HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.845 Meadows Rd.A87-94
i~
.f"\
f
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
PROJECT NAME: As
Project Address:
Legal Address:
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2735-122-31-001 A87-94
STAFF MEMBER: LL
ows Minor Amendment to Dev. Review
Road
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE COMPLETE:
APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership
Applicant Address: 515 south Galena
REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells
Representative Address/Phone: 602 Midland
Aspen. CO
925-9090
Park Place
81611
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV. HEALTH
TOTAL
$ 215
$ 96
$
$
$ 311
# APPS RECEIVED
# PLATS RECEIVED
1
1
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL:-X- 1 STEP:
2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date
PUBLIC HEARING: YES
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
NO
NO
CC Meeting Date
PUBLIC HEARING: YES
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
NO
NO
DRC Meeting Date
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
Parks Dept.
Bldg Inspector
Fire Marshal
Holy Cross
Mtn. Bell
ACSD
Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
CDOT
Clean Air Board
Open Space Board
Other
Other
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE:
-------------------------------------------~;r~=~----------~
-------------------------------------------- -- -~-----------
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: ::, INITIAL:
___ city Atty City Engineer ~Oning ___Env. Health ----
___ Housing ___ Open Space ~~other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
r"1
r~
,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
stan Clauson, Director Community Development
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
Aspen Meadows Insubstantial SPA Amendment
Amendments for Lots 5 & 6 of the Aspen Meadows
Development Plan
for Minor
finals SPA
RE:
DATE:
March 16, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicants, Savanah Limited Partnership and Newfield
Enterprises International Inc., seek to amend the. Aspen Meadows
Final SPA Plan for Lots 5 & 6 to adjust a drainage easement on Lot
6 and average the individual sizes of several townhomes on Lot 5.
ZONING: Academic with SPA overlay
STAFF COMMENTS: The Aspen Meadows SPA plan was approved in 19
The approved plan included the development of 7 new townhomes on
Lot 6 and 3 new townhomes on Lot 5.
Lot 6: For Lot 6 a drainage easement was provided on the north
side of the parcel. The easement is 15 feet wide on the recorded
plat and defined as 20 feet wide on a recorded easement document.
In order to construct the 7 townhomes as was approved, including
the allowable floor areas, the applicant and staff have identified
two alternatives:
1. the written easement agreement is reduced to 15 feet wide;
or
2. the entire building footprint is shifted 5 feet to the
north.
Originally, the applicant proposed to adjust the north property
boundary by 5 feet to maintain the 20 foot drainage easement and
maintain the approved side yard setbacks.
After reviewing the drainage easement, the recorded easement
agreement and visiting the site, staff has concluded that the
recorded easement can be amended to reduce the width of the
easement to 15 feet. According to city documents the only
structure in the easement is for drainage purposes. It was also
discovered that the recorded easement document had not been
reviewed and signed by the City. Therefore the City has agreed to
the nullification of the street drainage easement. Specifically,
the Engineering Department believes that the easement indicated on
the plat is sufficient for future engineering purposes.
Staff objected to the lot line adjustment and/or the reduction of
the side yard setback on the north side of Lot 6 because any
reduction in the land area between the proposed townhomes and the
r--
.~
.
public pedestrian trail easement would negatively impact the trail
by placing a solid wall of structure close to the trail. Staff has
recommended and the applicant has agreed, in exchange for reducing
the size of the drainage easement (nullifying the recorded
agreement) to excavate the site for the trail to the top of the
slope at the time that the excavation for the townhomes occurs.
Lot 5: When approved, the townhomes on Lot 5 were limited to a
maximum of 2,500 square feet of floor area per unit. For Lot 5
there are currently 8 townhomes on the site and 3 more units are
proposed to be added. Two units, 10 & 11, will be constructed on
the north side of the existing townhomes and unit 1 will be added
onto the south side of the structure. Significant renovations with
additional floor area will also occur on the existing 8 townhomes.
Because of the topography and the method used to calculate floor
area ratio, unit 11 floor area calculations are greater than 2,500
square feet. Therefore the applicant has requested to average the
sizes of the townhomes for FAR calculation purposes to ensure that
the total FAR for the entire project is consistent with the
approved size of 2,500 square feet per unit.
Staff has reviewed the problem with the project architect and has
concurred that due to topographical constraints and the desire to
construct 3 new units that are compatible with the approved plans
and the historic integrity of the existing Beyer townhome design,
that the ability to average the floor area is necessary. In
reality, the size of three new townhomes does not change and the
total floor area of the project, which is 27,500, will not
increase.
In reviewing the renovations and new units proposed for Lot 5 for
this insubstantial amendment, staff expressed concern over the
massing of the western elevation and its relationship to the
topography. Because the slope falls off steeply at the north end
of thetownhomes the last two units present a significant wall on
the slope and toward the public trail and open space below.
The architect, in response to staff's discussion, has proposed to
backfill the first two and last two units of the project as
depicted in the revised site plan January 25, 1995 attached to this
memo. In an additional effort to blend and contrast the new units
with the old units the architect has proposed to add wood shingle
siding onto units 1, 10, & 11 as also depicted on the site plan
attached to this memo.
Staff confirmed that the backfill will not impact the proposed
pedestrian/bike trail alignment. The Parks Department has
confirmed that the trail alignment that is recorded in Book 217,
Page 550 will not be impacted by the backfill on units 1, 2, 10 &
11.
2
r-,
.~
Pursuant
approved
provided
to section 24-7-804 E. an insubstantial amendment of an
SPA plan may be authoriz.ed by the Planning Director
that the amendment does not:
a.
change the use or character .of the develepment;
RESPONSE: The character of the Aspen Meadews SPA is teurist/guest.
The reductien of the drainage easement te 15 feet en Let 6 and
averaging the fleer areas fer Let 6 will not compromise previeus
approvals or the character of the Aspen Meadows.
b. increase by greater than 3% the .overall ceverage .of
structures en the land;
RESPONSE: N/A.
c. substantially increase trip generatien rates .of the
prepesed development, .or the demand fer public facilities;
RESPONSE: N/A.
d. reduce by greater than 3% the appreved .open space;
RESPONSE: N/A.
e. reduce by greater than 1% the .off-street parking and
leading space;
RESPONSE: N/A.
f. reduce in required pavement widths or rights-ef-way for
streets and easements;
RESPONSE: N/A.
g. increase greater than 2% the appreved gress leasable fleer
area .of cemmercial buildings;
RESPONSE: N/A.
i. create a change which is incensistent with a cenditien or
representatien .of the preject's .original appreval .or which
requires granting .of a further variatien frem the preject's
appreved use .or dimensional requirements;
RESPONSE: The prepesed changes are necessary te preserve the
.original apprevals.
RECOMMENDATrON: Staff recemmends appreval .of the nullificatien .of
the 20 foet sterm drainage easement fer Let 6 .of the Aspen Meadews
Subdivision and the insubstantial amendment fer the Aspen Meadews
3
(""'I
r1
SPA te average the allewable fleer areas fer Let 5 .of the Aspen
Meadew Subdivisien with the fellewing cenditiens:
1. The applicant shall excavate the pedestrian/bike
alignment te the top .of the slepe, adjacent te Let 6
excavation fer develepment en Lot 6 is taking place.
2. The tetal fleer area fer Let 5 .of the Aspen Meadews Subdivision
shall net exceed 27,500 square feet.
trail
while
3. The applicant shall backfill units 1, 2, 10 & 11 te reduce the
perceived height .of those units.
I hereby appreve .of the insubstantial amendment
te the final develepment .of the Aspen Meadews
SPA pursuant te sectien 24-7-804 .of the
.cM'"~11\de. l q-
st~rect~~mm~ni'ty ;evelepment
Department
cc: Bill Drueding, Zening Officer
4
,#"A-~.... .W
1-'
.1"""\
STRYKER/BROWN
ARCH I TECTS,PC
MEMO
TO: \ Ms. Leslie.Lamont
)\.1r. Stan Classen
Aspen Pitkin Department of Community Development
FROM:
David Brewn
DATE:
1.25.95
RE: FAR Variance for Meadows Trustees Townhomes,
Relationship to trail alignment
You requested during our meeting on December 14, 1994 that I illustrate the impact of the trail and
modified backfill on the northernmost two units.
I met with George Robinson of the Aspen Parks Department today to review the Parks Department's
preferred trail alignment across Lot 5, Aspen Meadows SPA. A copy of the Parks Department's
preferred alignment is shown on the attached plan. As you can see, the trail is downhill from units 10
and 11 and the trail will not have an impact on those units.
I have prepared a sketch partial site plan and elevations of units 10 and 11, attached, to show our
preferred final grading and the relationship of the building to the finished grade and backfill. As you
can see, the revised backfill will decrease the apparant height of the buildings. I hope you find it
acceptable and are able to proceed with a staff finding that this is an insubstantial modification to the
SP A as approved.
As we discussed on December 14, units 1, 10, and 11 will have shingle siding as required in the SPA
agreement.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance on this matter.
cc Joe Wells
Ferd Belz
Bill Dreuding
300 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 300
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303.925.2254 925.2258 (FAX)
,,:
ed
'ownhouses
Spaces
-'
,
"
-,
"
-,
--,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\ "
,
.
.
~,AcC..I&+Jt-aI(~1 /
~~ ~ ,/1/ ////'
~~ '/"",/-/,l/
.Pe'fI'r. l.z~'~A'" (,/ ~ ./~/
. '1/ l/
. $'
I
) /;
ownhouse Uni~/_ / l
. !
i
//1 .f
; lJ i
\
LOTA
'H~th
arlcing
: Spaces
I
f'.-)
00
.
.
.
.
.
,
"
\
'\
\ ...~
~nterline o'f
.;
\Inhouse Unit
lWS,
Irant
. ,
, -/h" iProposed Deck
. Proposed I Trail Easem
\fax ' I ent
. ((I
,wnhouses I
: .
/ol I
Ii ~
'1 Bu~~i Addition
. -......
11 i
t ::
, I
I "
-\
>:: ~?/~~.=
!- '~y/ ~-
U/ /'
\ ( //
~J I /_____,
,
\
\
I
I
\ 2
l\ "--,
/ ! ~ -,--,
. J:_,,-~~=- - ',-__LOT 1
(~~~~~~~~~ ,-----------_...-
'~;~ ~
lStomgc_,-__
\ . L.,
~""''''-'''''''
.;,...... .......-... --- ....
r ........ ._, _,_-......
\Pro Shgp:::;;:"";:-'~ -",
, ',/"" ,...... ..........-...:--"-
~__--=/ /<~>c:---
,-, ~ I \ -.....
8- f I! { \ \ . 1_~
- " \. \ I
I. I .' \ ,.
r; I .\ . 1..';"-"',
I
I
I
,
,
1
,
,-'
./
(--
, I
I I
I I
]
1"""\.
~
,.
"
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont
From: Chuck Roth 01Z-
Date: February 21,1995
Re: Easement Nullification, Lot 6, Aspen Meadows Subdivision
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached please find a copy of Bob Hughes' last letter which provided the correct
recorded easement agreement for Lot 6. The easement recorded at Book 762, Page 359 et
seq is the easement for the street drainage. I do not have any objections to nullifYing the
easement agreement because it is sufficient for City engineering purposes for the
easement to be indicated on the plat.
The remainder of the ,Iletails ar0egal details that John should comment on. In the second
"Whereas", the "to tWit" does not agree with my understanding of the reasons for the
nullification. Bob Hughes stated to me on the phone that the reasons were because of
details of the language in the agreement. He did not say that the nullification is requested
because the City did not sign the agreement. If that were the reason, then the City should
sign a fresh agreement for recording.
Perhaps the nullification should include a line for John's signature, "Approved as to
form."
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
cc: John Worcester, Cris Caruso (wi attachments)
I
M95.55
J
1""'\
,'-'.
'.
l.AW OFFICES OF
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PI.AZABUILDING
533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
LEONARD M. OATES
ROB.ERT W. HUGHES
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH
TED D. GAROENSWARTZ
AREA CODE 303
TEl.EPHONE. 920-1700
TELECOPIER 920-112.1
OF COUNSEL' . ~
JOHN THOMAS KELLY
February 1, 1995
Chuck Roth, P .E., City Engineer
Engineering Department
The City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: JJ!iot 6, Aspen Meadows Subdivision
Dear Chuck:
My mistakei" I had meant to send you a copy of the "Utility Easement
Agreement" that burdens Lot 6 - not the one that burdens Lot 5. The one that burdens Lot 6
is recorded in Book 76Z,.,at pageJ59 and a copy of that is enclosed along with a revised
Nullification of Utility Basement Agreement for your consideration. Once again, we are not
trying to eliminate or nullify any of the easements granted to the City or the utilities on the
subdivision plat. To the contrary, we think those, alone, effectively grant the easements that are
necessary and the easement agreements that were prepared by A. 1. Zabbia's office not only are
duplicative but contain some awkward language.
The enclosed statement of Nullification, etc. relates only to the Utility Easement
Agreement recorded in Book 762 at Page 359 and does not purport to affect any other grants
or dedications made 011 the subdivision plat.
Thank you for your consideration, and please give me a call if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C.
RWHftu
Enclosures
By: ~a.I.~4
R"obert W. Hughes (~ )
5.'Ivanab\ltn\roth
1
~ ~.~ ,
'-
/"""..
~
/7 I"
L)(] <oJ It.
/}
/*',/1..
/G :2-
3Sy
.'
UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS GRANT OF EASEMENT is made and entered into this day .of
. 19 , by" and between The City of Aspen. Grantee.
and Savanah Limited Partnership, Grantor
WHEREAS, Grantors are the owners of certain real property (the "Property") situated in
the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Lot 6, the Aspen Meadows Final S.P.A. Development Plan and Final Subdivision Plat, as
recorded in Pitkin County Records in Book 28 at Page 6.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration,' Granters hereby grant and
convey to Grantee subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth and the rights herein
specifically retained and resexved by Grantor, the right, privilege and easement to construct,
install, maintain, operate, repair, remove, and replace a cl!rrently existingwater main line and any
other future utility line deemed necessary to Grantee along and across the Easement Premises
situated on the property as described and depicted on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this
reference incorporated h,erein, further, Grantors do. grant to Grantee tl)t; right to access said
utility lines over, under,' across and along.tlre Easement Premises as may reasonably- be required,
for the puipose of exercising the rights, privileges and.easement herein granted. -
. it; . .. _ -...;-
The foregoing grant of easement and access shall be subject to the following terms and,:"'.
conditions: --
'~
1. The Easement Premises shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in width measured ten
(10) feet on either side of the center line of the currently existing water main line.
2. Grantee's utility lines and all associated facilities shall be constructed, installed,
- maintained and operated in a safe and workmanlike manner and in such a manner as to avoid
damage to or destruction of Grantor's property or shrubs and other vegetation on the property.
Grantee's utility lines, including all future lines, shall be installed to underground locations. Any
damage to the Grantor's property or to the surface, trees, shrubs or other vegetation cause by
Grantee's installation, maintenance, repair or removal of the water main line, f<lture utility lines,
,i,:
or attendant fac"nities, shall not be the responsibility of the Grantee, except that Grantee shall
repair or replace the surface vegetation to a natural state of usefulness and appearance as it exists
as of the date of this easement. .
3. Grantee shall not place, keep, store or otherwise permit any equipment or materials
on the Easement Premises except during such times as Grantee's employees or agents are
physically present and conducting activities permitted under this Easement.
I
4. It is expressly understood and agreed that the grant of easement as herein provided
~r.-.: Grantee's use of the Easement Premises shall at all times be superior to the Grantors' use
G:he Propert:f.
'...',:,
..r
r-,
r1
, .
. ,
5. This Easement is not intended and shall not be" construed to grant an eas.ement or .
access across, over or under any property or premises other than the Easement Premises as
described and depicted herein.
6. Grantee shall notify Grantors in advance of those dates and times Grantee. its
employees or agents. shall accesS'the Easement Premises to undertake any excavations thereon.
7. The Easement granted hereunder shall be perpetual except that it shall
automatically terminate should Grantee or any of its successors or assigns violate the terms and
conditions contained herein.
8. All rights. benefits and privileges granted, created or reserved herein, and. all
impositions and obligations imposed hereunder, shall inure to the benefit of and be binding..upon
the parties, their successors and assigns.
9. Any rights to the Property or Easement Premises not specifically granted to
Grantee herein are reserved to the Grantors, its successors or assigns~
IN WITNESS f!EREOF,.the Grantors have affixed their duly. aut~qri:zed signatures as ?f
the day and year first written above. . ." . -
,
'..
Grantor, Savanah Limited Partnership
"
-....... -".
- ~....7"?,=--
By:r::;/~t(;;LF. ;--,.
"
Al
. '~l~
Title:
Grantee, The City of Aspen
By:
Title:
:
ll-\\' \' 11 111//1////;,
.~ IlEG//%
. .$::." ....uJ::~
Prepared by Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, Inc. Sign~""<:::S p .. ~ ~
. fjf _ I tt.~ ~6296
-- .. '. ..-
==:: .. . ::::::
~.,,: 26296 : o:~
=':;0. .O=:;
Dal~~ .'L~..9f .ifl
~..r.... ...~~
'%toN.......('\ s ~
"'If, tiL LAt1" \\<($
//IIIi/IIIIIII\\\\I\\\
'" *
.
(""\
~
Exhibit "A"
Storm Drainage Easement
Lot 6, The Aspen Meadows
Final S.P.A. Development Plan
and Final Subdivision Plat
DESCRIPTION:
A twenty (20) foot wide storm drainage easement as shown herein on Exhibit "B" and being
located within Lot 6 of The Aspen Meadows Final S.PA. Development Plan and Final
Subdivision Plat, being a subdivision located within the North 'h of Section 12, and the South
'h of Section 1, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin
County, State of Colorado, and being ten (10) feet perpendicular to each side of the centerline
described as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 6; Thence N 10"54'00" W, 10.44 feet,
along the common line of said Lot 6 and the westerly right-of-way of the Forty Foot
Utility, Drainage and Private Access Easement as shown on said Subdivision Plat, to the
true Point of Beginning; Thence N 84"14'00" W, 243.65 feet to the Point of Terminus,
being a point along the westerly line of said Lot 6.
I.
(.j
~j
~
tij
"
~
to
I
"
0'
rl~1
D
I
(.)
0'
....
.;;;
<J)
"-
r(1
0'
"-
<J)
.j:-
.;;;
(.)
n
....
tij
1J
1J
GJ
(.j
o
"TJ
.j:-
..J
r",
t""\
~....
."
'.
Exhibit "Bn
Storm Drainage Easement
Lot 6, The Aspen Meadows
Final S.P.A. Development. Plan
and lFinal Subdivision Plat
~
SCALE: 1" = 50'
-40. UrUT'f. DRAINAGe: ANa
PRro. Te: AccESS EASElJENf
Lot 1
"
..
.,
}.
7"
Lot 6
Lot 4
P.O.T.
-~
~ ~ 20' srORM DRAINAGE EASEUEHr .f f
--==---==-~~--JL
- ----- - ~~:l~'oo.w _______
21J.~ - _____
-J- - - -
M.9adows
Road
"
..... '.
.-.7'-;;.
r.O.B.
/
N 10.54' .'11
~IO.44'
r.o.!\
\
\
-
-..
.~
~~.'
.-
t""'\
1"'\
NULLIFICATION OF UTILITY. EASEMENT AGREEMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRFSENTS that:
WHEREAS, there was recorded in Book 762 at Page 359 of the Pitkin County,
Colorado real property records (the "Records") a certain Utility Easement Agreement by and
between &avanah Limited Partnership ("Savanah") as Grantor and The City of Aspen ("City")
as Grantee; and
WHEREAS, the Utility Easement Agreement was erroneously placed of record
in that the condition of the grant contained in the Utility Easement Agreement, to wit:
acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Utility Easement Agreement by the City, had not
been met prior to recordation; and
WHEREAS, the grant contained in the Utility Easement Agreement is essentially
duplicative of gran~ of easements made by Savanah for the benefit of the City contained and
accepted by the City on the Aspen Me:idows Final SPA Development Plan and Final Subdivision
Plat recorded in Plat Book 28 at Pages 5, et seq. of the Records (the "Final Plat"); and
WHEREAS, the easement grants contained in the Final Plat and accepted thereon
by the City are all that the City requires in the circumstances.
"
~
NOW THEREFORE, in light of the foregoing Recitals, Savanah and the City
do hereby publish and declare that the Utility Easement Agreement recorded in Book 762 at
Page 359 of the Records is and shall be a nullity as fully, for all practical intents and purposes,
as though such Utility Easement Agreement had never been executed by Savanah or placed of
record in the first instance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Statement of Nullification has been published
as of the _ day of , 1995.
Savanah Limited Partnership
By: Aspen Enterprises International, Inc.
By
John G. Sarpa
ATTEST:
The City Jof Aspen
By
.
,-,'
.:.
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
1""".
.~
)
) ss.
)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
, 1995, by John G. Sarpa as
Intemational, Inc., a
day of
, Aspen
of Savanah Limited
Enterprises,
Partnership.
(SEAL)
. WITNESS my hand and official seiJ.l.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
^ ) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregding instnrment was
, 1995, by
for The City of Aspen.
acknowledged before me this _ day of
as
(SEAL)
savmah\nUUific
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
,.
Notary Public
2
/"">,
r~
Jaimary 30, 1995
.
Mr. Robert W. Hughes
Oates, Hughes & Knezevich
Third Floor, Aspen 'Plaza Building
533 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
THE CITY OF ASPEN
.OFFICE' OF THE CITY ENCINEER
Dear Bob:
I am responding to your letter of January 12, 1995, addressed to John.
, ,
. ,
There appears to be some confusion concerning easements granted during the Aspen
Meadows SPA and Subdivision approval process. Your letter makes ,reference to,
easements benefiting the Meadows that 'are on Lot 6. However the easement agreement
attached with your letter is for easements located on Lots 1 and 5. .
If your interest is indeed in nullifying easements located on Lots 1 and '5, please provide
letters from each of the utilities consenting to the nullification. '
U.S. West
- Holy 'Cross Electric Association
- Rocky Mountain Natural Gas
TeleCommunications, Inc.,
- Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
- City of Aspen Water Departmerit
If however your interest is in nullifying any easements 10catedOri Lot 6, staff has only
discussed reducing the drainage easement from 20 feet wide to fifteen feet wide.
Attached is a portion of the Aspen Meadows plat from Book 28, Page 7, which may help
to clarify the issue.
If you have any questions, please call me' at 920-5088.
Sincerely,
~btL
Chuck Roth, ,P.E. ,
Engineering Department. \.
cc: John Worcester, Cris Caruso,~s1ier~~qAt
L95.14
130 So.u:rH GALENA STREET . A~PEN, COLORADO 131611 . PHONE 303.920.5088 . FAX303.920.S197
Prlnlrd...re.:yded.paptr
"~ .
'~
~-0'\.
' , '~\"
\\~
"
10
4"0 .~
SOQ ~.$'.$' ~-?'0
~ 9.;: ~4.$'e < "
- ~ ~Gl ~1'r
~/O<,
.te<<;o.s-
"-, ;~::}~1~(;.~~~ "'.
.,.....,~"....
'.'.;~=:...
L........,;._ .
~ -V). ~,'\ ~'. .
.:.:<!/' ,. '.LS ':J~" . '. 1,' ___' Cl. \, .
'lP). q ;-- ,_
-' "'}.:'("~ . .. i ~/~7l'l\1-' -t-~&
;<." ':!) . PO'
'<:-"..-r,,, . 00
. ", u' .
. . . u~ ~ .
~~'Sl L '. ':'i.,~,,<-, 1', 19
'J ~ro .,;.,
.- ----...;.- ---, r
. ,
\ - '1o...t1S' It-
' "~,'.9.9"
. 00"
I II 'It
N 88035/5 E
'. ", "'";' ;':,~~~ 'i!~t~~\;
.,
,
.~
", ,!.,
.; I
392.52 ____
----;....-- ~
----- S.~4oSJ~~O''''.d~
,ClOOof' ,,",,'
. :i1G'~ .;:"'.9,9
190
~~
'~6"
1'/0
0-",
"<'0 "
It-
'~:<<i,:.
Got
&
. ~.
2~Qo'
N 7'&03302"W
" ~~.
. ..
~>,:~
. ..~
~.
. ",.
4
~
(5
o
"'I\)
"!.ca
01'~.$'",. t. g
.~~A . 0
'o...."l')- I"f7 .
~~~~
4.$'~4i~re
CI)
,.. CJ'
ig 0
. 'f;;
~ ,
<:)
<:)
,
~
z
~
o
0).
t.o
o.
~
<0'>..
..... /<1
';'~..t 7-
'''fc:
~Il...
~4.so~"Q
~1'~.$'r~ .
. 'rv"ll
101'
---,
- "
~ \
\
\ \
~ CSl .
<P<J'
o 'p
~.p.
l'"
l"'.
%
N
0)
0\
,
VI.
~
~
..
..
cJC()
'.~,Ol.~..
-----cirJ':f?}
119
l' '0 ,
. 10.. 9
"0'
<'0"
~
6'",
'00'
1'1.t.
01'
.t"",
It-
. '.
.,
~. . . t ",
. -?~ &~
.' ~~~'<11')-
. . ~..q~~r~.>-~O-?4~ ~
.....ijI..~". "1G<;
;, ~ . .
~
~
.....~~
oli.
o~
<1~
'l)~
\'"l
?.9?.6"R'
-
"., .
-i
/. .
~ /'Ox
<"J,~. /..,
..../-,/ .
. .
I
I
I
t"""\
,,........,,
STRYKER / BROWN
ARCHITECTS, PC
November22,1994
23
Bill Drueding
aty of Aspen
Community Development
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
.---'
Re: Aspen Meadows Tennis and Trustee Townhomes
Dear Bill:
Pursuant to our ~onversation this morning, I appreciate you working with Gary Lyman in the
Building Department to have the Building Department review the plans for the above
referenced projects, even though there are a couple of outstanding zoning issues waiting to be
resolved.
Joe Wells is in the process of preparing and applying for 2 administrative variances from the
zoning on these projects. The Tennis Townhome project will require a lot line adjustment on the
north side which is the property line adjacent to the restaurant at the Meadows. The
adjustment will allow the project as. currently designed to be in conformance with the 5 foot
minimum setback requirements and the 20 foot storm water easement on the south side.
Joe is also currently preparing an application for administrative variance on the Trustee
Townhomes. That variance will ask that the 2,500 S.P. FAR per unit be an average over all of
the units rather than be a maximum for each individual unit
As we discussed, the only unit that is currently not in conformance with the FAR is unit number
11 due to the slope at that unit By having the 2,500 S.F. FAR apply as an average for all of
. the units, we would have the same total amount of FAR as approved, allowing the units to be
, identical, which was the intent of the original SPA approval of the design as it currently
stands.
.On behalf of our client, Savanah Limited Partnership, we appreciate your patience in this
complicated and difficult project review, and your work with the Building Department to
expedite the review process.
Sincerely,
David P. Brown, AlA
cc: Ferd Belz, Savanah Ltd. Partnership
Joe Wells .
300 S. SPRING STREET, SUITE 300
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303.925.2254 925-2258 (FAX)
i""'\
/f!.z17f
'To n~t~ ~<:f-..~... . ...____ ________
.. q ~uk w-JIj{""i. -iv~.~~
t"""
~~
n_. .. ..... ... ,1 j _ J ( f J . IO(~ _..
m m;i5.~_~~ 't"'V~..'t'__.. ."'-"-.... ......~ '.. .~.
__\l_..__. ._.... ... ~)~..~
---.... ,-. ~................
----.---.-.
~ ___un .
-.. -
...... .... ::.;t ..'..... ..---- --
-~ ~~
~...
:i,
. - ...,'.~ ".1;-\: ,,"-;.
'.'."...-c,',":-';'"
"'-':'>':';<:"/"','-',:,;,-',"',":'.:'-Y:"'-'-
..'..-...,........,
.-.,.,..-
-"~:'--:',,:"
r--.
1"""\
Joseph Wells
Joseph Wells. AlCP
Land Planning and Design
October 24, 1994
Mr. Stan Clauson
Planning Director, City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Clauson:
My letter is to request, on behalf of Savanah Limited ParInership, owner and
Newfield Enterprises International, Inc., developer, two minor amendments
to the Aspen Meadows Final SPA Development Plan for Lots 5 and 6, as
spelled out in the Aspen Meadows Final Specially Planned Area
Development & Subdivision Agreement (the "Agreement") recorded in Book
667 beginning at page 731 and the Aspen Meadows Final S. P. A.
Development Plan and Final Subdivision Plat (the "Plat") recorded in Plat
Book 28 beginning at page 5.
In March, 1994, the owner filed building permit applications for the
townhouse projects on Lots 5 and 6. The owner subsequently requested and
received approval of an extension in the date of expiration of the GMQS
allocations and vested rights for these residential projects from June 21, 1994
to December 21, 1994. It was the owner's intention to proceed with
construction this fall on the Tennis Townhomes and request an additional
extension for the Trustee Houses, as originally explained in the Extension
Request dated April 16, 1994. This phasing was planned in order to minimize
disruption to the academic programs at the Aspen Meadows which would
result from having the two projects on small lots under construction at the
same time. As a result of zoning staff review of the pending building permit
applications, however, a couple of issues have arisen with regard to these two
projects which prompts the owner to seek the administrative amendments
discussed in this letter.
The first of these requests deals with an issue raised by the City regarding the
encroachment of .J,he"Xen:[lis Townhomes onto the storm drainage easement
at the south enfof Lot 6. ~e owner previously committed to maintain a
minimum setba'~ of 15 feej f.i ~.o. m the south property line and this was noted
on Sheet A-19 of t1ie::f>J:!j;rffipdk 28 at page 46), attached as Exhibit A. When
the as-built easemerwfor:tK€'~tbrm,::d~ainage line was recorded, the City
Engineer requested {tpat a 20 foot ea:s~ment be provided and this is the width
which was spelled otit'm.,the,~~.s!~~t agreement (see Exhibit B). The City
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen. Colorado 81611
Telephone CO)l 925-8080
Facsimile ()O)l 925-8275
r-,
..-.,
October 24,1994
Mr. Stan Clauson
Page two
\
staff is now requesting that the full width of the easement be maintained free
of obstructions.
It has also been determined during the course of preparing construction
documents for the project on Lot 6 that thfbearing of the southern boundary
was also incorrectly drawn on Sheet A-19.lThe effect of this error was to
mistakenly indicate that the southern bounaary of the lot is\urther away
from the planned location of the structure than it actually iV
Unless a significant redesign is undertaken, it will be necessary to shift the
building five feet to the north, effectively to the present north lot line, in
order to respect the full width of tre easement. In order to accomplish this,
some form of amendment to the prior approval is required, because the Final
SPA approval calls for a minimum of alive foot side yard setback.
The owner proposes to seek approval of a Lot Line Adjustment, adjusting the
north boundary in such a way that a five foot setback can be maintained from
the relocated structure, as illustrated on the attached drawing (Exhibit C). The
trail location at the north end of Lot 6 would not be affected by the boundary
change. The trail easement will remain in the location shown on the Plat.
The boundary will be adjusted in such a way that identical acreages will be
maintained in both parcels.
As a result of the City's adoption of Ordinance 13/1993, a lot line adjustment
which meets the required tests may be signed off on by the Planning Director.
Under the provisions of Sec. 7-1003(A)(1), an adjustment of a lot line between
contiguous lots may be approved by the Planning Director if all of the
following conditions are met:
a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or
survey error in a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial
boundary change between adjacent parcels.
The request is to permit an insubstantial boundary change to correct an
inconsistency between certain information on the Plat and a
subsequent commitment made in the Easement Agreement.
b. All landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted shall provide
written consent to the application.
Letters of consent from Savanah Limited Partnership, owner of Lot 6
and the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies, owner of Lot lA, are
attached as Exhibit D.
1"""<.
1"""\
October 24, 1994
Mr. Stan Clauson
Page three
c. It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship.
The Lot Line Adjustment is required to permit the structure as
illustrated on the approved Plat to be constructed without a major
redesign, while still respecting the full width of the easement as
requested by the City Engineer.
d. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this division, and
conform to the requirements of this chapter, including the
dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the lots are
located, except in cases of an existing non conforming lot, in which the
adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot.
An amended Plat in conformance with the standards of Div. 10 and the
requirements of Chapter 24 will be submitted upon approval. Both of
the lots involved in the lot line adjustment are conforming parcels.
e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the
development rights or permitted density of the affected lots by
providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or
development.
The lot line adjustment will not affect in any way the development
rights or permitted density (total number of dwelling units) of the
affected lots.
The second of the requests deals with the FAR square footage of the Trustee
Houses on Lot 5. Section II(E) of the Agreement states that each unit shall be
limited to a maximum of 2,500 square feet. Because of varying topographic
conditions around the perimeter of the structure, some the units as submitted
for building permit are somewhat larger than this limitation and some are
somewhat smaller. In order to avoid artificially manipulating the
relationship of the exterior walls and floor elevations to natural grade so that
the square footage of each unit is precisely 2,500 sq. ft. of FAR, the owner is
requesting an interpretation by the Planning Director that would permit an
averaging of the square footage of the various units so that the average square
footage of each unit does not exceed 2,500 sq. ft. of FAR.
Under the provisions of Sec. 7-804(E)(1), an insubstantial amendment to an
approved Final Development Plan may be authorized by the Planning
Director. An insubstantial amendment is limited to technical or engineering
considerations first discovered during actual development which could not
reasonably be anticipated during the approval process. Specific calculations of
the FAR square footage for each unit could not reasonably be performed until
the preparation of construction documents was undertaken. The issue is
r-,
~
October 24,1994
Mr. Stan Clauson
Page four
eligible for consideration as an insubstantial amendment because it does not
fall within the list of amendments which may not be considered, as follows:
a. A change in the use or character of the development.
The clarification regarding FAR does not represent a change in the use
or character of the development on Lot 5.
b. An increase by greater than three percent in the overall coverage of
structures on the land.
The clarification does not cause any increase in the overall coverage of
structures on the land.
c. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of
the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities.
The clarification does not result in any increase in trip generation rates
of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities.
d. A reduction by greater than three percent of the approved open
space.
The clarification does not result in any reduction in the approved open
space.
e. A reduction by greater than one percent of the off-street parking and
loading space.
The clarification does not result in any reduction in the off-street
parking and loading space.
f. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights-of-way for streets
and easements.
The clarification does not result in any reduction in required pavement
widths or rights-of-way for streets and easements.
g. An increase of greater than two percent in the approved gross
leasable floor area of commercial buildings.
The clarification does not result in any increase in the approved gross
leasable floor area of commercial buildings on either lot.
h. An increase by greater than one percent in the approved residential
density of the proposed development.
The clarification does not result in any increase in the approved
residential density of the proposed development.
1"""'.
n
October 24,1994
Mr. Stan Clauson
Page five
i. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation
of the project's original approval or which requires granting of a
further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional
requirements.
The clarification does not result in any change which is inconsistent
with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or
which requires the granting of a further variation from the project's
approved use or dimensional requirements.
Please let me know at your earliest convenience if you need additional information
regarding these changes.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
~.e~1L---~/
/>%l~-:f~~
/ Joseph wel( ~;~P
/ ..,
L~...'~"''''
't.
r"'.
~
, '
UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS GRANT OF EASEMENT is made and entered into this day of
, 19 , by and between The City of Aspen, Grantee
and Savanah Limited Partnership. Grantor
WHEREAS, Grantors are the owners of certain real property (the "Property") situated in
the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Lot 6, the Aspen Meadows Final S.P.A. Development Plan and Final Subdivision Plat, as
recorded in Pitkin County Records in Book 28 at Page 6.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, Grantors hereby grant and
convey to Grantee subject to the tenns and conditions hereinafter set forth and the rights herein
specifically retained and reserved by Grantor, the right, privilege and easement to construct,
install, maintain, operate, repair, remove, and replace a currently existing water main line and any
other future utility line deemed necessary to Grantee along and across the Easement Premises
situated on the property as described and depicted on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein. Further, Grantors do grant to Grantee the right to access said
utility lines over, under, across and along the Easement Premises as may reasonably be required
for the purpose of exercising the rights, privileges and easement herein granted.
The foregoing grant of easement and access shall be subject to the following tenns and
conditions:
.~
( ;) The Easement Premises shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in width measured ten
(10) f~n either side of the center line of the currently existing water main line.
2. Grantee's utility lines and all associated facilities shall be constructed, installed,
maintained and operated in a safe and workmanlike manner and in such a manner as to avoid
damage to or destruction of Grantor's property or shrubs and other vegetation on the property.
Grantee's utility lines, including all future lines, shall be installed to underground locations. Any
damage to the Grantor's property or to the surface, trees, shrubs or other vegetation cause by
Grantee's installation, maintenance, repair or removal of the water main line, future utility lines,
or attendant facilities, shall not be the responsibility of the Grantee, except that Grantee shall
repair or replace the surface vegetation to a natural state of usefulness and appearance as it exists
as of the date of this easement.
3. Grantee shall not place, keep, store or otherwise pennit any equipment or materials
on the Easement Premises except during such times as Grantee's employees or agents are
physically present and conducting activities pennitted under this Easement.
4. It is expressly understood and agreed that the grant of easement as herein provided
and Grantee's use of the Easement Premises shall at all times be superior to the Grantors' use
of the Property.
UJ (~J
~--J
r~
<::UI
~ 'I
D~
o
D
<::IJ:I
~I
UJ--J
OJ"
f1)
71
I
(-J
en
lJ""
~
-I
~iSl
~ .0
z -,
f(l
n'"
0.....
c.o
Z~
-I
-< IS:~
(-J
n..
r~
rn Oi
::DiJ
;x:
lJ
~G)
;lJ~
[T1
n
o
;:JJO
0-'1
[T1
:::rJ..p.
rr) :::u
JS)iTi
'n
e
e
o
o
n
z
o
~
~
n
5. This Easement is not intended and shall not be construed to grant an easement or
access across, over or under any property or premises other than the Easement Premises as
described and depicted herein.
6. Grantee shall notify Grantors in advance of those dates and times Grantee, its
employees or agents, shall access the Easement Premises to undertake any excavations thereon.
7. The Easement granted hereunder shall be perpetual except that it shall
automatically terminate should Grantee or any of its successors or assigns violate the terms and
conditions contained herein.
8. All rights, benefits and privileges granted, created or reseIVed herein, and all
impositions and obligations imposed hereunder, shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon
the parties, their successors and assigns.
9. Any rights to the Property or Easement Premises not specifically granted to
Grantee herein are reseIVed to the Grantors, its successors or assigns.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Grantors have affixed their duly authorized signatures as of
the day and year filSt written above.
Grantor, Savanah Limited Partnership
By:6't~;:? f-
~~\~
Title:
Grantee, The City of Aspen
By:
Title:
.'~~ \' \I 11I11//1111;,
,;j'>' ~EGI/~
Prepared by Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, Inc. Sign~~~ . p....~~
. ~. I.. ..~6296
~: 2 . ::=
=-0. 6296 :0::=
~~\ . :$?~
Dat~~.'1. 4.9-+ -'$:[
~ 0/. -. ..-..:$ ~
~ 004,....... S ~
~'r'4L LIII\\) ~~
"/II/flllllillll\\\\\\\\~
(0)
,<
..,
In
...;
..,
to
I
...;
0'
r(l
'iJ
I
t.,
0'
1St
oS)
'"
"-
r(l
0'
"-
'"
..,
oS)
(0)
...
In
1J
1J
G)
rl)
o
'I
..,
rJl""'."
~
.; ~J$lrP
SA V ANAH LIMITED PARMRSBIP
2049 Century Park East, SuiU! 3160
Los Anleles, California 98061
(310) 556-3350 Phone
(310) SS6-06S2 Fax
October 18, 1994
Mr. Stan Clauson
Planning Director, City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Meadows
Dear Mr. Clauson:
I am writing to you on behalf of Savanah Llmited Partnership, owner and
Newfield Enterprises International. Inc., developer of Lots S and 6, Aspen Meadows
Specially Planned Area. My letter is to confirm that we have authorized the preparation
by Joseph Wells Land Planni.'lg of the attached lot line adjustment request between Lot
lA and Lot 5 as well as the insubstantial amendment request for Lot 6 to clarify the
calculation of FAR square footage.
During the processing of this application, the Applicants will be represented by
Ferdinand Belz and Joseph Wells. Please contact Ferd or Joe if you have any questions
or need additional information.
R. Benjamin
'dent
Aspen nses International, Inc.
Managing General Partner for
Savanah Limited Partnership
ORB:yni
cc: Ferdinand Belz
Joseph Wells
ZOOIZOO~
'.LNa ala LilMaN
ZS90 9SS Ole XVd L~:9l .6/Sl/0l
P.2
1""..
~
D...d '1', Mc/.augllllc
Ch./fIlfClldfrhe Bam
.
October 13, 1994
Nick Coatee
Coa.t , .Reici, 8t Waldron
720 t Hyman. Avenue
As / CO 81611
Oea Nick:
. I With reference to yow letter of October 11, and Joe Wells'
lertet of October S, regarcting the lot line between the Institute and
Lot ~uznber 6 of the TeMis TOWMo.l1'lS property, we ag:r:te with the
adj~tment to tluI north bounduy Une, out would. hope that the site
of t1j.e trail eaBetrlent could straddle the adjacent lot line so there is
no ~ateria1 enc:oaclul:lent on the Institute. Nonethelesa, we
con1ur with the adjustments 81 presented.
i Regards,
I
~
David T. McLaughliJ\
trattYe c:en*: P.O. Balt au. 2010 Camtdlll.el iIAncL Queenstowa.,.MD 11618
(41011110.542, . PAX (410) U7.PIQ . .
l!::rlNtI' I au )low lIOlIIlItI3ire Ave.."e, NW, SIlII. 1070, WuhlllSfOll, ZlC ~OOS~ . (J021 r36.JHO . 'AX (202) *lMrlO
" Me_liIatlOllsl Ses>Ilnar C:~ur, 1000 Nozlll TlII:d SUee\, ~ CO IIIll . (JaIl 50!4'''1IO. ~AX (50J) '''''.11
'.---..". .,........,..."',-........,' '."--'-..-",...-,...., .