Very truly yours,
SACHS, KLEIN & SE 3LE
By: : ,, e
-
He ert S. Klein
HSK:bsr
cc:Lou Scholnik
J
AFFIDAVIT OF C. M. CLARK
C. M. Clark, being duly sworn, states as follows :
1 . That I am the owner of Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,
J, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, and S , Block 17 , City and Townsite of
Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
2. That the property is improved with approximately 14
buildings that include 24 rental units.
3. That to the best of my knowledge , the monthly rent,
square footage, and monthly rent per square foot, is set forth on
the attached Exhibit A.
4. That the property has historically rented for terms in
excess of one-month periods at prices in excess of guideline
prices for moderate and middle-income housing as determined by
the City Council and as adjusted from time to t' 'e.
FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAITH NOT. 7
C. 1''' ark
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
Subscribed and sworn to before me in the County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado this F'4^ day of November, 1983 by C. M.
Clark.
Witness my hand and official seal;„! Y p" .€3LIC
My commission expires: c 'b ELL
,,,,A„iii.s.^ion expires 11/26/83.
P.O. Box 566
Aspen, Colorado 81612
s QJF
�� a Pu l is
Exhibit A
Summary of rents currently being collected at Agate Lodge for the
past 18 months . (There has been no increase or decrease in rents
since April of 1982. )
Unit Monthly Rental Square Footage Monthly Rent/
Square Foot
1 $340 320 $1 . 06 ''''''
2 320 216 1 . 48
3 300 216 1 . 38
4 300 216 1. 38
5 300 216 1 . 38
6 300 216 1 . 38
7 320*
8 565*
9 340* 2517 1 . 21
10 355*
11 335*
12 400*
13 420*
17 315* --
14 365 416 . 87
15 390 320 1 . 22
16 750 740 1. 01 ,-
18 950 980 . 97
19 420 319 1 . 31
20 1120 1065 1. 05
21 675 870 1. 29
22 600 870 1 . 45
23 700 962 1. 37
24 640 962 1. 50
*Units contained in the lodge building. Total square footage -
2517; monthly rent/square foot - $1. 21
�g p� g� g� �y p �q !� �y p�
A 6Py 1 PITK EGICN L Iii:, . OP ; DEPARTP,iENT
Nobember 3, 1983
Jon Seigle
Sachs , Klein & Seigle
Attorneys at Law
201 North Mill Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Unit Verification
‘ Agate Lodge
Dear Jon:
This letter contains an inventory of what I observed during
our site inspection on September 30 , 1983 , at the Agate Lodge •
property. This will appear similar to the format of your
letter of October 4 , 1983 , with additional comments on my part.
I will not comment as to whether these units are "lodge units" or
"multi-family units" , but I feel my comments will allow the planning
department to make that determination. I also cannot comment as to
whether all the units were constructed legally. I feel the time
of construction of some of the units may proceed our records.
Basically, the following pages contain observations that I
made regarding present conditions. I hope this is the verification
you need.
Sincerely,
e I
William L. Drueding
Zoning Enforcement Officer
cc: r�arming
-Pau a dune, City Attorney
Wayne Chapman, City Manager
Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official
WLD/ar
•
offices: mail address:
110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main street
Aspen, Colorado B1611 303/925-5973 A6pen, Colorado 81011
Unit #1 Cabin Unit, containing kitchen facilities. (Sink,
range, refrigerator)
Unit #2 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range) .
Unit #3 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range) .
Unit #4 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range) .
Unit #5 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath , refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range) .
Unit #6 Cabin Unit, Studio containing bath, refrigerator,
hot plate (no kitchen plumbing or range) .
Main Lodge - First Floor
Unit #7 I considered a studio containing: kitchen, bath,
illegal loft, illegal sleeping room.
Unit #8 Studio containing kitchen and bath.
Unit #9 Studio containing bath, stove, refrigerator, but
no kitchen plumbing.
Unit #10 Studio containing bath, stove, refrigerator, but
no kitchen plumbing.
Unit #11 Contained bath and kitchen. Two rooms appeared to be
combined into one unit.
Unit #17 Studio containing range, refrigerator, but
no kitchen sink or plumbing.
Main Lodge - Second Floor
Unit #12 One bedroom containing kitchen and bath facilities.
Unit #13 One bedroom containing bath and kitchen facilities.
Cabin #14 Various chopped-up rooms containing kitchen and bath
facilities.
Cabin #15 Two small bedrooms containing kitchen and bath facilities .
Cabin #16 Two bedrooms containing kitchen and bath facilities .
Page 2
Unit #18 House containing three bedrooms, bath and kitchen.
Unit #19 Converted chicken coop - studio with kitchen and bath.
This unit also contains a loft and fireplace that should
be considered highly dangerous. I cannot see that this
unit was ever a legal dwelling unit.
Unit #A20 A three bedroom house containing one kitchen and two
baths .
Fourplex: House
Unit #A21 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
Unit #A22 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
Unit #A23 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
Unit #A24 A two bedroom unit containing a kitchen and bath.
I feel it should be noted that the lower units A22 and A24 do not
contain proper egress from the bedrooms and should be considered
dangerous as sleeping rooms . I would have to question whether
these units were constructed legally.
Garage - contains a woodworking shop and availability for undetermined
parking.
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
JEFFREY H. SACHS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE
HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW (303) 925-8700
JON DAVID SEIGLE
201 NORTH MILL STREET
JAMES H. DELMAN ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
8. JOSEPH KRABACHER
RICHARD J. DELACENSERIE•
NANCY J. DELACENSERIE• October 4, 1983 (E
'ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ONLY "" �✓/
William Drueding OCT 111983
Zoning Enforcement Officer
Pitkin County Building Department a•
•
506 East Main ,�' '
Aspen, Colorado 81611 ;
Re: Unit Verification - Agate Lodge
Dear Bill ,
On September 30, 1983, you and I did a site inspection of
the Agate Lodge for purposes of verification of the number of
units on the Agate Lodge property which is specifically described
as Lots A through I and K through S, Block 17, City and Townsite
of Aspen.
Below is an inventory of the units based upon my notes of
our inspection. I would appreciate a written confirmation of the
inventory set forth in this letter with any comments you may
have. I have enclosed a xerox copy of a plat that was provided
to me by Mr. Clark' s office to assist in the identification of
the units.
Unit No. 1 - separate kitchen, separate bath
Designation: Multiple family unit
Unit No. 2 - cabin unit, no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit
Unit No. 3 - cabin unit, no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit
Unit No. 4 - cabin unit, no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit
Unit No. 5 - cabin unit, no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit,
Unit No. 6 - cabin unit, no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit
Lodge Building:
Unit No. 7 - kitchen, bath, two sleeping
areas , one fireplace
Designation: Multiple family unit .
William Drueding
Page Two
October 4, 1983
Unit No. 17 - no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit
Unit No. 8 - separate kitchen, separate bath
Designation: Multiple family unit
Unit No. 9 - no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit
Unit No. 10 - no kitchen, one bath
Designation: Lodge unit
Unit No. 11 - separate kitchen, separate bath
Designation: Multiple family unit
Unit No. 12 (upper level) - one bedroom, one bath
Designation: one-bedroom unit
Unit No. 13 (upper level) - one bedroom, one bath
Designation: One-bedroom unit
Unit No. 14 (separate building) - separate kitchen, separate
bath
Designation: Multiple family unit
Unit No. 15 (separate building) - separate kitchen, separate
bath
Designation: Multiple family unit
Unit No. 16 (separate building) - kitchen, two bathrooms,
two bedrooms
Designation: Two-bedroom unit
Unit No. 18 (separate unit) - three bedrooms, one bath
Designation: Three-bedroom unit
Unit No. 19 (chicken coop building) - one bathroom, one
kitchen, one fireplace
Designation: Multiple family unit
Unit No. 20 (separate building) - kitchen, two bathrooms,
three bedrooms, one fireplace
Designation: Three-bedroom unit
Fourplex:
Unit No. 21 - separate kitchen, one bath, two bedrooms
Designation: Two-bedroom unit
William Drueding
Page Two
October 4, 1983
Unit No. 22 - separate kitchen, one bath, two bedrooms
Designation: Two-bedroom unit
Unit No. 23 - separate kitchen, one bath, two bedrooms
Designation: Two-bedroom unit
Unit No. 24 - separate kitchen, one bath, two bedrooms
Designation: Two-bedroom unit
•
Garage (separate building) - contains woodworking shop and
storage and parking availability for at least two vehicles
I appreciate the time you spent with me in making the
inspection of the properties and I will await the verification of
the contents of this letter.
Sincerely yours,
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
By �,
Jam;
o David Seigle
JDS/aop
Enclosures
cc: Lou Scholnik
Stephen Chefan
•
MEMORANDUM
To: JDS
From: NJD
Re: Chefan - Agate Lodge
Date: 9 November 83
This memorandum summarizes my search of the records filed in
the offices of the City/County Building Inspector and Tax
Assessor with regard to property known as the Agate Lodge, more
specifically Block 17, Lots A through I and K through S , City of
Aspen. The tax assessor' s records reveal that Lots A through I
contain the following improvements :
(a) 8 single detached cabin units
(b) 1 attached double cabin unit
(c) a linen storage building
(d) a shed
(e) the main lodge
The tax records also reveal that a ninth single detached cabin
unit had been removed from the property in 1976 . Since these
cabin units were built prior to 1955, the year the City of Aspen
created a building inspection department, there are no records
with regard to the original construction of these cabins. In May
of 1959 , however, a building permit was issued for the remodeling
of the main lodge building which revealed that the lodge
consisted of 7 living units with a total of 10 rooms.
The tax records reveal that Lots K, L, M, and N have been
improved with a structure which was originally the old office of
the Agate Lodge complex. The most recent tax records also reveal
that this structure has two bedrooms and one bath.
The tax records reveal that Lots 0 and P have been improved
with 2 structures referred to as house no. 1 and house no. 2.
The most recent tax records reveal that house no. 1 consists of 2
bedrooms and 1 bath and house no. 2 consists of 1 bedroom and 1
bath. •
Finally, the tax records also reveal that Lots Q, R, and S
have been improved by a structure consisting of 4 living units, -2
on the first floor and 2 on the basement level. There are a
total of 8 bedrooms in this structure.
See the attached drawing for the relative positioning of the
structures described above.
r ( t E I')E-7. A( i-1( `.) i /kE, i t''' Li f\'.',1 (- -4 FEZ- "TAX
F l\fl/ C ?it-‘) (ii'■::)! r\ Li! \ 1-1-..-.. ;.V -4',=- rfjZ_. VAtit_hic, 10f_'19E=r-roie;:e_., (-4:Frcr
/7 `, rt, if,\.F.,\I f_i'_.: ',k(2r,_.. (Plf Z. is'A-r `i
, _.....
. ((I) 5._:,-11(r) `Rr_c,A,RIAr)c, bicrar COP)STP-DC11:--,r:_
(c ) t / . 1 , i....")::,
I , i
1 ,
, I CDT\):11-R ocriF I)
1
'floVED .z.v■,,D 1
, !
4i _) 1 I
1 L
TE.at.tiu-r- I-)^ 1
.
ii4,--/ f7; L .......,,L, -.)T • l C.....•.-
- -
il 1 i
1 ,1
r-
r
' 19474.4
■
il : . Ccws-r-r-uc-r-€h 195.-i Y II
/
,•.) _ , I
.114-i-*4 , 11z-1-1'64' - - . _•
1,-„).--____
-_, \,. 'i7*,-) lc., -1 ,
/
11'47 m4 ' )9 ii i ,(..1,- . 1 i q
s : ;
, 1
; 1
(( , (0-',‘
) r
I'..- ) z•• '
_ ! . .
. .
/
li
/
....1
AL r. /4 i I
commitment
for Title Insurance
USLIFE Title Insurance Company of Dallas.herein called the Company,for valuable consideration,hereby commits to issue its policy or policies
of title insurance,as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A,as owner or mortgagee of the estate or
interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor;all subject to
the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have
been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease
and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs,
provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until
countersigned by an authorized officer or agent.
• ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD.
Schedule A
September 16, 1983 A83-421 925-4444
1. Effective date Case No._— Inquiries directed to_
2. Policy or policies to be issued: at 8:00 A.M.
A.ALTA Owner's Policy Proposed Insured: Amount 5-1 600,000.00 premiums_
1,548.70
Tax Certificate 5.00
C. ACTIVATORS, INC. , a Florida Corporation
B. ALTA Loan Policy Proposed Insured: Amount S._ _ — Premium S
C Amount $ Premium S
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this commitment and covered herein is fee simple and title thereto is
at the effective date hereof vested in:
' C. M. CLARK
4.The land referred to in this commitment is described as follows:
Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S
Block 17
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
Schedule B—Section 1 Requirements
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
Item(a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured.
Item(b) Proper instrument(s)creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record,to-wit:
1. Deed from C. M.- Clark vesting fee simple title in C. Activators, Inc. ,
a Florida Corporation.
2. Certificate of Good Standing for C. Activators, Inc. , a Florida Corporation
issued by the office of the Secretary of State, State of Florida.
3. Evidence of compliance with the provisions relating to the Real Estate
Transfer Tax, Ordinance No. 20 ( Series of 1979) .
(OVER)
Formerly DALLAS TITLE AND GUARANTY COMPANY FORM 105 ICO)10M1077H
,.,,,wo,i Arvin..,, 0.1,",d..,1.^',",..J n.1y
an1)11.3{I.3/•'43 Y,wprsnd
seiiea 10 Auedwoa aoueinsui 51111 331-isn 'If73ti
•,'oleo 0A1430443,,se y ainpatjoS ui
umO4s etep 094 ;O se 9A1438340 sl luaw4ll'_uo3 siyl •smel-A9 st1 441M aouep,oxoe w He 'AuedwoD amt ;o luafie ,c ,awjjo pazuo4lne ue
Aq pou6lsiojuno3 uellM Peen ewuoeq o1 ';- ieas pue paubis oq o1 luawowwo0 slyt pasneo seu ledwo0 ay1 '303113 HM SS3NJIM NI
luawt,ww03 5141;o suogeindus pue suw41puo3
pue suo!sIn0,d ay1 01 paloulsa, oq !legs •wlelo 4305 6up,asse UOg7e Aue ,o Aga,ay pa,anoo e6 •64,ow pe,nsu, 094 4o uay ay4 Jo 155,011
' Jo 045450 091 04 0419 894 30 snleis 044 ;0 4113 5051,5 9314M pue •a3ue6116au uo paseq 4ou ,o Ja4104M •aBewep ,o 5501 10 weep Aud q
•wa,a4 paippow Alssa,dxa se idaoxa tuawllwwo3 sty;10 lied a apew a,e pue
6 3 0 010151 Aq pele,odioow Agaiag a,e 1.431gM painsul pasodoid ay) ;o,one; u1 ,01 palpwwo3 sa1314od Jo Aoi1od 30 w,o;041 10 suogelndns pue
suo111puoa 841 pue '065101133 W01;uolsnpxa •suolslnold 6uunsl: a9t o1 loafgns Si A4ylgey yons pue,01 panlwwoo sa131lod ,a Aai1od 891 101 V
alnpa4os ul pawls lunuwe ayi paaoxa A4N1ge11 yons ,Heys guano 00 LA 110w41WwO0 sly,Aq pa,anoo uo,3194 a6e6u0w,O is LOIUI 30 alelsa ayi
040013 io e11nb3e 04 (3) io '9 einpa43s w umoys suonda3xa alewuwya 04 (q) Jo 'loaiaq sluawannba, 041 4pM Aldwoo 01 (e) 91183 pooh w
Bwlleliepun U1 U00109 030540, w peiin3u, 5531 15111:-.. io1 /quo pue ,o1 pawwwo3 sa 3IIod ,o Aoyod 10 w,o; 044 w painsul 10 uoiIu11ap
941 Jepun pepnl3w se111ed yons pue pain:..y pasodoid poweu 844 04 /quo aq !legs wawuwwoj sup ,apun AuedwoD 091 30 Aliligen E
•suouelndlis pue suo111puc,0504113E 4de,6e,ed 04 luensind paiin3w Alsnolnaid s j qey wolf Auedwo3 044 0/%893110u Heys
luewpuawe yons 1ng 'Al6wp,oxoe ivawllu'o„oa S■94 ;0 9 alnpa9os puawe Aew uoudo 541 1e Auedwu0 041 ',anew .:rylo JO WIeI3 asianpe
•63ueigwn3uo'uti 1 '4301ap yons Aue 30 a6p:.,"sou,! lenioe sa,lnb3e asiM,aylo Auedwo3 091 1110'Auedwo j 041 01 a6palnr...,ul 43115 asopslp Heys
peinsui posodoid 044 11 'a6p6lmoU,l 43115 w•opslp us of ail,;'., Aq paDiPnfaid s1 AuedwoD 044 4 1:;1x0 844 01 uoa,a9 030593, 10 135 Aue
W01; 6111068J 06ewep io ssol Aue 10; • 39tH woi4 panapa, aq Heys Auedwoj 041 '6uyuM u! Auedwoj 041 04 ahpalMou,I tens asol3slp
of He; Heys pue '100,09 9 einpay3S U! 1:.- 05344 0591 ,0940 wawuwwoj 5194 Aq pa,an03 000,091 a6e.61,ow JO 4SO 3.;'11 ,o alma 091
6up3aye ,a44ew 101140 JO wlep $sianpe 'a:r.t:•1gwn3ua 'U09 '13a;ap Aue 4o afipaimoux Ientor sannbDe ,o se4 pa,nsul p: . ...,d 044 1I Z
'wawnl4sw A411ri3as 10940,o 'paap 1511,4 '45111113 paap apnpw Heys 'ula,a9 pasn ua9M•••abebliow•• w,a1891 1
suolleindlls pue suop!puoD
•usol age amnsss pue Alaadoad age aa;sueaa oa ag2Ta age uo asnay 3o paa-
pies 3o suoTasaTmTT aTgTssod 2uTuaaouoa aapuaT age gaTM apew aq £em xoaga y :3Z0N
•V06T aged le L+71i xoog uT £861 '91 aunr papaooaa `£861 'T aunt
pap auamaaa$y uoTiBOT3TP0N asnay 3o paac pue aaoM 3o suoTiTpuoo pus smaas 'TT
'9£ aged le Z*1'7 )joog uT £861 '9T gaaeN papaoaaa 'aauTmoM se wad 'opeaolo0
3o uoTaeToossy auamaaTaag saaXoTdma oTTgnd oa asnaJ 3o p:1aQ anogs 3o auamu2Tssy
'Z66 a$ed ae LZ+1 Moog uT Z86T '91 aunr papaoaaa `Z861 '91 aunt- paaep
00'000'OLT'T$ aanaas oa uoTa?Toossy ueoq pus 2UTp1Tng 's2uTnes aaidmg eta, 3o asn age 1o3
opeaoTo3 'Aluno0 uT�IaTd 3r' -3ai n1L aTTgnd Biqa oa )1asTO • 4 •0 moa3 asnay 3O PaaG '0T
'1£690 'oN aTT3 'L66 a$Pd
as LZ7 Moog uT £861 '9T aunr papaoaaa 'dlaed paanoas 'uoTaVToossy ueol pue
2UTPTTn2 's2uTnes aaTdmg aqy oa 'ao4gaQ 'tavTO •Y1 •0 WOa3 luamaleaS 2UToueuT3 '6
•
'Ll7-0Z '°N q°1" SS Z86T '17 AuN paaep "owl 'saaeToossy 9 MoTTa32uo7
'uosugor Aq danair uo uMOgs ss laaaas aa)taalg °auo $UTP1Tng iCtoas (T) auo 3o
auamgauoaoua pus aaaals g74, °auo aaod aso pus asnoq Laois (T) auo 3o auamgaeoaoug •8
•aaTaasTQ TeaTdsoH AaTTFA uadsy pue iZTaasTQ auamanoadml aaaaas uadsy
'aoT111Q UOTleaTUES uuaTTOdoaaaW uadsy '33Ta3sTQ uoTaoaaoad a?Td uadsy uT Aaaadoad
aoacgns age 3o woTsnTouT aqa 3o uoseax Aq sa2aego JO saaj 'sauamssasse 'xea .&uy •L
•:tur3iuo0 Aq paitTaoaa aa4C aou 'paaapao aaeoTJTaaa0
xsZ •paTTaoueo JO pamaapaa ATaadoad uaaq aou aneg gaT4M sales xea Tye pue Aue
pue aTgelSed pue anp sauamssasse pue saxea pTedun Sue :aTgeSed pue anp saxej •9
•pa111wo Aga,ay a,e • _ _- pa,ogwnu suoydoox3
tuawllwwoD 5i131 Aq pa,eno3 0001891
06413110w JO 459194U1 JO alelsa ay) amen Jot p,••••13 10 sopnbor pa,nsul pasodoid a.' •,1ep 044 04 ,oeid log ;30,09 8Iep angoa4;a 091 01
4uanbasgns BV435440 Jo spiO3ei 314gnd 094 w 6uue Joe 4501'pale.,,;,'Aue j! 'sJOuew 109,0,u sweep us,an;n. 'suoue,ywnuua'5U014 5430300 •5
•spJO3a1 3ygnd
091 Aq uMOys IOU pue me! Aq pesodwi 'pa_rlU,nj 10480,04 io 0,ojoieJo91 4101aleW io iogei ao!Aias ,o; 'uay a of 14611 10 'uay AUy y
sp,o30i 31i9nd 044 Aq umoys,3'J a,1:4319M pue asopslp P1n0M saslw.,d 044
30 uo143adsw pue Aanins 4301103 e y314M Aue pue 'swarwl3ea,3ua 'ea,e u1 06euogs 'saw( Aiepunoq w 513143003 'sal3ueda,3s10 'E
•sp,o3a,3ygnd 041 Aq uMO4s 400'slulwasea;0 s1...c13,o'sluawase3 •Z
spJ0oO1 aygnd 944 Aq UM.04s IOU U01ssossOd w sallied;o sweep JO s4361a •L.
:Auedwoj
044 ;o u0113e;Spes 044 04 10 pasodslp 0Je awes ay4 ssalun BU!MOIlo1 041 0l suw4daoxa we4uo3 !pm panssl oq o1 5913yod ,o A311od 841
-'--' A4,adoid 10 ssa,ppl l teems suwlda3x3 z uw13eS-g elnpa4oS
MEMORANDUM
TO: , Parks Department
City Engineer
Housing Office
City Attorney
ty Water Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
F4e Chief
ding Department
ransportation Department
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Stevenson Building Co. - Redevelopment of Agate Property
DATE: November 18 , 1983
Attached is material submitted by Jon Seigle on behalf of Stevenson
Building and Development Company of Colorado for the redevelopment
of the property on which the Agate Lodge is located (corner of
Bleeker and 7th Streets) . The Planning Office would like comments
from you and specifically would like your comments with regard to
the following in addition to you general comments:
PARKS - A detailed look at the Conceptual Landscape Plan to help
determine the feasibility of transplanting mature trees to this site.
ENGINEERING - Specifically address the vacation of the alley, whether
or not the alley has already been vacated, and if not, the advisability
of doing so.
HOUSING - A recommendation on deed restricting a specific percentage
of units based on the requirements of Section 20-22 of the City Code.
TRANSPORTATION - Is there a need for any particular mass transit
facilities on-site, i.e. , bus shelters.
This case goes before the Planning and Zoning Commission on December
20, 1983 . In view of the complexity of this case, we would appreciate
receiving your comments no later than December 5, 1983, in order
for this Office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation.
Thank you.