HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Aspen Meadows Trustee.A8496
~.
,
?
.
MEMORANDUM
To:
Julie Ann Woods, Plarmer
Thru:
Nick Adeh, City Engin~
Chuck Roth, Project Engineer @."f?-
From:
Date:
February 12, 1997
Re:
Trustee Townhomes At-the-Aspen Meadows Plat Amendment
I have reviewed the above referenced application, and I have the following comments:
I. Missing plat content requirements are as follows:
a. The zone district must be indicated.
b. If a title policy more recent than the 02/01/95 policy has been performed, it must be
referenced in the surveyor's certificate in order to ensure that the most current information
on easements has been shown. Otherwise, a title company letter must be referenced that
updates the earlier commitment for current easements of record to be shown on the plat.
c. Names of all adjoining subdivisions with dotted lines of abutting lots.
d. Include the legal description of the lot, both beneath the title and in the owner's
certificate. State the total acreage to nearest 0.001 acre.
e. State the basis of bearings.
f. Add title and City Council certificates.
2. Additional plat content comments:
a. Plat note 2 should read "horizontal" in lieu of "vertical."
I
. ,
b. Add a note that references previous platting, explaining the changes by the amendment,
and stating that in all other regards, the original plats remains in full force and effect.
3. Utility Easements - Plate note 3 states "Front deck on Unit 2 extends upon water easement."
The plat drawing does not show this although the original plat did show it.
The current, proposed plat amendment shows patios on Units 2 and 3 extending into a sewer
easement. This is not permissible unless approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
An approval certificate must be provided for the Sanitation District stating that the encroachment
into the easement is acceptable. Or the sewer easement can be re-established away from the decks.
The proposed building footprint of Unit I is shown extending into an electric easement. This
is not permissible unless approved by Holy Cross Electric Association. An approval certificate
must be provided for HCEA stating that the encroachment into the easement is acceptable. Or the
electric easement can be re-established away from the building envelope.
M97.34
2
"'_.~----'-"'~~-"-"">"^'--' ..._"-----~._.",'- ,_--~"."-,--'
,-.
""'"'
...;
RHONDA J. BAZIL, P.e.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
........
323 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 301
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE: (970) 925.7171
FACSIMILE: (970) 925.9199
February 5, 1997
Mr. Chuck Roth
Engineering Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Trustee Townhomes
Dear Chuck:
I am enclosing the First Amendment to the Condominium Plat of
the Trustee Townhomes. This Plat contains three major changes from
the previous plat:
1. There is a new easement for the sewer line on the west
side of the property;
2. The limited common elements designated as proposed
garages have been removed; and
3. The boundaries of Units 1, 10 and 11 have been moved.
As I mentioned on the telephone, I would like to run these
changes by you before I send the packet out to the owners for their
signatures. Please let me know if you have any questions or
revisions to this proposed amended plat.
I am also enclosing a recorded copy of the Utility Easement
that you sent to me.
Sincerely,
rjb/hs
enc.
RHONDA J. BAZIL, P.C.
By: '\2
Rhonda J.
cc: Mr. Don Schuster
."'-'""~""~"~""-~"'-----"~.~~^,~"..~-
.'
~, .-...
,--"..-'
)
RESOLUTION NO.Q
(Series of 1996)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF I;.SPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THElAseEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES,
UNITS 1, 10, AND 11, SPA AMENDME~ 1
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that this
application does not constitute an insubstantial amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA;
and
WHEREAS, Section 26.80.040(E)(2) states that "All other modifications shall be
approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided
that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final
development plan. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved final
)
development plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual and final
development plan review and approvaL" The Community Development Director has
determined, based on the Conceptual development approval granted by the Historic
Preservation Commission, that the amendment is consistent with the approved final
development plan and need not return to the conceptual review stage; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed
amendment to the Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhomes, Units 1, 10, and 11 at a public
hearing on December 10,1996; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the amendment is
not inconsistent with the Aspen Meadows Final SPA Agreement and recommends that
City Council approve the amendment with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the proposed amendment to the Aspen
.. "" .." "~'~"'~-'.~--"..._..-....-....,-,..,.."._~~_..
t,
""
Meadows Trustee Townhomes, Units 1,10, and 11 on December 16; and
-
,
WHEREAS, the City Council found that the amendment is not inconsistent with the
Aspen Mead9ws Final SPA Agreement and recommends approval with conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
The SPA amendment is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A revised condominium plat and revised SPA plan and SPA agreement shall be
filed with the Pitkin County Clerk within 180 days following approval by City
Council. Such amendments shall comply with the requirements of Section
26.88.040(D)(3) and (4) and Section 26.88.070(B)(1)(b)(1)-(9).
2. Any outstanding conditions of approval of Ordinance #6, Series of 1996, the last
extension of vested rights, must be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the new units.
)
3.
All construction and tree protection methods identified in Section lI(h) of the Aspen
Meadows SPA Agreement shall be adhered to.
4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during
public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
'5. Trees which will be retained must be protected prior to any grading, excavation,
material storage, or construction, by the placement of barricade fences outside of
the dripline of the trees. Fencing location and type shall be approved by the Parks
Department prior to the issuance of any construction permits. Should the trees not
survive within two years of completion of construction, the applicant shall mitigate
for the replacement of the lost trees.
RESOLVED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this I~ day of ~
1996, by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado.
)
~(3~
John en nett, Mayor
)
)
------._~
I, Kathryn Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing
is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held~ I~ 1996
1.\ f, '.1
~
"..."'
""'"
"'....
RESOLUTION NO. 13
(Series of 1996)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE ASPEN MEADOWS
TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES, UNITS 1, 10, AND 11, SPA AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that this
application does not constitute an insubstantial amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA;
and
WHEREAS, Section 26.80.040(E)(2) states that "All other modifications shall be
approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided
that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final
development plan. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved final
development plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual and final
development plan review and approval." The Community Development Director has
determined, based on the Conceptual development approval granted by the Historic
Preservation Commission, that the amendment is consistent with the approved final
development plan and was not required to return to the conceptual review stage; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed
amendment to the Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhomes, Units 1, 10, and 11 at a public
hearing on December 10, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the amendment is
I
not inconsistent with the Aspen Meadows Final SPA ,Agreement and recommends that
City Council approve the amendment with conditions.
~
If"
... ~
p,",
""'4
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT IT HEREBY
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWNHOME
SPA AMENDMENT TO CITY COUNCIL, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. A revised condominium plat and revised SPA plan and SPA agreement shall be
filed with the Pitkin County Clerk within 180 days following approval by City
Council. Such amendments shall comply with the requirements of Section
26.88.040(0)(3) and (4) and Section 26.88.070(B)(1)(b)(1)-(9).
2. Any outstanding conditions of approval of Ordinance #6, Series of 1996, the last
extension of vested rights, must be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the new units.
3. All construction and tree protection methods identified in Section II(h) of the Aspen
Meadows SPA Agreement shall be adhered to.
4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during
public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval. unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
5. Trees which will be retained must be protected prior to any grading, excavation,
material storage, or construction, by the placement of barricade fences outside of
the dripline of the trees. Fencing location and type shall be approved by the Parks
Department prior to the issuance of any construction permits. Should the trees not
survive within two years of completion of construction, the applicant shall mitigate
for the replacement of the lost trees.
RESOLVED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this /Qjay of JJeCl;lVi6 f!-L-
1996, by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Aspen, Colorado.
SaltA.- ~tyl/
Sara Garton, Chair
I, Jackie Lothian, duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy 01 that resolution adopted by e Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of A?pel'1, Colorado, at a meeting held /, /
1996.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
..-
'.",""
'~""I c..
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
Stan Clauson, Community Development DirectoW
THRU:
FROM:
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
Resolution #J!i., Series of 1996, Aspen Meadows Trustee
Townhouses, Units 1, 10, and 11, SPA Amendment
DATE:
December 16, 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Aspen Meadows SPA was approved by City Council on May 28, 1991.
It included remodeling and expansion of the eight existing Trustee Townhouses, and
construction of three new units. Subsequently, the Institute concluded that the proposed
construction, which was to step down the hillside above Castle Creek, is not feasible for
their organization and therefore has not been built to date. A new scenario has been
selected and conceptually approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (minutes
attached) under which the existing historic townhouses Bayer units will be remodeled
slightly, but not significantly expanded. The three new units are to be built to the FAR
which was approved in the SPA Agreement and will now be detached from the original
units to avoid overscaling them. Detaching the new units from the existing units requires a
change in the approved building envelope and therefore requires an amendment to the
SPA Agreement.
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this application on
December 10 and recommended approval of the applicant's request.
Vested rights for this development have been extended several times since 1991 and are
currently set to expire on December 19, 1996.
APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute and Doug MacPherson, represented by
Gretchen Greenwood.
LOCATION:
Aspen Meadows, Lot 5,1101-1211 Meadows Trustee Townhouses
1
,"""'-.
'"'
...,1
~",....
ZONING:
RMF/SPA
REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF ANALYSIS: The Community Development Director
has determined that this application does not constitute an insubstantial amendment to
the SPA. Section 26.80.040(E)(2) states that "All other modifications shall be approved
pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided that the
proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final
development plan. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved final
development plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual and final
development plan review and approval." The Community Development Director has
determined, based on the Conceptual development approval granted by the Historic
Preservation Commission, that the amendment is consistent with the approved final
development plan and need not return to the conceptual review stage.
The review standards of Section 26.80.040(8) are as follows:
Review standards for development in a specially planned area (SPA). In the review
of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development
plan, the commission and city council shall consider the following.
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height,
bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
Response: The proposal does not affect approved land use or density. Detaching the
three new units from the existing town homes preserves their architectural integrity and
preserves vegetation which buffers them from the new construction.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development
Response: The proposal does not increase demands on public facilities or roads
because there is no increase in density.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and possibility of mud flow, rock
falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Response: The applicant represents that the characteristics of the new building
envelopes, in terms of slope, ground stability and environmental hazards, are the same
as the previously approved envelopes.
2
......
'-'
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques
to preserved significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide
open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at
large.
Response: The applicant's proposal to detach the new units from the existing units is a
result of the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation. Because the new
units are physically larger than the existing, and because of a desire to visually distinguish
the new construction from the Bayer units which are considered historic resources, the
Commission found that a physical separation of the buildings was compatible with the
surrounding context. This results in the preservation of several large trees which are
directly next to the existing end units, and provides some privacy for the owners of both
the new and old units. Relocating the building envelopes for units 1, 10, and 11 does not
impact the trail easement established in the SPA Agreement.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The proposal is not in conflict with any elements of the AACP.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
Response: The proposal does not require any additional expenditures for public
facilities.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet
the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
Response: The requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b) are met by this proposal.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Response: The proposal does not require any additional GMQS allotments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend that Council approve the Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhomes, Units
1, 10, and 11, SPA Amendment with the following conditions, as stated in
Resolution # 15 , Series of 1996:
1. A revised condominium plat and revised SPA plan and SPA agreement
shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk within 180 days following approval
3
-..
'"..;;1'
by City Council. Such amendments shall comply with the requirements of
Section 26.88.040(0)(3) and (4) and Section 26.88.070(B)(1)(b)(1)-(9).
2. Any outstanding conditions of approval of Ordinance #6, Series of 1996, the
last extension of vested rights, must be completed prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the new units.
3. All construction and tree protection methods identified in Section lI(h) of the
Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement shall be adhered to.
4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during
public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
5. Trees which will be retained must be protected prior to any grading, excavation,
material storage, or construction, by the placement of barricade fences outside of
the dripline of the trees. Fencing location and type shall be approved by the Parks
Department prior to the issuance of any construction permits. Should the trees not
survive within two years of completion of construction, the applicant shall mitigate
for the replacement of the lost trees.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution # 76, Series of
1996, Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses, Units 1, 10, and 11, SPA
Amendment.
Attachments:
A. Historic Preservation Commission minutes of August 28 and October 23,
1996
B. Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement, Trustee Townhouses
C. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #1-, Series of 1996
4
,....0.'.'.-\:;)0-;:10 \..oC:..J d~';,::Ja ......Ii
.-. -:.J-,
r'
"'-'"
November 5, 1996
Amendment to the
Aspen Trustee Townhouses
Units 1, 10 and 11
SPA Development Area
Final Development Application
Per the Aspen Municipal Code:
Section 26.80.050.(E)(2)
E. Amendment to final development plan
2. All other modifications shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the
final development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an
enhancement of the approved final development plan.
D. Final Development Plan
1. Contents of Application
a. General Requirements as found in Section 26.52.030. are as follows:
L Applicant: Me. Douglas 1. McPherson for the Aspen Institute
Address: 534E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 925.7090
Attached please find a letter authorizing Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen
Greenwood and Associates to act on behalf of the Applicant.
2. Legal Description: Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses
Lot 5
1101-1211 Meadows Trustee off Meadows Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
3. The disclosure of Ownership of Lots 1,10 and 11 by the Aspen Institute is
on file with the City of Aspen.
4. Attached please find the Vicinity Map locating the subject parcel.
5. A Site Improvement Survey is attached for your review.
6. A written description of the proposed development is attached.
7. The Review Standards for anSPA is attached fur your review.
NGv-0c-~6 w~J ~~=~i ~,'l
"-""'"
'''''k ",'
.- 4 J":"
6. Written Description oftbe Proposed Development
BacklUound
The original eight Trustee townhouses were designed by Herbert Bayer in 1965.
These Bayer townhouses have been approved through a SPA for a redevelopment and
redesign, that includes living space, one bedroom, bath, mechanical room, detached garage
and exterior decks. The proposed approved additions would add a total of 2,800 square
feet of floor area to Units 2 through 9. To date, the expansion and redevelopment plans
for the Bayer towOhouses Units 2 through 9 have not been completed.
The approved SPA also allows for the construction of three new townhouses,
Units I, 10 and 11. The proposed Unit 1 is located to the south end of the existing Unit 2
and the proposed Units 10 and 11 are located directly to the north of Unit 9.
The proposed application will develop the three new townhouses, Unit 1, 10 and
11, with a compatible, yet different floor plan and elevations. The proposed townhouses
are 3,400 Square feet each, with a 400 Sq.ft.Garage. The new townhouses are larger in
size than the existing units. This is due to the programmatic needs of the developer and
the Aspen Institute to have an inventory of more spacious accommodations for their r~ntal
use for the visiting Aspen Institute guests. The original SPA has an allowable Floor. Area
Ratio of 27,500 Sq.ft. for the entire Lot 5, Units 1 through 11. This amendment does not
change the floor area of the entire parcel. In addition, none of the underlying Zone District
requirements will change with this SPA amendment modification. (See Zoning
Requirements for Lot 5 SP A- attached)
The architecture of the new townhouses departs from the existing townhouses
(Units 2-9) in order to preserve the integrity of the existing architecture of the Herbert
Bayer Townhouses. The new buildings have been designed to have a simple appearance,
combining details, proportions and materials similar to the Bayer townhouses.
NUV-do-~6 w~~ d4;~2 H~
i-'~dO
I.
-.
""",,.,.'
'_.'
Amendment Pronosal to the llnoroved SPA
as fonows:
1.. Relocation of Building envelope 1, 10 and 11.
2. Building Design
1. Relocation of Building Envelope 1,10 and 11.
The proposed Units I, 1 o and 11 have received Conceptual Development
Approval with the Historic Preservation Commission. This approval was conditioned
upon the relocation of the building envelopes apart from the existing townhouses. Based
on the desire of the neighbors, and the HPC, to relocate the buildings apart from the
existing units, the Applicant resubmitted a new site plan to the HPC with the buildings
located as far as possible from the existing townhouses. The buildings were relocated yet
remained within the dimensional zoning requirements of the Zone District for this Lo t 5.
SPA With this relocation, the HPC granted Conceptual Development along with the
approval of the new building design. The relocation of these buildings resulted in new
building envelopes that would require an amendment to the SPA by the Planning
Commission and thc City Council. Thc proposed building cnvelopes for Units 1, 10 and
11 are shown on thc attached drawings.
A Unit 1 Building Envelope has been relocated to the South of Unit 2, with a distance of
6 feet from the southeast comer of the existing building envelope ana26 feet from the
southwest corner of the existing building envelope.
B. Unit 10 and 11 Building Envelope has been relocated to the north of Unit 9, with a
distancc of 40 feet from the northeast comer of the existing building envelope and 25 feet
from the northwest corner of the existing building envelope.
2. Building Design
The Historic Preservation Commission has granted Conceptual Development to
the proposed building design. Elevations, tloor plans and site plans are attached for your
review. The Applicant has been through a two step Conceptual Development process
with the HPC in order to address all the conccrns of the neighbors as well as the design
concerns of the HPe. The result of those meetings is Conceptual Development Approval,
by the Historic Preservation Commission on October 23, 1996.
NUV-~O-~O wED d4:33 "11
-""
....
;- . <;) I
7. Review Standards
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density,
height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
The proposed modifications are compatible with the originally approved SPAThe
Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed design and location of the
units and have found that the development is compatible with the immediate parcels in
terms ofland use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscape and open space. The
proposed development does not change the land use on Lot 5, the development does not'
increase the density, as it remains the same as what has already been approved. The height
of the building is allowed as per the existing SPA, the mass of the buildings has been
approved by the HPC as well as the SPA allows fur buildings of varying floor area, the
architecture and landscaping is consistent with the Bayer townhouses, and the open space
has remained the same as originally approved.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads !!XUt to service the proposed
development.
The proposed development does not create any more demand on public facilities
and roads as the original approved development.
3. Whether the parCel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud
flow, rock falls, avalanche danEers and flood hazards.
The proposed development is within the approved Lot 5 area as was the. original
approved locations of the existing building envelopes. The proposed building envelope
conditions are the same as the approved building envelope conditions.
NGV-d6-96 ~ED d~:S~ ~11
~.<.Jo
-
.......
,
,#
Review Standards Cont.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques
to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and
provide open space, trials and similar amenities for the users of the projects and the
public at large.
The proposed development preserves many mature deciduous trees, conifers and
evergreens on the site. In addition, the relocation of the new townhouses, preserves the
integrity of the existing architecture of the Herbert Bayer townhouses. With the new
townhouses, located apart from the historic townhouses, thc relocation further establishes
the importance of the Bayer architectural legacy at thc Aspen Institute. The relocation of
Unit 1, to the south and away from Unit 2, preserves trees and views for Unit 2. The
relocaJ:ion of Units 10 and 11, about 40 feet from Unit 9, prescrves a mature growth of
trees growing directly next to Unit 9 as well as a significant evergreen tree to the north of
Unit 9. Therc are no adverse environmental impacts on trails, open space or the general
public as a result of this amendment to the SPA
5. Whether the development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Aspen area Comprehensive Plan.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding
neighborhood.
funds.
The proposed amendment will not require the expenditure of excessive public
7. Whether the proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent
meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments fro the proposed development.
There arc no new units created by this SPA amendment proposal.
~UV-Qo-9~ w~D d~:5~ ~l'l
;1'..-.,
,- . J;;>
,,~,'
". ......
(Final Development Plan cont.)
b. A precise plan of the proposed development......
The proposed development plan including land uses, densities, landscaping,
internal traffic circulation and accessways will remain as originally approved for the SPA
for the Aspen Meadows. A copy is available through the City of Aspen Community
Development Department.
c. A Statement specifying the underlying zone district on the parcel land, and, if variations
are proposed a statement of how the variations comply with the standards of Section
26,80.040(B}.
A Zone District statement is attached for your review. There are no variations
proposed as part of this development amendment proposal.
d. A statement outlining a development schedule specifYing the date construction is
proposed and initiated and completed.
Construction is proposed for April 1, 1997 and will completed no later than 18
months after completion. This is subject to the approval process and the Building
Department Pennit procedure. This statement is for Lot 5, Units I, 10 and 11 only as is
relates to this proposed amendment.
e. A statement specifying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the
proposed development.
The statements that were represented in the final development plan of the SPA
will remain the same.
f. A statement of the reasonable conformance of the final development plan with the
approval granted to the conceptual development plan and with the original intent of the
city council in designating the parcel specially planned area (SPA).
The proposed amendment conforms with the original intention of the SPA.
g. A plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section
26.88.040(D)(I)(a)(3) and (D)(2)(a).
A plat will be recorded after the final review by all the applicable review boards.
"G~-~o-~o _~D d4;~3 ~,'1 ..
,,: ,,-",.. . ~"/
'..:..' . ~~~:-i;~.~~~~f, .~. .r~f::,::il'i:~J.~~i~I;I...~:-., . \ ;~.tf~~l?r;;,;}:r.:.:\;r:. <".:-.~;;~~h~~~"l:iV!tlf~..~~:
... li"~:,'1"!:,~,,,,,J\M"~..t*A.M~\i~..,i,,,,~ 11. -,'"' '~I~. ;' Ji(.~t. o. ,a,,,,,,,,_ .' .rrI" .J.a 'T,NY"'~-'l!!:/Jl-r..... I
. .. I
\.''''
jt'J4fJ'737 01/::'4/92 JI,: 1'J R.,,, 1;/1<:"'.00 J)I~ 667 PG 761
Silvj il D;1\'1$, F-it'lln Cnt,;,v Clerk. I)or:: '$.1)1)
I. Dimen~ional Reouirements and Variations Therefrom
The following dimensional requirements are for the RMF Zone District;
variations in these requirements that have been granted for !he development
activity contemplated for Lot 6 are noled.
a)
Minimum 101 size (sq. fl.):
6,000
b) Minimum lol area per dwelling unU:
i)
3 bedroom unit:
3,630 sq. ft.
e)
Minimum lot width:
60 feel
d)
Minimum (ront yard:
e)
Minimum side yard:
5 fcet
l
I
~
I
I
/,
I'
I
!
,.
~,
i)
Principal building:
10 fet:t
ii)
Accessory building:
IS [cct
WllIC. A variation from minimum RMF Zone DistricI front yard
selbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by Ihe CHy 10
zero feel for Lot 6.)
f)
Minimum rear yard:
i)
Principal building:
A=sory building:
10 fcct
iI)
15 feet
g)
Maximum heigh!:
25 fCCI
~. A dimensional height variation (or the center porlion of the tennis
lownhomes has been granled by Ihe City (or up to three feet as sllown on
tile Plat.) .
h)
Pcrcent of open space required (or building sile:
35%
~. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requirements have been
waived by the City [or Lot 6 in consideration of the open space otherwise
provided in the SPA developmenl plan.)
27
.'......ftt,~...
. .
'.
~. .l...:.
Nuv-ao-9b WE~ ~4:55 AM.
.. ,~\:'. '"..,.....\~.,.. ('.~ "~'"'' . .
. ,\ wi' , :l\,I,.. III ~~ (,..'.;,.. .'
' '. d, ': . ..;1. ,.,"""" ...1\;'.:A.i'Ii"'>, _
-". . i>> .... "'..,,~...< . ~. #
., .., .~.,.v 'r.1'"--. "h" . t . , ,
.,of. J';J.i,~."""!l":Ii1.'.lll ~. ~ '... - ,"..... . . .MJ /;~~JJ .'(,' ,;'
k'
. /.,
~J"'~
!}34f~9~J"' 1:11/::.1/'.;~ 16: l3 r"'!~C '1.11'),",. f)(' [I' 667 ,~~ 762
~1.! .........f Ool.l'lj!:,. rj! Ill' CII/.\ f: I,..:,,. I.. nu", '1.. I),.,
i)
Exl~rnal FAR (maximum):
1:1
j)
k)
Internal FAR:
no requlremenl
Off-slreet parking requiremenl:
I space per bedroom
2. ~ondominillmi7.ation and Six Month Minimum l.ease Reauirement
J.
'''~.I~,
Pursuant to Jindings made during Ihe approval process and in accordance whh
Section 24-7~1007 of the Municipal Code, Ihe City gran Is and awards
condominlumization approval for the seven tennis townhome unilS on Lol 6 as
approved by lhis SPA plan.
The six month minimum lease requirement for condominium units as containcd
al Section 24-7-1007 (A)(l){b){l) of lhe Municipal Code has been and hcrcby is
waivcd as 10 Ihe seven condominium units on Lot 6.
,"
lli Tml)rovcmeQI~
II
~
~
,--
t~
j ,
I,
I
W
It
(a)
Uriliries. All telephone, eleclric and cable lines on the Property servicing
the: improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer
lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with slandards of tile
Cily and of Ihe ACSD and wriuen easements will be provided if and as
required confirming the as-builllocalion of each easement.
(b)
Land5caoe Imorovcments. SavaJlah shall abide by and substanlially
conform to till: tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of t:le:
Plat in Book ...ag:, at Page L. el set]. of the Records. Thc landscape
plans depict and describe the nature, extent and location of all plant
materials in appropriale relation to scale. species and size ar existing plant
material, flower and shrub bed definition, a planl malerial schedule wilh
common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed Irealment or
all ground surra~ (e.g., paving, lurf, gravel, tcrracing, tIC.), decoralive
waler fealures, retaining walls, fencing, benches, and all other agreed-
upon landscape fealures. Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical
sequence commensurale with the staging of improve men Is as contemplated
in tile Lot 6 Conslruction Schcdule, but in no event laler Ihan one year
. after the dale of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final
phase of improvement~. II is thc mUlual undcmanding of Ihe partics that
Certificates of Occupan.:y may in fact issue for improvemcnts even though
tile landscaping improvements related Ihereto have not yet been complct-
ed, so long as the portion of the financial guaranty provided for in Ihis
Agreement which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscaping
rcmains available to Ihe City pursuant to the terms of Ihis Agreemenl. All
28
-
ASPEN ~IST(~IC PRESERV A nON COMMI~ION AUG. 28, 1996
Meeting was called to order by 1st Vice-chairman Roger Moyer with Susan
Dodington, Suzannah Reid, Mark Onorofski and Donnelley Erdman
present. Jake Vickery was seated at 5:10 p.m. Melanie Roschko and Sven
Alstrom were excused.
MOTION: Susan moved to approve the minutes of July 10th as amended
and the minutes of July 24th; second by Suzannah. All infavor, motion
carried.
STAFF COMMENTS
Amy stated that 820 E. Cooper was red tagged.
Amy also stated that the Hotel Jerome is requesting air conditions for a few
days in their rooms to accommodate a group of clients requests.
Roger stated that Aspen is an tourist town and possibly health issues are a
concern. He also stated that it could be an air exchange system and more
research needs done.
Amy stated unless there is some justification she recommends against air
conditioners and the use of fans would be more appropriate.
ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWN HOMES - CD - PH
Gretchen Greenwood, architect presented the affidavit of posting to
Assistant Attorney David Hoefer.
David Hoefer stated that the affidavit of notice meets the requirements of
the City of Aspen and the HPC has jurisdiction to proceed.
Amy stated that an approval was given in 1991 to modify the units and add
three new units. At that time all the units were going to be brought to 2500
sq. ft. Since that time the plan has changed and the existing units are going
to be modified as is without much additional square footage. The new units
were expected to be built basically to match.
I
.\ . 1\
\i~~l6\r ~
ASPEN HISTOCiiIC PRESERVATION COMMI~ION AUG. 28, 1996
She also stated that the applicant would like to now change the new units.
They are proposing the same square footage but the building has a different
character. Originally there were to be detached car ports and the three new.
units have garages which is very different. There is not the solid and void
character in the new units. There ought to be some type of one story
element on the street facade. The HPC also needs landscape information.
Staff recommends tabling.
Gretchen Greenwood is the architect and Doug MacPherson is the
developer. There is one site at the south and two sites at the north end of
the existing town homes. The Aspen Meadows restaurant is at the South
end. In 1991 the units were designed for 2700 sqft. including a ten foot
addition on the back and a below grade space. The car port was to be
eliminated and garages were approved to be built. Although garages do not
exist they have to ability to build them at anytime because they are
approved plans.
She stated that the proposed plans for units I, 10, & II are similar in size in
terms ofF AR, they are 2700 sqft. but closerto 3400 sqft. in terms of what is
below grade in terms of mechanical laundry room which are below grade
quite extensively. The intent was to not replicate the designs of the existing
units. There is a one story element at the street which is a garage and the
door recesses back six feet with wing walls on either side and cut outs to de-
emphasize the garage and pick up other elements of different units. The
existing Bayer units are I 1/2 story down a steep site. The intent is to re-
create that with the two story element 30 feet back from the face of the
building. The height of the existing building is 21 feet above the existing
grade at the street and the proposed buildings. are 26 feet. The buildings sit
in the approved foot print of 1991. The buildings are separated from the
existing town homes about five feet. There will be shingles and clad
windows on the building.
Suzannah asked about the FAR and does it reduce the availability of square
footage for the other units.
,
Doug MacPherson stated that the Institute owns two other units and David
McLaughlin owns one and he has assigned that square footage to these three
units. None of the other home owners would loose square footage.
2
ASPEN HISTSitIC PRESERVATION COMMI~ION AUG. 28.1996
Amy stated that they were approved for all the units to have the same square
footage.
Gretchen stated that the SPA amendment allowed the units to vary in the
FAR due to the way each unit sits with the grade. Our attempt is to create a
different development because there are so many Bayer houses and they
stand on their own.
Chairman Jake Vickery opened the public hearing
Bob Maynard resides in unit #2 owned by the Aspen Skiing Co. which was
involved with the redo of the Aspen Meadows from the beginning. He
stated that the square footage is larger than the existing units and in the
existing units not one person has tried to do the expansion that was
approved in 1991. You can't do it economically. He stated for the last
thing to do in the institute is to bring in a foreign design different than what
was there before.
Harris Sherman stated that he owns unit 91 and he walked the area. As a
general matter he agrees with Bob about the character of the Meadows. The
existing eight units are low density and they all step down from the south to
the north end. There is a feeling of openness that goes with the units. He
stated that the car ports create space between the units and for those units
that have windows on the north side you can see Castle Creek and the
hillside coming down. Herbert Bayer made an impressive design. He stated
now on the north side there will be a two story wall beside his unit and he is
greatly effected by it literally being five or ten feet from his house. He
stated that he is looking into a wall of the new unit and detracts from his
unit and the overall ambiance of the Meadows. It is partly a problem of size
and how the units are located. There is adjacent land that the institute owns
and the units could be moved 40 feet to the north and vegetation planted.
He stated that he did not know what could be done with the south side of the
project. He stated that these are serious design issues andiimpacts. The
Aspen Institute owns the land and is selling it to Mr.. MacPherson and Mr.
Sherman does not want to complicate the plans of the institute. They have
the right to sell the land and get as much money as they can within the
context of what is being preserved. All of the existing eight units are
3
ASPEN HISTO~C PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUG. 28.1996
between 1600 and 1700 square feel. On the west side there is permission
to add space under the tirst t100r living room and technically you could not
do unless you excavated underground in order to create a basement area.
No one at present intends to do that. The proposed units start at 2700 sq. ft.
up to 3200 sq. ft. which is almost a doubling of the square footage. That
will change the character as it is twice the size. If the units could be
separated visually from the other units this maybe acceptable. Moving it 40
feet may not be acceptable depending on how the buildings are positioned.
Bob Maynard stated that there is a waiting list for the existing units and to
say that larger units are needed to meet the market demand is inappropriate.
Doug MacPherson stated that there maybe some demand for the existing
units but we are taking at a lower price given the price that he is going to
pay the institute for the vacant sites. Financially a bigger unit is needed
given the difficulty of the site and because of the price the institute wants
for the land. The prices for the existing units is $500,000.
The biggest unit is 3600 sqft. with some of it below grade. The institute had
expressed interest in having this kind of unit. David McLaughlin gave us
the transfer of square footage to this unit because the institute felt the need
for larger units.
Gideon Kaufman, attorney for the Institute stated that they support the
proposed projects. He spoke on behalf of five oT the eleven units. In 1991
when HPC had the debate whether the units should mirror the existing there
was a split on the HPC at that time. He presented a letter from the institute
in support of the project.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Donnelley stated that he is the monitor and acted on the project in 1991.
HPC's responsibility then and now is to the existing styling of the
architecture created by Herbert Bayer an('~ Fritz Benedict. He stated HPC
cannot comment on the F AR becau~e the applicant does have the right to
build to what they are allowed. They are also building within the foot print
that was approved in 1991. He stated that there are three major problems:
I) Hipped roofs are explicitly anathetical to that design.
4
ASPEN HIST&IC PRESERVATION COMM~ION AUG. 28. 1996
2) The roof pitch is too steep. What was approved in 1991 the S. elevation
acknowledge the very shallow pitch of the other units and that is consistent
with the Bauhaus aesthetics, no hipped roofs appeared in this design.
3) The vertical fenestration or bands of fenestration always emphasized
horizontality.
Susan stated that the HPC needs to stay with the Herbert Bayer plan. She
also stated her concern is that on the north there is one house and the south
has two which looks awkward. It is unbalanced and she also indicated that
the new houses should be spaced appropriately, i.e. 40 feet separation on the
south.
Mark stated that his concern is the proximity of the two units to the existing
units. He also stated that roof pitches need addressed and he agrees with
Donnelley.
Suzannah agreed with Donnelley also. A cue should be taken from the
older buildings in the way the massing was done and the way they split
from side to side with the sloped roof and flat roof That is important to the
rhythm of the project. They do not respect one another the way the original
design does as the eaves drop down. #10 should be sifted to the outside and
well as -# II. The new buildings need to be significantly separated and the
amount should be determined.
Roge'r stated that he was here in 1991 and concurs with Donnelley. He also
agrees with the separation of units at both ends.
Gretchen stated that they want the units divorced from the original units and
it would be better project if they could be stepped down. Right now we are
allowed a five foot setback and they are 21 feet from the side so there is
room to move. 40 feet might put them over the property line on the road.
Doug MacPherson stated that he met with Sherman and his concern was
separation and he would move them as far to the north as possibly. He
stated that he could get some separation on Bob Maynard's unit on the
south but the restaurant is close and it is a steep site. He will get a topo
done this week.
5
ASPEN HIST~IC PRESERVATION COMMQ,ION AUG. 28. 1996
Roger asked about the garages.
Doug stated that the present homeowners did not want to peruse it.
Gretchen stated that if you site visited the area the turning radius would be
very difficult to do.
Bob Maynard stated that the units are large but that is his personal concern.
It is deviation from what is there historically that concerns him.
MOTION: Donnelley moved that the application for units 1, 10 & 11 of the
Aspen Meadows town homes be tabled suggesting restudy of specific areas:
1) Reduction or elimination of hipped roofs.
2) Reduction of the pitch of the main roofs.
3) Restudy offenestration to be more consistent with the prevailing
aesthetics.
4) Investigation of possible further separation of the proposed new work
from the existing town homes; second by Roger.
DISCUSSION
Suzannah stated that she would like massing included in the motion.
She stated-that you have a tall volume and a longer low volume going along
and in the proposed elevations there is one single large volume and the
hipped roof doesn't effect that.
Amended motion:
5) Restudy of massing in general to reflect a better articulation of
heights as expressed in the existing town houses.
second by Roger. All in favor of motion and amended motion.
Suzannah also stated that she has concerns with the garages.
Roger stated th3(t he does not find the garages objectionable and they
differentiate between Bayer and new. He also likes the idea ofthe winged
walls and recessed doors. In this particular case it is not on the street.
6
ASPEN HIST&C PRESERVATION COMMI~ION AUG. 28, 1996
Donnelley stated that there is a precedence as the entrance to the units is on
the side where you park your car.
Gretchen stated that the entry is 26 feet back from the face of the garage.
They tried to get a relationship between the depth of the entry without cars
similar to the existing town homes.
Donnelley stated that the 1991 approvals did not approve garages within the
units. He also stated that he would rather see car ports than garages. He
would rather see a more appropriate reflection of the shallow pitched roofs.
Jake stated that the issue of the car port should be considered with the
general issue of massing.
MOTION: Suzannah moved to table the application until Sept. 25. 1996.
second by Roger. All infavor, motion carried
ENTRANCE TO ASPEN
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director presented the EIS in its
most recent form. The impact statement was handed out to the Board. Stan
also presented a draft resolution to the Board on part of the Elected Officials
that would be a unified response. The response accepts the modified direct
alignment which goes through the Marolt Open Space. In CDOT's
suggestion of the supplementary draft a highway would be constructed as
the first phase which would contain two general traffic lanes and two
dedicated bus lanes. This draft is asking CDOT for two lanes of highway
and a transit envelope. The concern of a four lane has impacts on Marolt
Open space which is too great. The proposed cut and cover of 400 feet
would mitigate for the open space of the new road. There would be a
continuous flow of open space from upper Marolt Thomas to the golf
course. Cemetery lane would be brought in on the Castle Creek Bridge and
intersect with Main Street.
Amy stated that at the last meeting HPC did not support the cut and cover
and she supplied comments to council. Numerous issues need to be taken
into account.
7
ASPEN HISTCIC PRESERVATION COM~ION OCT. 23, 1996
Cunniffe & Assoc. stated that there is inadequate display space for the
windows. They desire to enlarge the openings and change the design of the
existing door and provide a glazed door to enhance the retail space.
Sven stated that he likes the cleaness of the glass area.
Donnelley stated that typically with this particular type of building the
glazing was not taken to ground level.
Susan agreed with Donnelley and it looks chalet like.
Roger stated some windows in chalets in Europe went to the ground.
Stefan Kaelin, owner stated that the windows need to be proportioned with
the beams.
Suzannah also reiterated that she felt the glass going to the ground was
inappropriate. Functionally with the snow etc. it would be difficult to
maintain.
Roger stated the building has the basic mass and scale of an European
building and either window elevation is acceptable.
Sven asked what the material would be on the windows.
Stefan stated wood.
MOTION: Suzannah made the motion to approve diagram #2 that was
presented at the meetingfor the window modification; second by Susan.
Motion carried 3-2.
ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWN HOMES - CONCEPTUAL
I
Roger stated that this is conceptual continued from Aug. 28th.
Amy Amidon, Planner stated that this project has changed in numerous
forms. In 1991 the existing units were proposed to be expanded and three
5
&. r".
ASPEN HIST Ie PRESERV A nON COMMh09SlON OCT. 23, 1996
new units almost identical would be built next to them. Recently the
property owners decided that the expansion of the existing units was not
feasible and that the three new units would still be built to match the
existing remodeled units, therefore not maximizing ultimate size of the FAR
they could build to. What has come back to us is that the three new units
will be at their maximum FAR, therefore you have three units that are larger
than the historic resource. On Aug. 28th conceptual was tabled with five
conditions outlined in the memo. The conditions mostly tried to bring the
new units into a more similar vocabulary like the existing and also HPC
talked about separating the new from the old because of the difference in
scale. The applicant has come back with revised architectural plans for the
new units and a revised site plan. In applying to our standards they have
really responded to the conditions of approval and Staff feels that the new
design is much more compatible, much more sympathetic solution. The
existing units will remain as their own grouping and not be added onto and
al teredo
Staff has some concern that the public has indicated that they did not have
an opportunity to read the plans and they would like HPC to table. The
applicant is concerned with their due diligence period.
Assistant Attorney David Hoefer stated that Staff should read the letters into
the record.
Amy stated that Bob Maynard wrote a letter to request postponement of
HPC' c consideration of the plans for the three new units for the Aspen
Institute, a hearing scheduled for Oct. 23rd. The developer Doug
MacPherson assured us that we would receive new plans in advance of the
hearing, and to date we have not received them and obviously cannot review
them relative to the site. We respect Mr. MacPherson and would hope that
he would treat us with respect as well. Consequently we request that the
hearing be rescheduled to a later date so that we can have the opportunity to
receive and review the new plans.
I
Amy stated that the second letter is from Harris Sherman. This letter
concerns our telephone conversation of Oct. 21 st in which I have requested
the postponement ofHPC's Oct. 23rd consideration of the new plans for the
three units at the Aspen Institute. I am the property owner adjacent to the
6
ASPEN HIST<CIC PRESERVATION COMM....6ION OCT. 23, 1996
proposed new units under consideration and I earlier expressed my concern
regarding the size and location of such units because of their corresponding
impact on the architectural and historic qualities of the existing town
houses. The developer Doug MacPherson promised me approximately six
weeks ago that he would provide architectural and site plans well in
advance of this meeting. By numerous phone calls, the latest of which
occurred ten days ago, I have still received nothing and it is impossible to
review this proposal without some advance notice. Therefore, I strongly
request the following:
Postponement of this matter atWednesday's meeting.
That the plans be given to me at least two or three weeks in advance of the
next meeting.
That I have the opportunity to meet with your Staff.
Roger asked if the public had comments relative to this proposal, for or
against.
David Bellack, attorney for Aspen Skiing Company stated that he is
representing Mr. Sherman and Mr. Maynard as they are both out of town.
David Bellack stated that he recognizes that there may not be any perhaps
strict legal rights for them to receive the plans at a particular time before
this meeting he feels it is the sense of the neighborhood in a large part of
this community as a whole that should be sought to be protected by this
commission and without a fair opportunity to look at the plans by the
neighbors especially as plans continue to change and evolve as they go
through the process in a reasonably amount of time to look at those and
consider how they impact the feel of the historic area. He feels that this is
an important voice in the decision that should be heard. A reasonably short
term postponement should be allowed to have the property staked so that
the neighbors can visually see the proposed area and that the plans be
distributed to review the impacts of the individual property of the overall
sense of that unique area.
Cindy Vlnesky, Vice-president for Administration at the Aspen Institute
stated that David McLaugahlin is in Germany and she is representing the
Institute. She stated that the Institute supports the applicants proposal and
have worked closely with Doug and the neighbors trying to accommodate
7
& '
ASPEN HIST C PRESERVATION COMMh'Y'SION OCT. 23. 1996
most of the conditions that were requested. The developer is well within the
original proposal that was approved by the HPC and that it will be
detrimental to the institute if we hold this up much longer. The Institute
intended to sell the lots at the same time they sold the trustee town homes
but unfortunately the arrangement didn't work. The Institute is in need of
funds and we are very concerned with our neighbors because they are also
on the campus. Doug and David McLaughlin have worked closely with
Bob Maynard and Harris Sherman and have resolved most of the issues that
were out standing.
Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer asked the applicant Doug
MacPherson when the plans were available and if there has been an effort to
provide them to the interested party.
Doug MacPherson stated with the new plans they addressed the concerns of
Harris Sherman who he and Dick Lamb own the end unit. Bob Maynard he
assumed is speaking as a concerned citizen because he doesn't believe he is
in the ownership or does not have a letter from the owner saying he can
represent the unit that he represents.
Dave Bellack, attorney stated that Bob Maynard is the tenant of the unit
which is owned by his client, which is the property owner Bell Mountain
Partners.
Doug MacPherson stated that Maynard is a sometime resident but Isn't a
full time resident. He also stated at the first meeting Harris spoke and his
concerns were, basically as approved the two end units are right up next to
him and he wanted some separation. One of the diagrams today shows a
separation and he told Harris this before todays meeting. He also faxed to
him at his office in Denver plans in which his secretary stated that he would
be in his office until 2:30 p.m. today. He may not have seen the new
diagram. He told hirn over the phone that he moved the units as far as they
can. He also stated that they will probably need a variance on the five foot
setback off that northerly line. He stated that they also separated unit # 1
from the unit that Bob Maynard resides in. One of Harris's concern were
the trees in which were not to be saved on the original plan.
8
ASPEN HISTC.IC PRESERV A nON COMM-.5ION OCT. 23. 1996
Roger asked the applicant what the minimum amount of time the applicant
could be delayed and still do what they need to do and satisfy their need and
supply information to the people who David Bellock are representing.
Doug MacPherson stated that Mr. Maynard and Mr. Harris are managing
this project for me, they do not want to see this project go forward. They do
not want to see anything built here. He also stated that if the Board tables
his application tonight it should be because his design is bad or that he
didn't address the concerns that were mentioned in the first meeting. He
stated that he hopes he isn't tabled because an attorney from Denver calls
and stated that he doesn't like what the applicant is doing and therefore he
needs two weeks to look at the project.
Gretchen Greenwood, architect stated to address the neighbors concerns
they have moved the building over to a point that it increases the amount of
meetings for an approval process. Legally they have the right to build right
up to Mr. Sherman's unit. They will have to go to the Board of Adjustment
for a variance and do a two step process with Council and the P&Z. They
have a long road of self-imposed approval processes. This meeting has
always been Oct. 23rd, it has not been changed. There is nothing else they
can do for Mr. Sherman. It is an approved .lot to build on and she feels they
ae out of line in requesting tabling.
Doug stated that the three sites are on lot 5 and he has to stay on lot 5.
David Hoefer, Assistant Attorney asked when the plans were provided to
Amy Amidon and did the applicant make any effort to provide them to the
neighbors.
Gretchen and Doug replied Tuesday the 15th as Amy was leaving town and
they did not contact the neighbors.
David Hoefer stated from the last meeting it was indicated that the applicant
would show the new designs to the neighbors.
Gretchen stated that has never been something that you have to do in an
approval process.
9
ASPEN HISTOIC PRESERVATION COMM~ION OCT. 23, 1996
David Hoefer asked the applicant if a delay of a week would impact the
applicant in the long term.
Roger asked the HPC if they desired to table or go on with the meeting?
Gretchen stated that she specifically came for this meeting and will not be
available for the another meeting next week.
David Bellack, attorney stated that it was his understanding that 54 days ago
at the original meeting the concerns of some of the neighbors were voiced
about design and some commitment was made to change the design and a
representation was made that before that design would be considered for
approval it would be shared with the neighbors and that was inpart echoed
by Mr. Hoefer's comments. It is a fundamental principle of land use law
that representation made by a developer in a development process become
part of the developers commitment as he goes through the process and
develops the project.
Roger stated that HPC does not have a regular meeting scheduled for next
week and a special meeting would have to be scheduled.
S ven stated that he would be in favor of a special meeting. He also stated
that he did not pick up on negative opposition of the project. His concern is
when somebody gives the commitee notice that they haven't received
adequate information and since we are a citizens group appointed by
Council he feels the board needs to be careful about that and when he sees
letters in writing requesting tabling he feels the Board should oblige.
Susan stated that she agrees with Sven.
Donnelley stated that there is nothing in the minutes that says there is an
obligation for the applicant to provide detailed plans and drawings to the
neighbors. To set a precedent like this that neighbors can table a project
and take more ofHPC's time which he really objects to he viamently
objects to this action. No one has any reason to complain about this
project. The applicant has made every effort to move the proposed
development as far away from the existing as possible. He feels it is a
stalling effort. He would never approve a delay like this.
10
ASPEN HIST~C PRESERVATION COMMI~ON OCT. 23.1996
Mark stated that this is a tough call. He subscribes to both comments so far
but in this case as Donnelly indicated we have no obligation to provide
notice to the property owners previously. In looking at the new design he is
interested in reviewing the project.
Suzannah stated that she agrees with Donnelley that the HPC Board should
proceed and if the neighbors felt it important to be here they would have
been here.
Roger asked Amy Amidon why she recommended tabling.
Amy stated that she felt it critically important that the surrounding property
owners do have their opportunity to review the plans but more information
has come to light since she had written the memo. She believes it is the
property owners who should contact the Planning Office who hold the
records not contacting the applicant. She did not hear from anyone until
Monday.
David Hoefer stated that ifHPC decides to proceed we would note for the
records that any implication of giving the plans to the neighbors prior was
not a jurisdictional condition. Secondly it is a public hearing and they
received notice of the public hearing and consequently you have jurisdiction
to proceed.
Roger asked the applicant to address the five concerns from the last
meeting.
Gretchen Greenwood stated that the goal was to move the buildings as far
away from the existing Aspen Trustee Town Houses as much as possible in
order to serve as its own identity because they are larger buildings and they
are not a 1/1/2 story building but they are like a split level two story. The
entire site has been surveyed.
One of Sherman's concerns was whether the buildings could be moved onto
the otherside of an evergreen tree and to preserve as much of the trees on
site as possible. They are moving the building approximately 33 feet at this
point to the opposite side of the tree. The footprint has always been the
11
ASPEN HISTQIC PRESERVATION COMM~ION OCT. 23, 1996
same as what was approved. Unit one has existing connifers on the side and
the car port will be ten feet away.
Some of the concerns of HPC were to eliminate the hipped roofs and they
did that and went to a 3 and 12 pitch that meets condition #2 which is the
exact same pitch as the existing town houses and in effect lowered the
overall height of the building to 25 feet from the asphalt.
On the overall fenestration a horizontal element was added to the south side
of the elevation which creates an illusion that you are looking through the
building. The garage is recessed behind the front facade six feet with a
heavy shingle surrounding it. They also picked up over hang elements,
sloping eaves and sloping soffets and beam detailing to add visual
relationship between the detailing of the existing and bringing it into the
new units which meeting condition #3.
Gretchen stated that they took the time to survey the site with regard to
condition #4, the separation of the new work from the existing town houses
so that the new development stands alone. The massing was restudied of
the different pitches and there is a level change among the roofs. There is a
lot of depth within the building. Regarding the materials they are using a
combination of a one by four like square edge vertical siding with shingles
in very much the same location as in the other buildings. This makes for a
visual relationship. The FAR and floor plans have stayed the same.
Amy stated the applicant needs a letter of support to the Board of
Adjustment to allow them to push the buildings into the side yard setback.
Gretchen stated that the movement of these buildings outside the footprint is
a hardship for the applicant because they have more approval processes to
go through which was not originally intended for the project. She indicated
that they need a strong approval for the design by HPc.
Suzannah inquired about what was on the other side of the property line.
Doug stated a road used by the Sanitation Dept. to service the area and that
is the only use of that road. They are in favor of Doug paying to gate it off
and giving them the key.
12
ASPEN HISTcCC PRESERV A nON COMMI~ON OCT. 23. 1996
Donnelley asked for a clarification of the fenestration on the new drawings.
Mark asked if the fenestration would be the same on all three buildings and
inquired about the trees that are to be saved on unit 10.
Gretchen stated the fenestration would be the same on all three buildings.
They have moved the building to the north of the tree that Sherman wanted
saved.
Mark asked about the excavation depth on the south of unit # 1 0 as he is
concerned about the tree.
Gretchen stated that she thought it would be about 8 feet, just outside the
drip line.
Mark stated that he recently lost a couple of trees because they were so
close.
Doug stated that they may loose some of the trees and he will be planting
200 to 400 trees on this site. Some will be planted between Mr. Sherman's
unit and some down below. They will pick the best places for them to
survIve.
COtvlMENTS
Donnelley stated he was concerned with the darkness of the entry that is
back 18 feet. When you read it from the vehicular and pedestrian entry side
which is the east elevation it is dark.
Gretchen stated that it will not be completely covered. Part of the car ports
have openings in them similar to a trellis. Over the entry will be solid then
an open trellis the rest of the way. It will be light and open.
Sven asked about the change on the vertical siding.
Gretchen stated the existing units have a combination of vertical siding and
shingles and in order to break up the mass of the building it was put on to be
13
ASPEN HISTcC:C PRESERVATION COMM~ION OCT. 23, 1996
sensitive to the Bayer units. Visually it is important to have the same kinds
of materials.
Suzannah stated that her main concern is not having the adjacent buildings
on the drawing elevations to see the spacing between the units 10 and 11.
Gretchen stated that Harris's roof height is 7,853 and unit ten height is
7,847 so it is approximately 6 feet below and it is also 33 feet away. The
unit next to that is four feet lower.
Roger stated that he would vote to approve conceptual and support a letter
to the Board of Adjustment. He also stated that the applicant addressed the
neighbors concerns and they are not impacting any other sites. Before final
he would like to have a site visit. At final a superb landscape plan should
be presented. A drawing of the adjacent building to scale should also be
presented at final to address Suzannah's concerns. Story polls should be
placed on the site.
Gretchen stated that they will stake the building for their own use. She will
let Amy know.
Sven stated when the motion is made he would like a restudy of the
chimney elements as to how they relate to the other buildings as he did not
see the relationship in the drawings.
Gretchen stated that she met the conditions.
,\totion: Donnelley moved that HPC grant conceptual development to the
proposed addition to Lot 5 vacant units 1,10 and 11 with the following
conditions: Prior to final fenestration be restudied and that the materials
be accurately described. That the chimneys and termination of the
chimneys be adequately described as there is no termination on the present
drawings. Details must be enlargedfor finals. Thefenestration has
problems with framing and site lines. A letter be sent to the Board of
Adjustment in support of the side yard variance; second by Mark. Mo~ion'
carried 5- r Sven voted no.
14
{;'
ASPEN HlST IC PRESERV A nON COMM~ION OCT. 23. 1996
Motion: Donnelley moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor,
motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
15
~;',1';~'~7 D'~~~:':'~;!': i'~'~' ;~C1f~:C C;-e,'~". O~CJ~I $ ~~~
F'f3 756
requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall
be subject to the prior approval of the City Attorney in his determination.
3. Trails
The Final Plat depicts a trail easement across the Physics Property from Gillespie
Street to the race track trail on Lot I. Physics and the City agree that this trail
easement is not to be paved. Physics is granting this easement but has no
financial obligation of any kind for the trail or any related work.
D. LOT 4 - CONSERVATION LAND:
Lot 4 is to be sold by Savanah to the City of Aspen for the purpose of open space. Lot
4 shall be zoned Wildlife Preservation (WP). It is the intention of this zone district that
this Property remain open with a trail system and appropriate bridge connections to the
Rio Grande Trail. Neither the Consortium nor any of its individual members thereof
shall have any responsibility whatsoever for the construction, installation or maintenance
of any trail or other recreational facilities to be incorporated into Lot 4. Exact trail
locations must be approved by the Planning Director giving priority to those alignments
which minimize damage or disruption to existing vegetation and landscape and which
subordinate grade considerations and, thus, minimize switchbacks, to preservation of
existing topography.
1. Site Improvements
(a) Utilities. The Final Plat shows utility line easements as existing and
proposed for electrical, gas, storm and sanitary sewer, and water.
E. LOT 5 - THE TRUSTEE HOUSES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS:
Lot 5 is Savanah's Property and is zoned RMF according to and as shown on the Plat.
Existing development on Lot 5 consists of the eight trustee houses, each of approximately
1,750 square feet, consisting of three bedrooms and two baths. Development has been
approved for an expansion and renovation of the existing trustee houses to create eight
three-bedroom units of 2,500 square feet of FAR each. In addition three new trustee
houses shall be developed on Lot 5, one on the South end of the existing units and two
on the North end of the existing units. Each new unit will be 2,500 square feet of FAR
with three bedrooms. Total build-out on Lot 5 shall consist of eleven units with thirty-
three bedrooms and 27,500 squire feet of FAR, excluding carports (up to 500 square feet
per dwelling unit). FARs ahd the definitions thereof for the existing and new trustee
houses shall remain as set forth and defined in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect
as of June 10, 1991, notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year
22
1\ &.'" \ ~:\- ~"
'"' -~1-0937 01/24/92 l':J: j.~.3 Rec "',.)0.00 .8~< 667 f:'G 757
~11\;i2 Davi'3~ F'itkin Cnty G......er"k. Doc :$;.00
period next succeedl1lg June ;0, 19'-'1, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change
to the definition or calculation of F ARs. The three new residences have received an
allotment under the GMQS and have received variations for setbacks, height and open
space, as noted on the Plat and as described below.
I. Dimensional Requirements and Variations Therefrom
The following dimensional requirements are for the RMF Zone District;
variations in these requirements that have been granted for the development
activity contemplated for Lot 5 are noted:
a)
Minimum lot size (sq. ft.):
6,000
b) Minimum lot area per dwelling unit:
i)
3 bedroom unit:
3,630 sq. ft.
c)
Minimum lot width:
60 feet
d) Minimum front yard:
i)
Principal building:
10 feet
ii)
Accessory building:
15 feet
(Note. A variation from minimum RMF Zone District front yard
setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by the City to
zero feet for Lot 5.)
e)
Minimum side yard:
5 feet
f) Minimum rear yard:
i)
Principal building:
10 feet
ii)
Accessory building:
15 feet
g)
Maximum height:
25 feet
(Note. A dimensional height variation for the two northernmost trustee
hbuses has been granted by the City for up to eight feet.)
h)
Percent of open space required for building site:
35%
23
i*::-:;-"..
':7' (:<J.....
,-~, ,1 .
..:...', ..
1. 6 ~ :i.'-3
r~:ec 'i14(:'-"-,
.' .~".
667
','"' 758
Si~'/.:'<::, D,::>,-,/i'::-:. F'itkin Cntv Clef' " L'OC $"OU
(Note. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requirements have been
waived by the City for Lot 5 in consideration of the open space otherwise
provided in the SPA development plan.)
i)
External FAR (maximum):
I: I
j)
k)
Internal FAR:
no requirement
Off-street parking requirement:
1 space per bedroom
2. Condominiumization and Six Month Minimum Lease Requirement
Pursuant to findings made during the approval process and in accordance with
Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City has granted and awarded
condominiumization approval for all eleven units contemplated for Lot 5.
Condominiumization of the eight existing units is subject to payment of an
affordable housing impact fee according to Section 24-7-1007A(1)(c). The fee
totals $64,240 and shall be paid at time of recordation of the condominium plat
and declaration for the units on Lot 5.
The six month minimum lease requirement for condominium units as contained
at Section 24-7-1007 (A)(l)(b)(l) of the Municipal Code has been and hereby is
waived as to all the condominium units on Lot 5 as approved by this SPA plan.
3. Site Tmorovements
(a) Utilities. All telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing
the improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer
lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the
City and of the ACSD and written easements will be provided if and as
required confirming the as-built location of each easement.
(b) Landscaoe Improvements. Savanah shall abide by and substantially
conform to the tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of the
Plat in Book 0\ 51 at Page 2, et seq. of the Records. The landscape
plans depict and describe the nature, extent and location of all plant
materials in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant
material, flower and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule with
common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of
all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, gravel, terracing, etc.), decorative
water features, retaining walls, fencing, benches, and all other agreed-
upon landscape features. Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical
sequence commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated
in the Lot 5 Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one year
24
",.......... -10(7'~3"? :) 1. .-/:~24./92 L b :1, J f:;:>:-:-c
'""S J. J. \/ :i. .:~, r;; .;:.~. v i -:3, :.:. 1. 7:. Ie: I. n ;-=: ;'-:'.~
~ '. ,;. '
,).:, m 667 F'S 759
,
;'~~:. ern. I.
Doc $.00
after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final
phase of improvements. It is the mutual understanding of the parties that
Certificates of Occupancy may in fact issue for improvements even though
the landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet been complet-
ed, so long as that portion of the financial guaranty provided for in this
Agreement, which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscap-
ing remains available to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
All tree replacement shall be on a one-to-one caliper inch basis throughout
the Project as a whole with minimum size at I 1/2" caliper.
4. Trails
The Plat depicts all trails dedicated or conveyed to public use and all easements
linking off-site trails to the Project's trail system, including the trail easement
between the tennis townhouses and restaurant. Written easements shall be
executed and conveyed after trail construction confirming the as-built location of
each easement. A portion of the trail Easement for the trail from Meadows Road
to Lot 4 crosses Lot 5, as depicted on the Plat. Trail construction on this
Easement and any other appurtenant recreational facilities and amenities and
landscaping is the sole responsibility of the City of Aspen. Neither Savanah nor
the Consortium shall have any financial responsibility for any of this work or for
the maintenance of any easements.
5. Financial Assurances
In order to secure the construction of the site and landscape improvements in
Paragraphs 3(a) and (b) above and to guarantee 100% of the estimated cost of
such improvements, Savanah shall guarantee by irrevocable bond, sight draft or
letter of commitment or credit from a financially responsible lender that funds in
the amount of such estimated costs, are held by it for the account of City for the
construction and installation of the above-described improvements. As a
condition for issuance of a building permit for a portion or all of the renovation
and new construction anticipated herein, Savanah and City shall agree on that
portion of the work outlined in Paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) above reasonably
necessary to complete the work for which a permit is being sought and the
mutually agreed upon financial assurances shall be delivered to the City prior to
issuance of the building permit. All financial assurances given by Savanah to
City, in all events, shall give the City the unconditional right, upon and following
default by Savanah, notice thereof by the City, and a forty day right thereafter to
cure, to withdraw funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or fully
complete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any uncontested
outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty
amount to be applied first to additional administrative or legal costs associated
with any such default and the repair of any deterioration in improvements already
25
I"'" ~~<,.l()<--, -' 1 :~2,,+/'S':2 "c'::': 1.,-3 R(";"p400. 00 E.:V 667 ~:'(3 760
\..-.- ':3il '1 D:J,',/:L';-:". !='ltkin Cnt\~'--1::1er'~":. DDe: ~'"OC;
constructed before the unused remainder (if any) of such guaranty is released to
Savanah. As portions of the required improvements are completed, the Public
Works Director shall inspect them, and upon approval and written acceptance, he
shall authorize the release from the guaranty delivered by Savanah of the agreed
estimated cost for that portion of the improvements except that 10% of the actual
cost of the site or landscape improvements shall be retained until all proposed site
or landscape improvements are completed and approved by the Public Works
Director.
At anytime and from time to time, Savanah shall have the right to substitute for
the form of financial assurance given, so long as such substituting form meets the
requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall
be subject to the prior approval of City Attorney in his determination.
6. Employee Housing
Savanah and the City acknowledge that the renovation and expansion of the eight
trustee houses do not create any employee impact because the bedroom count in
each unit remains at 3. Savanah shall pay to the City an affordable housing
mitigation impact fee for 1.66 low income employees per unit for each of the
three new residential units on Lot 5, in an amount to be calculated pursuant to
those fee guidelines in effect at the time the fee is to be paid. The fee shall be
paid prior to the issuance of the building permit for construction of any new
residential unit on Lot 5 and shall be paid in proportion to the number of units
sought to be permitted.
F. LOT 6 - THE TENNIS TOWNHOMES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS:
Lot 6 is owned by Savanan and is zoned RMF according to and as shown on the Plat.
Currently there is no residential development on Lot 6. Approved under this plan is
development of seven townhome units of three bedrooms and 2,500 square feet of FAR
each. Total build out on Lot 6 shall consist of seven units with twenty-one bedrooms and
17,500 square feet of FAR, excluding carports (up to 500 square feet per dwelling unit).
F ARs and the definitions thereof for the existing and new trustee houses shall remain as
set forth and defined in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect as of June 10, 1991,
notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year period next succeeding
June 19, 1991, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change to the definition or
calculation of FARs. The seven new townhomes have received an allotment under the
City GMQS and have received variations for height, open space and setbacks for
accessory buildings, all as noted on the Plat and described herein.
26
",..".,
........
'.
c......
RESOLUTION NO. \ q.
(Series of 1996)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE ASPEN MEADOWS
TRUSTEE TOWNHOMES, UNITS 1, 10, AND 11, SPA AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that this
application does not constitute an insubstantial amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA;
and
WHEREAS, Section 26.80.040(E)(2) states that "All other modifications shall be
approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided
that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final
development plan. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved final
development plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual and final
development plan review and approval." The Community Development Director has
determined, based on the Conceptual development approval granted by the Historic
Preservation Commission, that the amendment is consistent with the approved final
development plan and was not required to return to the conceptual review stage; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed
amendment to the Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhomes, Units 1, 10, and 11 at a public
hearing on December 10, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the amendment is
not inconsistent with the Aspen Meadows Final SPA Agreement and recommends that
City Council approve the amendment with conditions.
-
......
,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT IT HEREBY
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWNHOME
SPA AMENDMENT TO CITY COUNCIL, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. A revised condominium plat and revised SPA plan and SPA agreement shall be
filed with the Pitkin County Clerk within 180 days following approval by City
Council. Such amendments shall comply with the requirements of Section
26.88.040(0)(3) and (4) and Section 26.88.070(B)(1)(b)(1)-(9).
2. Any outstanding conditions of approval of Ordinance #6, Series of 1996, the last
extension of vested rights, must be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the new units.
3. All construction and tree protection methods identified in Section lI(h) of the Aspen
Meadows SPA Agreement shall be adhered to.
4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during
public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
5. Trees which will be retained must be protected prior to any grading, excavation,
material storage, or construction, by the placement of barricade fences outside of
the dripline of the trees. Fencing location and type shall be approved by the Parks
Department prior to the issuance of any construction permits. Should the trees not
survive within two years of completion of construction, the applicant shall mitigate
for the replacement of the lost trees.
RESOLVED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of ~,
1996, by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Aspen, Colorado.
Sara Garton, Chair
I, Jackie Lothian, duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held
1996.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
t......".:..'...........
.'.",,, .
.' '.. It
. .:.............
" .
::.'
) ~..:.~"'.T.
, ;."
of'.'
LE~iIl_~tlQT~$-, -',~:i~:~(.~f~;~;
~'~:~.. "..,.:~~i~~:.;t"~;.
a ...lIn.... .
,....,."""..
.:
\!) .,..-
. -
. -'
,1'(\. :J
,~l
.j. ,1,~~-,-~)
"~t:.' ,-,:.~%t:
",;l':Z~.tf!i:~,'
....,.~!*::>~~'-
..,.:.~~.;:::~,~:'.
." ,,i!'iit-~i;
,:~.w',',~'t:"'.'t
.~:fff,;:
_w:,~t~
'....,.,
'.
~
~.-
p''''''''
, ...~.,..
't:,
-,:'
~i;.
~~
I
I
I
I
,
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
... \
\ \
\ \
\ \ ...
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\
\
\ \
\
\\
~~
.
\
,
'-~
"'"'...,,""~~~
=-=-== ".,~.,...~
',..;.~~.:,_~,~,.::,;\ih:" .;
'~;:,"" >;:e .... ...,...... --'U::l:'
i~':' ........'..h..,.l~',:.'
. .,~.....~lc
'-)
>"--
. ~----
/' // ---....:
, .......-/ --_// I
/~y
/', ---'-.
\~/ 1'1' \'. -'--- 1'-,
. '~.J "" I
\;0) \
-
"
"
,."'"
I
\
\
"''J3IoJAVd
---
/"
/"
/"
/"
~
~
~
-~
~-
-~
./
/"/"
/" -
/"
/"
/"
~
~.~
\,
-'--
-0
"
'0":'
,I
C
,
,
\
\ '\
; \ """
\ \ -
\ ~\...;.-
Y~ \ y
l~Od~ J \ \ \
,
,
lN3^
\
en
lU3HA\iri
~.
~
"N C}
\j LlI
3
~
\
" -
'" -\ 3-
~ t
\F\l-
c:: -r l
=-.L..-4
~~i:\
f
-r
."
-=-
I:l
~
"
\l'
+
C il Nf!
3
'-Q\.
~g "
gc,o~i.
3'S
"
~
~E:
. -
\
-/'
\ \
\ '.
\
\
\
i
-
.....,
-,
...."
,
7
)
,
----
---
<'0 '-.. --
'-.. 0
SfWf '-.. ,,:.:
~;? "-.
11/ &'-1 "-.
Sf", "-.
, 1'.\1;-
"-. ""-. /
, /7/ I
/ j/
'. '
'/ //
//
/
/1--/
/ " 262,0 c
./
.-
! ~'" c
'---
/
7
/
/
'I
/
/
/, '
~
/
UN II' 9
PATIO
, /'"
/'^":~
'-------..
c
<=
I.
-\
--
'.,.,
.~ nt~:
!l.',
... ..- '-..
.~._-=. --.- ----~.-
''''"' 'O,m rJJOO
~
C
I
-\
~
\l
L
-\
I
..-
1
,1
"
'1
l
!
"
;L~
tit
iJ.
"~'
,.
I:>
\'"
,,'
\l>" ~
" <
;~ )-
~ -\
~ I
L I
I
I I
C5 "0"" ,""
~
Ir
!~
.........
c:
z
-.\
c
'7
, -
, "
\-
~
~
-\
iI,
: ,T
I '::.'1'
'. I '
Ii II ~ i
,', I'
I' ,!
i i i "
, .
. ,
"
\
,
\I
I '
I '
"I, IIII
~
\'
~
~
\
I \
\)
L
4-
j.J....---,..U-
II
--+
c
,.
'~"."
Co
z
~:.:,~t:..,'
.,;.~~
~}~,~',:.t:::<~.~ ~.
: .,\, :.- . ,\
I"" -."
: '"\ '
~
L
Ii ----..-.-".,
-J~
_,-'e"'"
c
"
..J
.... ."
~..
tf :';
C j'
~~/~., ,
/
I
I
/
/
/
/
:::1~_ ~~'~ ~ /
~'~-'-)\\"
"::': \l,.l /
<.1>: ~ i' /
. <- ; /
-:: i . I
10 ',. /
, =-\
'I' '
.1", .
,. I'
\;)
7-
r<
"'~""~';:
': .'," 1.1" .,1,.- . ~ .,
'~"";:?I\' , - " , ,
"~~~a,~++:f
~"".""'."."""">"IC'-.;t""",,""
. .,:-" -, .:~-'l ~,~),: '~:'i',~i'J1<}':":~';"-'_ .
.,.-.- ; . .~ .:" . '
":.-, . ",'"
'''-, '}1.'
'o~82~F"'''''3:l''
".....
\
\
\
f':
7
-
-\
-
-
L \~
L ~."
-\ 1:.
- ~'
~ 'l\
~
~
~ f;,
\J ~,
L::' "::'::\
-\ \}
~ ~<
,
\\\ ~
. -\
'\
~
"- <(
'"
~ )-
"
- -\
,
~ j
~ \)
I
I"'-
......
c
Z
--\
~
" I
' III
I'"
i,
I,:
<;::,
11.111
; I", I
",,/'I'I:::!i
, I ,
1"'1 !.I.,i
;1 I 'j:
I; I
I
~
\~
)-
~
--\
~~
,,~ '\
-;:~
~<-
)
-I
1,,1
I
'I'
\:J
L
'I
f~~n=-~-=n-= :t~-----l
1.1- - II t;: , I I J
t--=j- . l I
I f I I
"
"
~(;;
'i~.::i~
" :
,^
'~
"
c
" ... '2
~
~
-j<,.
L
~
-\
~
'\
~ \~
,~ <
-).
~- -\
\}
T
,
I
11
-
"-"
,
"
l
I
I
L__
r=r- -/
I
,.,,'-....
.....''!"~
'"
"
IIIc
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
~V
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director ,/
THRU:
THRU:
Mary Lackner, Acting Deputy Planning Director
FROM:
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses, Units 1, 10, and 11,
SPA Amendment
DATE:
December 10,1996 (continued from December 3,1996)
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Aspen Meadows SPA was approved by City Council on May 28,1991.
It included remodeling and expansion of the eight existing Trustee Townhouses, and
construction of three new units. Subsequently, the Institute concluded that the proposed
construction, which was to step down the hillside above Castle Creek, is not feasible for
their organization and has not been built to date. A new scenario has been selected and
conceptually approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (minutes attached) under
which the existing historic townhouses Bayer units will be remodeled slightly, but not
significantly expanded. The three new units are to be built to the FAR which was
approved in the SPA Agreement and will now be detached from the original units to avoid
overscaling them. Detaching the new units from the existing units requires a change in
the approved building envelope and therefore requires an amendment to the SPA
Agreement.
Vested rights for this development have been extended several times since 1991 and are
currently set to expire on December 19, 1996.
APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute and Doug MacPherson, represented by
Gretchen Greenwood.
LOCATION:
Aspen Meadows, Lot 5, 1101-1211 Meadows Trustee Townhouses
ZONING:
RMF/SPA
1
-
.......
...
'"
REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF ANALYSIS: The Community Development Director
has determined that this application does not constitute an insubstantial amendment to
the SPA Section 26.80.040(E)(2) states that "All other modifications shall be approved
pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided that the
proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final
development plan. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved final
development plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual and final
development plan review and approval." The Community Development Director has
determined, based on the Conceptual development approval granted by the Historic
Preservation Commission, that the amendment is consistent with the approved final
development plan and need not return to the conceptual review stage.
The review standards of Section 26.80.040(8) are as follows:
Review standards for development in a specially planned area (SPA). In the review
of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development
plan, the commission and city council shall consider the following.
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height,
bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
Response: The proposal does not affect approved land use or density. Detaching the
three new units from the existing townhomes preserves their architectural integrity and
preserves vegetation which buffers them from the new construction.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development
Response: The proposal does not increase demands on public facilities or roads
because there is no increase in density.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and possibility of mud flow, rock
falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Response: The applicant represents that the characteristics of the new building
. envelopes, in terms of slope, ground stability and environmental hazards, are the same
as the previously approved envelopes.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques
to preserved significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide
2
"""
,
-
/
open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at
large.
Response: The applicant's proposal to detach the new units from the existing units is a
result of the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation. Because the new
units are physically larger than the existing, and because of a desire to visually distinguish
the new construction from the Bayer units which are considered historic resources, the
Commission found that a physical separation of the buildings was compatible with the
surrounding context. This results in the preservation of several large trees which are
directly next to the existing end units, and provides some privacy for the owners of both
the new and old units. Relocating the building envelopes for units 1, 10, and 11 does not
impact the trail easement established in the SPA Agreement.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The proposal is not in conflict with any elements of the AACP.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
Response: The proposal does not require any additional expenditures for public
facilities.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet
the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
Response: The requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b) are met by this proposal.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Response: The proposal does not require any additional GMQS allotments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhomes, Units 1, 10, and
11, SPA Amendment with the following conditions:
1. A revised condominium plat and revised SPA plan and SPA agreement
shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk within 180 days following approval by
City Council. Such amendments shall comply with the requirements of Section
26.88.040(0)(3) and (4) and Section 26.88.070(B)(1)(b)(1)-(9).
3
"""
,
......
,~
2. Any outstanding conditions of approval of Ordinance #6, Series of 1996, the
last extension of vested rights, must be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the new units.
3. All construction and tree protection methods identified in Section lI(h) of the
Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement shall be adhered to.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Aspen Meadows Trustee
Townhomes, Units 1, 10, and 11, SPA Amendment with the following conditions:
1. A revised condominium plat and revised SPA plan and SPA agreement
shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk within 180 days following approval by
City Council. Such amendments shall comply with the requirements of Section
26.88.040(0)(3) and (4) and Section 26.88.070(B)(1)(b)(1)-(9).
2. Any outstanding conditions of approval of Ordinance #6, Series of 1996, the
last extension of vested rights, must be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the new units.
3. All construction and tree protection methods identified in Section lI(h) of the
Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement shall be adhered to.
Attachments:
A. Historic Preservation Commission minutes of August 28 and October 23,
1996
B. Aspen Meadows SPA Agreement, Trustee Townhouses
4
ASPEN HIST&IC PRESERVATION COMM~ION AUG. 28, 1996
Meeting was called to order by 1st Vice-chairman Roger Moyer with Susan
Dodington, Suzannah Reid, Mark Onorofski and Donnelley Erdman
present. Jake Vickery was seated at 5:10 p.m. Melanie Roschko and Sven
Alstrom were excused.
MOTION: Susan moved to approve the minutes of July 10th as amended
and the minutes of July 24th; second by Suzannah. All infavor, motion
carried.
STAFF COMMENTS
Amy stated that 820 E. Cooper was red tagged.
Amy also stated that the Hotel Jerome is requesting air conditions for a few
days in their rooms to accommodate a group of clients requests.
Roger stated that Aspen is an tourist town and possibly health issues are a
concern. He also stated that it could be an air exchange system and more
research needs done.
Amy stated unless there is some justification she recommends against air
conditioners and the use of fans would be more appropriate.
ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWN HOMES - CD - PH
Gretchen Greenwood, architect presented the affidavit of posting to
Assistant Attorney David Hoefer.
David Hoefer stated that the affidavit of notice meets the requirements of
the City of Aspen and the HPC has jurisdiction to proceed.
Amy stated that an approval was given in 1991 to modify the units and add
three new units. At that time all the units were going to be brought to 2500
sq. ft. Since that time the plan has changed and the existing units are going
to be modified as is without much additional square footage. The new units
were expected to be built basically to match.
1 Ii t=-.,J;.lb \t- All
ASPEN HISTJ;rtC PRESERV AT.ION COMM~ION AUG. 28, 1996
She also stated that the applicant would like to now change the new units.
They are proposing the same square footage but the building has a different
character. Originally there were to be detached car ports and the three new
units have garages which is very different. There is not the solid and void
character in the new units. There ought to be some type of one story
element on the street facade. The HPC also needs landscape information.
Staff recommends tabling.
Gretchen Greenwood is the architect and Doug MacPherson is the
developer. There is one site at the south and two sites at the north end of
the existing town homes. The Aspen Meadows restaurant is at the South
end. In 1991 the units were designed for 2700 sqft. including a ten foot
addition on the back and a below grade space. The car port was to be
eliminated and garages were approved to be built. Although garages do not
exist they have to ability to build them at anytime because they are
approved plans.
She stated that the proposed plans for units 1, 10, & 11 are similar in size in
terms of FAR, they are 2700 sqft. but closer to 3400 sqft. in terms of what is
below grade in terms of mechanical laundry room which are below grade
quite extensively. The intent was to not replicate the designs of the existing
units. There is a one story element at the street which is a garage and the
door recesses back six feet with wing walls on either side and cut outs to de-
emphasize the garage and pick up other elements of different units. The
existing Bayer units are 1 1/2 story down a steep site. The intent is to re-
create that with the two story element 30 feet back from the face of the
building. The height of the existing building is 21 feet above the existing
grade at the street and the proposed buildings. are 26 feet. The buildings sit
in the approved foot print of 1991. The buildings are separated from the
existing town homes about five feet. There will be shingles and clad
windows on the building.
Suzannah asked about the FAR and does it reduce the availability of square
footage for the other units.
,
Doug MacPherson stated that the Institute owns two other units and David
McLaughlin owns one and he has assigned that square footage to these three
units. None of the other home owners would loose square footage.
2
ASPEN HIST~C PRESERVATION COMM~ION AUG. 28. 1996
Amy stated that they were approved for all the units to have the same square
footage.
Gretchen stated that the SPA amendment allowed the units to vary in the
FAR due to the way each unit sits with the grade. Our attempt is to create a
different development because there are so many Bayer houses and they
stand on their own.
Chairman Jake Vickery opened the public hearing.
Bob Maynard resides in unit #2 owned by the Aspen Skiing Co. which was
involved with the redo of the Aspen Meadows from the beginning. He
stated that the square footage is larger than the existing units and in the
existing units not one person has tried to do the expansion that was
approved in 1991. You can't do it economically. He stated for the last
thing to do in the institute is to bring in a foreign design different than what
was there before.
Harris Sherman stated that he owns unit 91 and he walked the area. As a
general matter he agrees with Bob about the character of the Meadows. The
existing eight units are low density and they all step down from the south to
the north end. There is a feeling of openness that goes with the units. He
stated that the car ports create space between the units and for those units
that have windows on the north side you can see Castle Creek and the
hillside coming down. Herbert Bayer made an impressive design. He stated
now on the north side there will be a two story wall beside his unit and he is
greatly effected by it literally being five or ten feet from his house. He
stated that he is looking into a wall of the new unit and detracts from his
unit and the overall ambiance of the Meadows. it is partly a problem of size
and how the units are located. There is adjacent land that the institute owns
and the units could be moved 40 feet to the north and vegetation planted.
He stated that he did not know what could be done with the south side of the
project. He stated that these are serious design issues and limpacts. The
Aspen Institute owns the land and is selling it to Mr., MacPherson and Mr.
Sherman does not want to complicate the plans of the institute. They have
the right to sell the land and get as much money as they can within the
context of what is being preserved. All of the existing eight units are
3
ASPEN HIST&:-IC PRESERVATION COMM~ION AUG. 28, 1996
between 1600 and 1700 square feet. On the west side there is permission
to add space under the first floor living room and technically you could not
do unless you excavated underground in order to create a basement area.
No one at present intends to do that. The proposed units start at 2700 sq. ft.
up to 3200 sq. ft. which is almost a doubling of the square footage. That
will change the character as it is twice the size. If the units could be
separated visually from the other units this maybe acceptable. Moving it 40
feet may not be acceptable depending on how the buildings are positioned.
Bob Maynard stated that there is a waiting list for the existing units and to
say that larger units are needed to meet the market demand is inappropriate.
Doug MacPherson stated that there maybe some demand for the existing
units but we are taking at a lower price given the price that he is going to
pay the institute for the vacant sites. Financially a bigger unit is needed
given the difficulty of the site and because of the price the institute wants
for the land. The prices for the existing units is $500,000.
The biggest unit is 3600 sqft. with some of it below grade. The institute had
expressed interest in having this kind of unit. David McLaughlin gave us
the transfer of square footage to this unit because the institute felt the need
for larger units.
Gideon Kaufman, attorney for the Institute stated that they support the
proposed projects. He spoke on behalf of five of the eleven units. In 1991
when HPC had the debate whether the units should mirror the existing there
was a split on the HPC at that time. He presented a letter from the institute
in support of the project.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Donnelley stated that he is the monitor and acted on the project in 1991.
HPC's responsibility then and now is to the existing styling of the
architecture created by Herbert Bayer and Fritz Benedict. He stated HPC
cannot comment on the F AR becau~e the applicant does have the right to
build to what they are allowed. They are also building within the foot print
that was approved in 1991. He stated that there are three major problems:
1) Hipped roofs are explicitly anathetical to that design.
4
ASPEN HISTCIC PRESERVATION COMM~ION AUG. 28, 1996
2) The roof pitch is too steep. What was approved in 1991 the S. elevation
acknowledge the very shallow pitch of the other units and that is consistent
with the Bauhaus aesthetics, no hipped roofs appeared in this design.
3) The vertical fenestration or bands of fenestration always emphasized
horizontality.
Susan stated that the HPC needs to stay with the Herbert Bayer plan. She
also stated her concern is that on the north there is one house and the south
has two which looks awkward. it is unbalanced and she also indicated that
the new houses should be spaced appropriately, i.e. 40 feet separation on the
south.
Mark stated that his concern is the proximity of the two units to the existing
units. He also stated that roof pitches need addressed and he agrees with
Donnelley.
Suzannah agreed with Donnelley also. A cue should be taken from the
older buildings in the way the massing was done and the way they split
from side to side with the sloped roof and flat roof. That is important to the
rhythm of the project. They do not respect one another the way the original
design does as the eaves drop down. # 1 0 should be sifted to the outside and
well as # 11. The new buildings need to be significantly separated and the
amount should be determined.
Roger stated that he was here in 1991 and concurs with Donnelley. He also
agrees with the separation of units at both ends.
Gretchen stated that they want the units divorced from the original units and
it would be better project if they could be stepped down. Right now we are
allowed a five foot setback and they are 21 feet from the side so there is
room to move. 40 feet might put them over the property line on the road.
Doug MacPherson stated that he met with Sherman and his concern was
separation and he would move them as far to the north as possibly. He
stated that he could get some separation on Bob Maynard's unit on the
south but the restaurant is close and it is a steep site. He will get a topo
done this week.
5
ASPEN HISTCIC PRESERVATION COMM~ION AUG. 28, 1996
Roger asked about the garages.
Doug stated that the present homeowners did not want to peruse it.
Gretchen stated that if you site visited the area the turning radius would be
very difficult to do.
Bob Maynard stated that the units are large but that is his personal concern.
it is deviation from what is there historically that concerns him.
MOTION: Donnelley moved that the application for units I, 10 & I I of the
Aspen Meadows town homes be tabled suggesting restudy of specific areas:
1) Reduction or elimination of hipped roofs.
2) Reduction of the pitch of the main roofs.
3) Restudy offenestration to be more consistent with the prevailing
aesthetics.
4) Investigation of possible further separation of the proposed new work
from the existing town homes; second by Roger.
DISCUSSION
Suzannah stated that she would like massing included in the motion.
She stated that you have a tall volume and a longer low volume going along
and in the proposed elevations there is one single large volume and the
hipped roof doesn't effect that.
Amended motion:
5) Restudy of massing in general to reflect a better articulation of
heights as expressed in the existing town houses.
second by Roger. All infavor of motion and amended motion.
Suzannah also stated that she has concerns with the garages.
Roger stated tha.t he does not find the garages objectionable and they
differentiate between Bayer and new. He also likes the idea of the winged
,
walls and recessed doors. In this particular case it is not on the street.
6
ASPEN HISTC.Ic PRESERVATION cOMM....:sION AUG. 28, 1996
Donnelley stated that there is a precedence as the entrance to the units is on
the side where you park your car.
Gretchen stated that the entry is 26 feet back from the face of the garage.
They tried to get a relationship between the depth of the entry without cars
similar to the existing town homes.
Donnelley stated that the 1991 approvals did not approve garages within the
units. He also stated that he would rather see car ports than garages. He
would rather see a more appropriate reflection of the shallow pitched roofs.
Jake stated that the issue of the car port should be considered with the
general issue of massing.
MOTION: Suzannah moved to table the application until Sept. 25, 1996,
second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried.
ENTRANCE TO ASPEN
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director presented the EIS in its
most recent form. The impact statement was handed out to the Board. Stan
also presented a draft resolution to the Board on part of the Elected Officials
that would be a unified response. The response accepts the modified direct
alignment which goes through the Marolt Open Space. In CDOT's
suggestion of the supplementary draft a highway would be constructed as
the first phase which would contain two general traffic lanes and two
dedicated bus lanes. This draft is asking CDOT for two lanes of highway
and a transit envelope. The concern of a four lane has impacts on Marolt
Open space which is too great. The proposed cut and cover of 400 feet
would mitigate for the open space of the new road. There would be a
continuous flow of open space from upper Marolt Thomas to the golf
course. Cemetery lane would be brought in on the Castle Creek Bridge and
intersect with Main Street.
Amy stated that at the last meeting HPC did not support the cut and cover
and she supplied comments to council. Numerous issues need to be taken
into account.
7
,....
ASPEN HIS~Ic PRESERVATION cOMM-.-dSION OCT. 23, 1996
Cunniffe & Assoc. stated that there is inadequate display space for the
windows. They desire to enlarge the openings and change the design of the
existing door and provide a glazed door to enhance the retail space.
Sven stated that he likes the cleaness of the glass area.
Donnelley stated that typically with this particular type of building the
glazing was not taken to ground level.
Susan agreed with Donnelley and it looks chalet like.
Roger stated some windows in chalets in Europe went to the ground.
Stefan Kaelin, owner stated that the windows need to be proportioned with
the beams.
Suzannah also reiterated that she felt the glass going to the ground was
inappropriate. Functionally with the snow etc. it would be difficult to
maintain.
Roger stated the building has the basic mass and scale of an European
building and either window elevation is acceptable.
Sven asked what the material would be on the windows.
Stefan stated wood.
MOTION: Suzannah made the motion to approve diagram #2 that was
presented at the meetingfor the window modification; second by Susan.
Motion carried 3-2.
ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWN HOMES - CONCEPTUAL
I
Roger stated that this is conceptual continueq from Aug. 28th.
Amy Amidon, Planner stated that this project has changed in numerous
forms. In 1991 the existing units were proposed to be expanded and three
5
ASPEN HISTC.IC PRESERVATION cOMM~ION OCT. 23.1996
new units almost identical would be built next to them. Recently the
property owners decided that the expansion of the existing units was not
feasible and that the three new units would still be built to match the
existing remodeled units, therefore not maximizing ultimate size of the FAR
they could build to. What has come back to us is that the three new units
will be at their maximum FAR, therefore you have three units that are larger
than the historic resource. On Aug. 28th conceptual was tabled with five
conditions outlined in the memo. The conditions mostly tried to bring the
new units into a more similar vocabulary like the existing and also HPC
talked about separating the new from the old because of the difference in
scale. The applicant has come back with revised architectural plans for the
new units and a revised site plan. In applying to our standards they have
really responded to the conditions of approval and Staff feels that the new
design is much more compatible, much more sympathetic solution. The
existing units will remain as their own grouping and not be added onto and
altered.
Staff has some concern that the public has indicated that they did not have
an opportunity to read the plans and they would like HPC to table. The
applicant is concerned with their due diligence period.
Assistant Attorney David Hoefer stated that Staff should read the letters into
the record.
Amy stated that Bob Maynard wrote a letter to request postponement of
HPC' c consideration of the plans for the three new units for the Aspen
Institute, a hearing scheduled for Oct. 23rd. The developer Doug
MacPherson assured us that we would receive new plans in advance of the
hearing, and to date we have not received them and obviously cannot review
them relative to the site. We respect Mr. MacPherson and would hope that
he would treat us with respect as well. Consequently we request that the
hearing be rescheduled to a later date so that we can have the opportunity to
receive and review the new plans.
I
Amy stated that the sec,ond letter is from Harris Sherman. This letter
concerns our telephone conversation of Oct. 21 st in which I have requested
the postponement ofHPC's Oct. 23rd consideration of the new plans for the
three units at the Aspen Institute. I am the property owner adjacent to the
6
ASPEN HIsTOIc PRESERVATION cOM~SION OCT. 23, 1996
proposed new units under consideration and I earlier expressed my concern
regarding the size and location of such units because of their corresponding
impact on the architectural and historic qualities of the existing town
houses. The developer Doug MacPherson promised me approximately six
weeks ago that he would provide architectural and site plans well in
advance of this meeting. By numerous phone calls, the latest of which
occurred ten days ago, I have still received nothing and it is impossible to
review this proposal without some advance notice. Therefore, I strongly
request the following:
Postponement ofthis matter at Wednesday's meeting.
That the plans be given to me at least two or three weeks in advance of the
next meeting.
That I have the opportunity to meet with your Staff.
Roger asked if the public had comments relative to this proposal, for or
against.
David Bellack, attorney for Aspen Skiing Company stated that he is
representing Mr. Sherman and Mr. Maynard as they are both out of town.
David Bellack stated that he recognizes that there may not be any perhaps
strict legal rights for them to receive the plans at a particular time before
this meeting he feels it is the sense of the neighborhood in a large part of
this community as a whole that should be sought to be protected by this
commission and without a fair opportunity to look at the plans by the
neighbors especially as plans continue to change and evolve as they go
through the process in a reasonably amount of time to look at those and
consider how they impact the feel of the historic area. He feels that this is
an important voice in the decision that should be heard. A reasonably short
term postponement should be allowed to have the property staked so that
the neighbors can visually see the proposed area and that the plans be
distributed to review the impacts of the individual property of the overall
sense of that unique area.
CindX Vinesky, Vice-president for Administration at the Aspen Institute
stated that David McLaugahlin is in Germany and she is representing the
Institute. She stated that the Institute supports the applicants proposal and
have worked closely with Doug and the neighbors trying to accommodate
7
r',\
ASPEN HISTU,Ic PRESERVATION cOM~ION OCT. 23, 1996
most of the conditions that were requested. The developer is well within the
original proposal that was approved by the HPC and that it will be
detrimental to the institute if we hold this up much longer. The Institute
intended to sell the lots at the same time they sold the trustee town homes
but unfortunately the arrangement didn't work. The Institute is in need of
funds and we are very concerned with our neighbors because they are also
on the campus. Doug and David McLaughlin have worked closely with
Bob Maynard and Harris Sherman and have resolved most of the issues that
were out standing.
Assistant City Attorney David Hoefer asked the applicant Doug
MacPherson when the plans were available and if there has been an effort to
provide them to the interested party.
Doug MacPherson stated with the new plans they addressed the concerns of
Harris Sherman who he and Dick Lamb own the end unit. Bob Maynard he
assumed is speaking as a concerned citizen because he doesn't believe he is
in the ownership or does not have a letter from the owner saying he can
represent the unit that he represents.
Dave Bellack, attorney stated that Bob Maynard is the tenant of the unit
which is owned by his client, which is the property owner Bell Mountain
Partners.
Doug MacPherson stated that Maynard is a sometime resident but isn't a
full time resident. He also stated at the first meeting Harris spoke and his
concerns were, basically as approved the two end units are right up next to
him and he wanted some separation. One of the diagrams today shows a
separation and he told Harris this before todays meeting. He also faxed to
him at his office in Denver plans in which his secretary stated that he would
be in his office until 2:30 p.m. today. He may not have seen the new
diagram. He told him over the phone that he moved the units as far as they
can. He also stated that they will probably need a variance on the five foot
setback off that northerly line. He stated that they also separated unit #1
from the unit that Bob Maynard resides in. One of Harris's concern were
the trees in which were not to be saved on the original plan.
8
ASPEN HIST~Uc PRESERVATION cOMM:JSION OCT. 23. 1996
Roger asked the applicant what the minimum amount of time the applicant
could be delayed and still do what they need to do and satisfy their need and
supply information to the people who David Bellock are representing.
Doug MacPherson stated that Mr. Maynard and Mr. Harris are managing
this project for me, they do not want to see this project go forward. They do
not want to see anything built here. He also stated that if the Board tables
his application tonight it should be because his design is bad or that he
didn't address the concerns that were mentioned in the first meeting. He
stated that he hopes he isn't tabled because an attorney from Denver calls
and stated that he doesn't like what the applicant is doing and therefore he
needs two weeks to look at the project.
Gretchen Greenwood, architect stated to address the neighbors concerns
they have moved the building over to a point that it increases the amount of
meetings for an approval process. Legally they have the right to build right
up to Mr. Sherman's unit. They will have to go to the Board of Adjustment
for a variance and do a two step process with Council and the P&Z. They
have a long road of self-imposed approval processes. This meeting has
always been Oct. 23rd, it has not been changed. There is nothing else they
can do for Mr. Sherman. It is an approved lot to build on and she feels they
ae out of line in requesting tabling.
Doug stated that the three sites are on lot 5 and he has to stay on lot 5.
David Hoefer, Assistant Attorney asked when the plans were provided to
Amy Amidon and did the applicant make any effort to provide them to the
neighbors.
Gretchen and Doug replied Tuesday the 15th as Amy was leaving town and
they did not contact the neighbors.
David Hoefer stated from the last meeting it was indicated that the applicant
would show the new designs to the neighbors.
Gretchen stated that has never been something that you have to do in an
approval process.
9
lCa r"I.
ASPEN HIS Ie PRESERVATION COM~SION OCT. 23, 1996
David Hoefer asked the applicant if a delay of a week would impact the
applicant in the long term.
Roger asked the HPC if they desired to table or go on with the meeting?
Gretchen stated that she specifically came for this meeting and will not be
available for the another meeting next week.
David Bellack, attorney stated that it was his understanding that 54 days ago
at the original meeting the concerns of some of the neighbors were voiced
about design and some commitment was made to change the design and a
representation was made that before that design would be considered for
approval it would be shared with the neighbors and that was inpart echoed
by Mr. Hoefer's comments. It is a fundamental principle of land use law
that representation made by a developer in a development process become
part of the developers commitment as he goes through the process and
develops the project.
Roger stated that HPC does not have a regular meeting scheduled for next
week and a special meeting would have to be scheduled.
Sven stated that he would be in favor of a special meeting. He also stated
that he did not pick up on negative opposition of the project. His concern is
when somebody gives the commitee notice that they haven't received
adequate information and since we are a citizens group appointed by
Council he feels the board needs to be careful about that and when he sees
letters in writing requesting tabling he feels the Board should oblige.
Susan stated that she agrees with Sven.
Donnelley stated that there is nothing in the minutes that says there is an
obligation for the applicant to provide detailed plans and drawings to the
neighbors. To set a precedent like this that neighbors can table a project
and take more ofHPC's time which he really objects to he viamently
objects to this action. No one has any reason to complain about this
project. The applicant has made every effort to move the proposed
development as far away from the existing as possible. He feels it is a
stalling effort. He would never approve a delay like this.
10
,~ ~
ASPEN HIST~IC PRESERVATION COMMMSION OCT. 23, 1996
Mark stated that this is a tough call. He subscribes to both comments so far
but in this case as Donnelly indicated we have no obligation to provide
notice to the property owners previously. In looking at the new design he is
interested in reviewing the project.
Suzannah stated that she agrees with Donnelley that the HPC Board should
proceed and if the neighbors felt it important to be here they would have
been here.
Roger asked Amy Amidon why she recommended tabling.
Amy stated that she felt it critically important that the surrounding property
owners do have their opportunity to review the plans but more information
has come to light since she had written the memo. She believes it is the
property owners who should contact the Planning Office who hold the
records not contacting the applicant. She did not hear from anyone until
Monday.
David Hoefer stated that if HPC decides to proceed we would note for the
records that any implication of giving the plans to the neighbors prior was
not a jurisdictional condition. Secondly it is a public hearing and they
received notice of the public hearing and consequently you have jurisdiction
to proceed.
Roger asked the applicant to address the five concerns from the last
meeting.
Gretchen Greenwood stated that the goal was to move the buildings as far
away from the existing Aspen Trustee Town Houses as much as possible in
order to serve as its own identity because they are larger buildings and they
are not a 1/1/2 story building but they are like a split level two story. The
entire site has been surveyed.
One of Sherman's concerns was whether the buildings could be moved onto
the others ide of an evergreen tree and to preserve as much of the trees on
site as possible. They are moving the building approximately 33 feet at this
point to the opposite side of the tree. The footprint has always been the
11
".... "-'''':
ASPEN HIS~IC PRESERVATION COMNlor3SION OCT. 23, 1996
same as what was approved. Unit one has existing connifers on the side and
the car port will be ten feet away.
Some of the concerns of HPC were to eliminate the hipped roofs and they
did that and went to a 3 and 12 pitch that meets condition #2 which is the
exact same pitch as the existing town houses and in effect lowered the
overall height of the building to 25 feet from the asphalt.
On the overall fenestration a horizontal element was added to the south side
of the elevation which creates an illusion that you are looking through the
building. The garage is recessed behind the front facade six feet with a
heavy shingle surrounding it. They also picked up over hang elements,
sloping eaves and sloping soffets and beam detailing to add visual
relationship between the detailing of the existing and bringing it into the
new units which meeting condition #3.
Gretchen stated that they took the time to survey the site with regard to
condition #4, the separation of the new work from the existing town houses
so that the new development stands alone. The massing was restudied of
the different pitches and there is a level change among the roofs. There is a
lot of depth within the building. Regarding the materials they are using a
combination of a one by four like square edge vertical siding with shingles
in very much the same location as in the other buildings. This makes for a
visual relationship. The FAR and floor plans have stayed the same.
Amy stated the applicant needs a letter of support to the Board of
Adjustment to allow them to push the buildings into the side yard setback.
Gretchen stated that the movement of these buildings outside the footprint is
a hardship for the applicant because they have more approval processes to
go through which was not originally intended for the project. She indicated
that they need a strong approval for the design by HPC.
Suzannah inquired about what was on the other side of the property line.
Doug stated a road used by the Sanitation Dept. to service the area and that
is the only use of that road. They are in favor of Doug paying to gate it off
and giving them the key.
12
ASPEN HIST.9IC PRESERVATION COMMOHON OCT. 23, 1996
Donnelley asked for a clarification of the fenestration on the new drawings.
Mark asked if the fenestration would be the same on all three buildings and
inquired about the trees that are to be saved on unit 10.
Gretchen stated the fenestration would be the same on all three buildings.
They have moved the building to the north of the tree that Sherman wanted
saved.
Mark asked about the excavation depth on the south of unit # 1 0 as he is
concerned about the tree.
Gretchen stated that she thought it would be about 8 feet, just outside the
drip line.
Mark stated that he recently lost a couple of trees because they were so
close.
Doug stated that they may loose some of the trees and he will be planting
200 to 400 trees on this site. Some will be planted between Mr. Sherman's
unit and some down below. They will pick the best places for them to
survive.
COMMENTS
Donnelley stated he was concerned with the darkness of the entry that is
back 18 feet. When you read it from the vehicular and pedestrian entry side
which is the east elevation it is dark.
Gretchen stated that it will not be completely covered. Part of the car ports
have openings in them similar to a trellis. Over the entry will be solid then
an open trellis the rest of the way. It will be light and open.
Sven asked about the change on the vertical siding.
Gretchen stated the existing units have a combination of vertical siding and
shingles and in order to break up the mass of the building it was put on to be
13
ASPEN HIST~C PRESERVATION COMMl:JJON OCT. 23, 1996
sensitive to the Bayer units. Visually it is important to have the same kinds
of materials.
Suzannah stated that her main concern is not having the adjacent buildings
on the drawing elevations to see the spacing between the units 10 and 11.
Gretchen stated that Harris's roof height is 7,853 and unit ten height is
7,847 so it is approximately 6 feet below and it is also 33 feet away. The
unit next to that is four feet lower.
Roger stated that he would vote to approve conceptual and support a letter
to the Board of Adjustment. He also stated that the applicant addressed the
neighbors concerns and they are not impacting any other sites. Before final
he would like to have a site visit. At final a superb landscape plan should
be presented. A drawing ofthe adjacent building to scale should also be
presented at final to address Suzannah's concerns. Story polls should be
placed on the site.
Gretchen stated that they will stake the building for their own use. She will
let Amy know.
Sven stated when the motion is made he would like a restudy of the
chimney elements as to how they relate to the other buildings as he did not
see the relationship in the drawings.
Gretchen stated that she met the conditions.
lvfotion: Donnelley moved that HPC grant conceptual development to the
proposed addition to Lot 5 vacant units 1,10 and 11 with the following
conditions: Prior to final fenestration be restudied and that the materials
be accurately described. That the chimneys and termination of the
chimneys be adequately described as there is no termination on the present
drawings. Details must be enlargedfor finals. Thefenestration has
problems with framing and site lines. A letter be sent to the Board of
Adjustment in support of the side yard variance; second by Mark. Mo~ion'
carried 5-1. Sven voted no.
14
ASPEN HIST<QC PRESERVATION COMMUION OCT. 23, 1996
Motion: Donnelley moved to adjourn; second by Roger. All in favor,
motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
15
." .... ',"-' I. 1" r, ',.')(..'. (.)(.! En< 66 7 ~:'C:J 756
""""'......' lOO:)~::\71'''''O 1. < 2.t~.- 'r::'~i::: '1'. .[.:,.':.;.' n: .. ',:.c.':;n;~~~.~! C C:1. ~~i'" k q Doc: $." O()
~?il\!ia. _)a.\/l."",! ..
requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall
be subject to the prior approval of the City Attorney in his determination.
3. Trails
The Final Plat depicts a trail easement across the Physics Property from Gillespie
Street to the race track trail on Lot 1. Physics and the City agree that this trail
easement is not to be paved. Physics is granting this easement but has no
financial obligation of any kind for the trail or any related work.
D. LOT 4 - CONSERVATION LAND:
Lot 4 is to be sold by Savanah to the City of Aspen for the purpose of open space. Lot
4 shall be zoned Wildlife Preservation (WP). It is the intention of this zone district that
this Property remain open with a trail system and appropriate bridge connections to the
Rio Grande Trail. Neither the Consortium nor any of its individual members thereof
shall have any responsibility whatsoever for the construction, installation or maintenance
of any trail or other recreational facilities to be incorporated into Lot 4. Exact trail
locations must be approved by the Planning Director giving priority to those alignments
which minimize damage or disruption to existing vegetation and landscape and which
subordinate grade considerations and, thus, minimize switchbacks, to preservation of
existing topography.
1. Site Improvements
(a) Utilities. The Final Plat shows utility line easements as existing and
proposed for electrical, gas, storm and sanitary sewer, and water.
E. LOT 5 - THE TRUSTEE HOUSES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS:
Lot 5 is Savanah's Property and is zoned RMF according to and as shown on the Plat.
Existing development on Lot 5 consists of the eight trustee houses, each of approximately
1,750 square feet, consisting of three bedrooms and two baths. Development has been
approved for an expansion and renovation of the existing trustee houses to create eight
three-bedroom units of 2,500 square feet of FAR each. In addition three new trustee
houses shall be developed on Lot 5, one on the South end of the existing units and two
on the North end of the existing units. Each new unit will be 2,500 square feet of FAR
with three bedrooms. Total build-out on Lot 5 shall consist of eleven units with thirty-
three bedrooms and 27,500 squire feet of FAR, excluding carports (up to 500 square feet
per dwelling unit). FABs aild the definitions thereof for the existing and new trustee
houses shall remain as set forth and defined in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect
as of June 10, 1991, notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year
22
\\&"'- I ~ ~\- B' I
......~ ~1-<)T3? <) 1. /24! 9::' .L b: 1 ~3 F:ec......,~ .;:;" 00 EW. 667 ,"G 757
~lvia. D.(:":\vi~:>, F'it:.kin Cnty C;"'1J!fr"k,, Doc ~t;HOO
period next succecdl1lg }em", ;0, J991, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change
to the definition or calculation of FARs. The three new residences have received an
allotment under the GMQS and have received variations for setbacks, height and open
space, as noted on the Plat and as described below.
1. Dimensional Requirements and Variations Therefrom
The following dimensional requirements are for the RMF Zone District;
variations in these requirements that have been granted for the development
activity contemplated for Lot 5 are noted:
a)
Minimum lot size (sq. ft.):
6,000
b) Minimum lot area per dwelling unit:
i)
3 bedroom unit:
3,630 sq. ft.
c)
Minimum lot width:
60 feet
d) Minimum front yard:
i)
Principal building:
10 feet
ii)
Accessory building:
15 feet
(Note. A variation from minimum RMF Zone District front yard
setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by the City to
zero feet for Lot 5.)
e)
Minimum side yard:
5 feet
t) Minimum rear yard:
i)
Principal building:
10 feet
ii)
Accessory building:
15 feet
g)
Maximum height:
25 feet
(Note. A dimensional height variation for the two northernmost trustee
hbuses has been granted by the City for up to eight feet.)
h)
Percent of open space required for building site:
35%
23
j;j: ~:~ [~,-~
,)]/:::/:_,_-':;0:-2 1b:::" f':,-,c ~;4'Y;~.:O Ff: 667 .---, 758
;Jil....~,::;_ l)".l.\/i.::::., F':i.tkin Cntv Cler-'. ". DDe $"00
(Note. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requirements have been
waived by the City for Lot 5 in consideration of the open space otherwise
provided in the SPA development plan.)
i)
External FAR (maximum):
1: 1
Internal FAR:
no requirement
j)
k)
Off-street parking requirement:
1 space per bedroom
2. Condominiumization and Six Month Minimum Lease Requirement
Pursuant to findings made during the approval process and in accordance with
Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City has granted and awarded
condominiumization approval for all eleven units contemplated for Lot 5.
Condominiumization of the eight existing units is subject to payment of an
affordable housing impact fee according to Section 24-7-1007A(I)(c). The fee
totals $64,240 and shall be paid at time of recordation of the condominium plat
and declaration for the units on Lot 5.
The six month minimum lease requirement for condominium units as contained
at Section 24-7-1007 (A)(l)(b)(l) of the Municipal Code has been and hereby is
waived as to all the condominium units on Lot 5 as approved by this SPA plan.
3. Site Improvements
(a) Utilities. All telephone, electric and cable lines on the Property servicing
the improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer
lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the
City and of the ACSD and written easements will be provided if and as
required confirming the as-built location of each easement.
(b) Landscaoe Imorovements. Savanah shall abide by and substantially
conform to the tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of the
Plat in Book 0\)( at Page ~, et seq. of the Records. The landscape
plans depict and describe the nature, extent and location of all plant
materials in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant
material, flower and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule with
common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of
all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, gravel, terracing, etc.), decorative
water features, retaining walls, fencing, benches, and all other agreed-
upon landscape features. Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical
sequence commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated
in the Lot 5 Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one year
24
,.... ",:1, 0 '::.?::~~"7 (:; J :~?,J. / (.:,:- 2 :L h ~ _I :. !...' c:'
" (),) D~::: 667 PC:; 759
"3':!. 1. \/ i d. D ,'~\ V j . ;-:':i. t. '1-': J n ' '--,
'01" I,. DCJC $.00
after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final
phase of improvements. It is the mutual understanding of the parties that
Certificates of Occupancy may in fact issue for improvements even though
the landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet been complet-
ed, so long as that portion of the financial guaranty provided for in this
Agreement, which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscap-
ing remains available to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
All tree replacement shall be on a one-to-one caliper inch basis throughout
the Project as a whole with minimum size at 1 1/2" caliper.
4. Trails
The Plat depicts all trails dedicated or conveyed to public use and all easements
linking off-site trails to the Project's trail system, including the trail easement
between the tennis townhouses and restaurant. Written easements shall be
executed and conveyed after trail construction confirming the as-built location of
each easement. A portion of the trail Easement for the trail from Meadows Road
to Lot 4 crosses Lot 5, as depicted on the Plat. Trail construction on this
Easement and any other appurtenant recreational facilities and amenities and
landscaping is the sole responsibility of the City of Aspen. Neither Savanah nor
the Consortium shall have any financial responsibility for any of this work or for
the maintenance of any easements.
5. Financial Assurances
In order to secure the construction of the site and landscape improvements in
Paragraphs 3(a) and (b) above and to guarantee 100% of the estimated cost of
such improvements, Savanah shall guarantee by irrevocable bond, sight draft or
letter of commitment or credit from a financially responsible lender that funds in
the amount of such estimated costs, are held by it for the account of City for the
construction and installation of the above-described improvements. As a
condition for issuance of a building permit for a portion or all of the renovation
and new construction anticipated herein, Savanah and City shall agree on that
portion of the work outlined in Paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b) above reasonably
necessary to complete the work for which a permit is being sought and the
mutually agreed upon financial assurances shall be delivered to the City prior to
issuance of the building permit. All financial assurances given by Savanah to
City, in all events, shall give the City the unconditional right, upon and following
default by Savanah, notice thereof by the City, and a forty day right thereafter to
cure, to withdraw funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or fully
complete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any uncontested
outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty
amount to be applied first to additional administrative or legal costs associated
with any such default and the repair of any deterioration in improvements already
25
,- '" ...;,~, i':-:.' ,.'1 ':):',? :~ ,S ~ 1. ~~; F;:E''''~''v.+OU" 00 f::~< 667 F'I=::i 760
" ,>' ',,"; i J l,,:;,. r> .::e" '/ :i !:~" :i. t: kin en t ",./ 1 ~:': ,-, L. D CJ c: 't:." (:, (
constructed before the unused remainder (if any) of such guaranty is released to
Savanah. As portions of the required improvements are completed, the Public
Works Director shall inspect them, and upon approval and written acceptance, he
shall authorize the release from the guaranty delivered by Savanah of the agreed
estimated cost for that portion of the improvements except that 10% of the actual
cost of the site or landscape improvements shall be retained until all proposed site
or landscape improvements are completed and approved by the Public Works
Director.
At anytime and from time to time, Savanah shall have the right to substitute for
the form of financial assurance given, so long as such substituting form meets the
requirements for form and content above set forth. Any such substitution shall
be subject to the prior approval of City Attorney in his determination.
6. Employee Housing
Savanah and the City acknowledge that the renovation and expansion of the eight
trustee houses do not create any employee impact because the bedroom count in
each unit remains at 3. Savanah shall pay to the City an affordable housing
mitigation impact fee for 1.66 low income employees per unit for each of the
three new residential units on Lot 5, in an amount to be calculated pursuant to
those fee guidelines in effect at the time the fee is to be paid. The fee shall be
paid prior to the issuance of the building permit for construction of any new
residential unit on Lot 5 and shall be paid in proportion to the number of units
sought to be permitted.
F. LOT 6 - THE TENNIS TOWNHOMES AT THE ASPEN MEADOWS:
Lot 6 is owned by Savanah and is zoned RMF according to and as shown on the Plat.
Currently there is no residential development on Lot 6. Approved under this plan is
development of seven townhome units of three bedrooms and 2,500 square feet of FAR
each. Total build out on Lot 6 shall consist of seven units with twenty-one bedrooms and
17,500 square feet of FAR, excluding carports (up to 500 square feet per dwelling unit).
F ARs and the definitions thereof for the existing and new trustee houses shall remain as
set forth and defined in the Aspen Land Use Regulations in effect as of June 10, 1991,
notwithstanding and shall survive for not less than the three year period next succeeding
June 19, 1991, any subsequently adopted reduction in or change to the definition or
calculation of FARs. The seven new town homes have received an allotment under the
City GMQS and have received variations for height, open space and setbacks for
accessory buildings, all as noted on the Plat and described herein.
26
l"tU.',,:-ldo-S>6 wi:::..J d..... ~ ~d ......,
;~ . c:.J...:;>
,.... ,
'-'
Novcmber 5, 1996
Amendment to the
Aspen Trustee Townhouses
Units 1, 10 and 11
SPA Development Area
Final Development Application
Per the Aspen Municipal Code;
Section 26.80.050.(E)(2)
E Amendment to final development plan
2. All other modifications shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the
final development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an
enhancement of the. approved final development plan.
D. Final Development Plan
1. Contents of Application
a. General Requirements as found in Section 26.52.030. arc as follows:
L Applicant: Mr. Douglas J. McPherson for the Aspen Institute
Address: 534 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 925-7000
Attached please find a letter authorizing Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen
Greenwood and Associates to act on behalf of the Applicant.
2. Legal Description; Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses
Lot 5
1101-1211 Meadows Trustee off Meadows Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
3. The disclosure of Ownership of Lots 1,10 and 11 by the Aspen Institute is
on file with the City of Aspen.
4. Attached please find the Vicinity Map locating the subject parcel.
5. A Site Improvement Survey is attached for your review.
6. A written description of the proposed development is attached.
7, The Review Standards for anSPA is attached for your review.
NUV-66-~6 w~~ e4:~1 ~;'l
,- _ <J~
,
6. Written DescriPtion of the Proposed Development
Back2round
The original eight Trustee townhouses were designed by Herbert Bayer in 1965.
These Bayer townhouses have been approved through a SPA for a redevelopment and
redesign, that includes living space, one bedroom, bath, mechanical room, detached garage
and exterior decks. The proposed approved additions would add a total of 2,800 square
feet of floor area to Units 2 through 9, To date, the expansion and redevelopment plans
for the Bayer townhouses Units 2 through 9 have not been completed.
The approved SPA also allows for the construction of three new townhouses,
Units 1, 10 and 11. The proposed Unit 1 is located to the south end of the existing Unit 2
and the proposed Units 10 and 11 are located directly to the north of Unit 9.
The proposed application will develop the three new townhouses, Unit 1, 10 and
11, with a compatible, yet different floor plan and elevations. The proposed townhouses
are 3,400 Square feet each, with a 400 Sq.ft.Garage. The new townhouses are larger in
size than the existing units. This is due to the programmatic needs of the developer and
the Aspen Institute to have an inventory of more spacious accommodations for their r~tal
use for the visiting Aspen Institute guests. The original SPA has an allowable Floor.Area
Ratio of 27,500 Sq.ft. for the entire Lot 5, Units I through 11. This amendment docs not
change the floor area of the entire parcel. In addition, none of the underlying Zone District
requirements will change with this SPA amendment modification. (See Zoning
Requirements for Lot 5 SP A- attached)
The architecture of the new townhouses departs from the existing townhouses
(Units 2-9) in order to preserve the integrity of the existing architecture of the Herbert
Bayer Townhouses. The new buildings have been designed to have a simple appearance,
combining details, proportions and materials similar to the Bayer townhouses.
NuV-d6-96 ~E~ d~:~2 HM
r-'~a6
~.,
~
Amendment Proposal to the approved SPA
as follows:
1. Relocation of Building envelope 1, 10 and 11.
2. Building Design
1. Relocation of Building Envelope 1,10 and 11.
The proposed Units 1, 10 and 11 have received Conceptual Development
Approval with the Historic Preservation Commission. This approval was conditioned
upon the relocation of the building envelopes apart from the existing townhouses. Based
on the desire of the neighbors, and the HPC, to relocate the buildings apart from the
existing units, the Applicant resubmitted a new site plan to the HPC with the buildings '
located as far as possible from the existing townhouses. The buildings were relocated yet
remained within the dimensional zoning requirements of the Zone District for this Lot s-
SPA With this relocation, the HPC granted Conceptual Development along with the
approval of the new building design. The relocation of these buildings resulted in new
building envelopes that would require an amendment to the SPA by the Planning
Commission and the City Council. The proposed building envelopes for Units 1, 10 and
11 are shown on the attached drawings.
A. Unit 1 Building Envelope has been relocated to the South of Unit 2, with a distance of
6 feet from the southeast comer of the existing building envelope and 26 feet from the
southwest corner of the existing building envelope.
B Unit 10 and 11 Building Envelope has been relocated to the north of Unit 9, with a
distance of 40 feet from the northeast comer of the existing building envelope and 2S feet
from the northwest comer of the existing building envelope.
2. Building Design
The Historic Preservation Commission has granted Conceptual Development to
the proposed building design. Elevations, floor plans and site plans are attached for your
review. The Applicant has been through a two step Conceptual Development process
with the HPC in order to address all the cOncerns of the neighbors as well as the design
concerns of the HPC. The result of those meetings is Conceptual Development Approval,
by the Historic Preservation Commission on October 23, 1996.
~0V-~o-3o ~ED a4;~~ ~li
r-..<;;Jl
7. Review Standards
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density,
height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
The proposed modifications are compatible with the originally approved SF A. The
Historic Preservation COmmission has reviewed the proposed design and location of the
units and have found that the development is compatible with the immediate parcels in
terms ofland use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscape and open space. The
proposed development does not change the land use on Lot 5, the development does not'
increase the density, as it remains the same as what has already been approved. The height
of the building is allowed as per the existing SPA, the mass of the buildings has been
approved by the HPC as well as the SPA allows for buildings of varying floor area, the
architecture and landscaping is consistent with the Bayer townhouses, and the open space
has remained the same as originally approved.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
The proposed development does not create any more demand on public facilitjes
and roads as the original approved development.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud
flow, rock falls, avalanche danfers and flood hazards.
The proposed development is within the approved Lot 5 area as was the original
approved locations of the existing building envelopes. The proposed building envelope
conditions are the same as the approved building envelope conditions.
NG~-~b-36 WED a~:53 ~M
--
"':..do
~-
.
...."....
Review Standards Cont.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land plannin~ techniques
to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and
provide open space, trials and similar amenities for the users ofthe projects aod the
public at large.
.
The proposed development preselVes many mature deciduous trees, conifers and
evergreens on the site. In addition, the relocation of the new townhouses, pres elVes the
integrity of the existing architecture of the Herbert Bayer townhouses. With the new
townhouses, located apart from the historic townhouses, the relocation further establishe,s
the importance of the Bayer architectural legacy at the Aspen Institute. The relocation of
Unit 1, to the south and away from Unit 2, preserves trees and views for Unit 2. The
relocation of Units 10 and 11, about 40 feet from Unit 9, preselVes a mature growth of
trees growing directly neld to Unit 9 as well as a significant evergreen tree to the north of
Unit 9. There are no adverse environmental impacts on trails, open space or the general
public as a result of this amendment to the SPA.
5. Whether the development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Aspen area Comprehensive Plan.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding
neighborhood.
funds.
The proposed amendment will not require the expenditure of excessive public
7. Whether the proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent
meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26. 84.030(B)(2)(b).
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS 1I110tments fro the proposed development.
There are no new units created by this SPA amendment proposal.
NUv-dc-9~ w~L 6~:~* HI'l
,-
r . <:J ~
,.-.
~
"""
(Final Development Plan cont.)
b. A precise plan of the proposed development."".
The proposed development plan including land uses, densities, landscaping,
internal traffic circulation and acceSgways will remain as originally approved for the SPA
for the Aspen Meadows. A copy is available through the City of Aspen Community
Development Department.
c. A Statement specifYing the underlying zone district on the parcel land, and, if variations
are proposed a statement of how the variations comply with the standards of Section
26.80.040(B}.
A Zone District statement is attached for your review. There are no variations
proposed as part of this development amendment proposal.
d. A statement outlining a development schedule specifYing the date construction is
proposed and initiated and completed.
Construction is proposed for April 1, 1997 and will completed no later than 18
months after completion. This is subject to the approval process and the Building
Department Permit procedure. This statement is for Lot 5, Units 1, 10 and 11 only as is
relates to this proposed amendment.
e. A statement specifYing the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the
proposed development.
The statements that were represented in the final development plan of the SF A
will remain the same.
f A statement of the reasonable conformance of the final development plan with the
approval granted to the conceptual development plan and with the original intent of the
city council in designating the parcel specially planned area (SPA).
The proposed amendment conforms with the original intention of the SPA.
g. A plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section
26.88.040(D)(I)(a)(3} and (D)(2)(a).
A plat will be recorded after the final review by all the applicable review board~.
'''1U''" -<::.10-":;;'0 .......c:.L:i ":;4;::;.;5 ...:oi'l ..'~ _ ~ ,_
(', ,~':; ~. .~~ I' "')':i~~~~~:tl ", ~/., ",:.:,. i;l ':. '1;~', ~ . . ,. . .r..~"."'~~.1""";,.1~,~'...I;'k'UI" ;-:';"'i"~ ""j./~.: "~f~' ~)J ,", .
'IJI(:*".,J, '.~ ~ll;i'" \....JI.?.,._.~-.I{"-~J...~....l.."... '~.li.',ln.,!IJ:~~,., .. .~A."/r~.ilt:. "'1 l 'L";'''''
. "lif'i)::l"!.~,\.~,k,ra(~~~~;i~i.j";;{I1i ....,,:;. fJ44:.t".i.ty"....lOI.......' ';'.' ',,g,'f.'la"'r. Ii: .~. . ;'" .~,
. . . ,....'
#";401137 01/::4/92 )f.,: 13 R,ec: 1;/1(1).00 JW 667 PO 761
Silvj;, ))t'J,Vl:ri, PiU in Cntv Cl~r.~. Den: 1~.1)()
I. Dimen~ionaJ ReQuirernenl~ and Variations Therefrom
The following dimensional requirements are (or Ihe RMF Zone District;
variations in these requirements that have been granted for the development
aClivily contemplated for Lot 6 are nOled.
a)
Minimum lot size (sq. n.):
6.000
b) Minimum Jot area per dwelling unit:
i)
3 bedroom unit:
3,630 sq. ft.
c)
Minimum lot width:
60 feel
d)
Minimum front yard:
e)
Minimum side yard:
5 feet
j
.
~
I
I
t,
I ·
I
I
,.
~,
i)
Principal building:
10 fe.:l'
ii)
Acce.ssory building:
~. A variation from minimum RMF Zone Dislrict (cont yard
setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by the Cily 10
zero feet for Lot 6.)
15 feet
f)
Minimum rear yard:
i)
Principal building:
10 feet
Ii)
Accessory building:
15 feet
g)
Maximum heighl:
2S feel
~. A dimensional height variation for Ihe center portion of the tennis
townhomes has been granted by Ihe Cily for up 10 three fect as shown on
Ihe Plat.) .. .
h)
Percent of open space required for building sile:
35%
ilill1G. Minimum RMF Zone District open space requirements have been
waived by the City for Lot Ii in consideration of the open space otherwise
provided in Ihe SPA development plan.)
27
.:....,1t&:'..:I'..
. '
C)-"'<:LOAD SUMMARY SHEET - CIlV' ~ ASPEN
~
DATERECENED: 11/6/96
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID # 2735-121-12-
CASE # A84-96
STAFF: Amy Amidon
PROJECT NAME: Aspen Trustee Townhouses SPA Dev. Area Final Dev. Application
Project Address: Lot 5, 1101-1211 Meadows Trustee
APPUCANT: Mr. Douglas J. Mc Pherson
AddresslPhone: 534 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen 925-700
REPRESENTATIVE: Gretchen Greenwood
AddresslPhone: 520 Walnut SI. Aspen 925-4502
RESPONSmLE PARTY: Applicant
Other Name/Address:
FEES DUE
PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENVHEALTH
CLERK
TOTAL
FEES RECEIVED
$1050 PLANNING $1050.
$~o5 ENGINEER $105.
$0 HOUSING $
$0 ENV HEALTH $
$0 CLERK $
$1155 TOTALRCVD $1155
# APPS RECEIVED (0
# PLATS RECEIVED (p
GIS DISK RECEIVED:
TYPE OF APPUCATION
One Step
P&Z
CC
CC (2nd readin )
REFERRALS:
o City Attorney
o City Engineer
o Zoning
o Housing
o Environmental Health
o Parks
o Aspen Fire Marshal
o City Water
o City Electric
o Clean Air Board
o Open Space Board
o Other:
, 0 COOT
o ACSD
o Holy Cross Electric
o Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
o Aspen School District
o Other:
DATE REFERRED:
INITIALS:
DATE DUE:
APPROVAL:
OrdinancelResolution #
Staff Approval
Plat Recorded:
Date:
Date:
Book
, Page
CLOSEDIFILED
ROUTE TO:
DATE:
INITIALS:
"".."",,
, ...
... ,
"" JI'
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWNHOUSES SPA AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 3, 1996
at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by The
Aspen Institute c/o Doug McPherson, requesting an amendment to the SPA approval. The applicant
proposes to change the location and design of the three previously approved townhouses. The
property is described as Lot 5, Units 1, 10 and 11, Aspen Meadows Trustee Townshouses. For
further information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096.
s/Sara Garton. Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on November 16, 1996
City of Aspen Account
\ r ' . :-~,/'-.,.
l.. I, ;)/;. r ;'->'j //>~-l .'
F "
"....
..' ,/
./
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ASPEN MEADOWS TRUSTEE TOWNHOUSES SPA AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 10, 1996
at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Conunission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by The
Aspen Institute c/o Doug McPherson, requesting an amendment to the SPA approval. The applicant
proposes to change the location and design of the three previously approved townhouses. The
property is described as Lot 5, Units I, 10 and II, Aspen Meadows Trustee Townshouses. For
further information, contact Amy Amidon at the AspenIPitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096.
s/Sara Garton. Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on November 23, 1996
City of Aspen Account
o
o
"
P.11I2
NDV-06-96 WED 04:50 AM
.....
GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ARCHITECTURE . INTERIOR OES/I1N. PLANNING
November 5,1996
Ms. Amy Amidon
Historic Preservation Commission Officer
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Amy:
Attached please find eight copies of the Final Development Application for an
amendment to the SPA for the Aspen Trustee Townhouses. We will present the
application on December 3rd to the Planing and Zoning Commission and to the City
Council on December 9th. If you have any questions and/or need any additional
information and copies, please call me at 925-4502. .
Sincerely,
~~AlA~
520 WALIVUT STRIiET. ASPIiIV,COLORAOO 81611 . TIiL: OWS25.4S0.' FAX; 070/925.7400
HOV-86-96 WED 94:51 AM
P.B4
GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
AIICH/TeCTUIII. tNrllllOIl OH/fiN' PLANNING
November 5, 1996
Ms. Amy Amidon
Historic Preservation Commission Officer
City of Aspen
To whom it may concern:
Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood and Assoc.,Inc. is authorized to act
on behalf of Mr. Douglas 1. McPherson and the Aspen Institute for the processing oftrus
Final Development application, SPA Amendment for the Aspen Meadows Tl1Jstee
Townhouses, Lot 1, 10 and 11. The address of the owner is as follows:
Aspen Institute
Aspen Meadows Tl1Jstee Townhouses
clo Mr. Douglas 1. McPherson
514 E, Hyman St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Please direct any questions and or inquiries regarding the attached application to
Ms. Greenwood at the following address;
Gretchen Greenwood
520 Walnut Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 925-4502
Sincerely,
j.
ouglas 1. McPherson
520 WALNUT STREET. A$PEN.OOLOijADO Sflff . TEL,- 970/125.4101 . FAX: P70192S-74'Q
NQ~-66-~o ~~~ d4;~~ MI'I
'. :.J-.:>
"...~"
"-
"
November 5,1996
Amendment to the
Aspen Trustee Townhouses
Units 1, 10 and 11
SPA Development Area
Final Development Application
Per the Aspen Municipal Code;
Section 26.80.050.(E)(2)
E. Amendment to final development plan
2. All other modifications shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the
final development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an
enhancement of the approved final development plan.
D. Final Development Plan
1. Contents of Application
a. General Requirements as found in Section 26.52.030. are as follows:
1. Applicant: Mr. Douglas 1. McPherson for the Aspen Institute
Address: 534 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 925-7000
Attached please find a letter authorizing Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen
Greenwood and Associates to act on behalf of the Applicant.
2. Legal Description: Aspen Meadows Trustee Townhouses
Lot 5
1101-1211 Meadows Trustee off Meadows Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
3 The disclosure of Ownership of Lots 1,10 and 11 by the Aspen Institute is
on file with the City of Aspen.
4. Attached please find the Vicinity Map locating the subject parcel.
5. A Site Improvement SUlVey is attached for your review.
6. A written description ofthe proposed development is attached.
7. The Review Standards for anSPA is attached for your review.
-,' "~
, .,
, ,,:.\
/'" ,.,
NOv-~6-~6 ~~D d4=Sl ~~
,- ~ u~
~",
.. .
6. Written Description of the Proposed Development
Backl!:round
The original eight Trustee townhouses were designed by Herbert Bayer in 1965.
These Bayer townhouses have been approved through a SPA for a redevelopment and
redesign, that includes living space, one bedroom, bath, mechanical room, detached garage
and exterior decks, The proposed approved additions would add a total of 2,800 square
feet of floor area to Units 2 through 9. To date, the expansion and redevelopment plans
for the Bayer townhouses Units 2 through 9 have not been completed.
The approved SPA also allows for the construction of three new townhouses,
Units 1, 10 and 11. The proposed Unit 1 is located to the south end of the existing Unit 2
and the proposed Units 10 and 11 are located directly to the nom of Unit 9.
The proposed application will develop the three new townhouses, Unit 1, 10 and
11, with a compatible, yet different floor plan and elevations. The proposed townhouses
are 3,400 Square feet each, with a 400 Sq.ft.Garage. The new townhouses are larger in
size than the existing units. This is due to the programmatic needs of the developer and
the Aspen Institute to have an inventory of more spacious accommodations for their rental
use for the visiting Aspen Institute guests. The original SPA has an allowable Floor Area
Ratio of 27,500 Sq.ft. for the entire Lot 5, Units 1 through 11. This amendment does not
change the floor area of the entire parcel. In addition, none of the underlying Zone District
requirements will change with this SPA amendment modification. (See Zoning
Requirements for Lot 5 SP A- attached)
The architecture of the new townhouses departs from the elCisting townhouses
(Units 2-9) in order to preserve the integrity of the existing architecture of the Herbert
Bayer Townhouses. The new buildings have been designed to have a simple appearance,
combining details, proportions and materials similar to the Bayer townhouses.
NOY-6~-~6 W~il B4;52 HM
"':-~"'-'b
-
--
Amendment ProDOSa! to the auproved SPA
as follows:
1. Relocation of Building envelope 1, 10 and 11.
Z. Building Design
1. Relocation of Building Envelope 1,10 and 11.
The proposed Units 1, 10 and 11 have received Conceptual Development
Approval with the Historic Preservation Commission. This approval was conditioned
upon the relocation of the building envelopes apart from the existing townhouses. Based
on the desire of the neighbors, and the HPC, to relocate the buildings apart from the
existing units, the Applicant resubmitted a new site plan to the HPC with the buildings '
located as far as possible from the existing townhouses. The buildings were relocated yet
remained within the dimensional zoning requirements of the Zone District for this Lot 5.
SPA With this relocation, the HPC granted Conceptual Development along with the
approval of the new building design. The relocation of these buildings resulted in new
building envelopes that would require an amendment to the SPA by the Planning
Commission and the City Council. The proposed building envelopes for Units 1, 10 and
11 are shown on the attached drawings.
A. Unit 1 Building Envelope has been relocated to the South of Unit 2, with a distance of
6 feet from the southeast comer of the existing building envelope and 26 feet from the
southwest corner of the existing building envelope.
B. Unit 10 and II Building Envelope has been relocated to the north of Unit 9, with a
distance of 40 feet from the northeast comer of the existing building envelope and 25 feet
from the northwest comer of the existing building envelope.
2. Building Design
The Historic Preservation Commission has granted Conceptual Development to
the proposed building design. Elevations, floor plans and site plans are attached for your
review. The Applicant has been through a two step Conceptual Development process
with the HPC in order to address all the concerns of the neighbors as well as the design
concerns of the HPC. The result of those meetings is Conceptual Development Approval,
by the Historic Preservation Commission on October 23, 1996.
NUV-6o-96 wE~ 84;33 ~M
-.."
J'::> ~ d I
7. Review Standards
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density,
height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space.
The proposed modifications are compatible with the originally approved SPA. The
Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed design and location of the
units and have found that the development is compatible with the immediate parcels in
terms ofland use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscape and open space. The
proposed development does not change the land use on Lot 5, the development does not'
increase the density, as it remains the same as what has already been approved. The height
of the building is allowed as per the existing SPA, the mass of the buildings has been
approved by the HPC as well as the SPA allows for buildings of varying floor area, the
architecture and landscaping is consistent with the Bayer townhouses, and the open space
has remained the same as originally approved.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed
development.
The proposed development does not create any more demand on public facilities
and roads as the original approved development.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for
development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud
flow, rock falls, avalanche dan~ers and flood hazards.
The proposed development is within the approved Lot 5 area as was the original
approved locations of the existing building envelopes, The proposed building envelope
conditions are the same as the approved building envelope conditions.
NG~-8=-~o ~E~ a4:~3 ~M
-
r.c.J<=o
,....,.,
....."
Review Standards Cont.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques
to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and
provide open space, trials and similar amenities for the users of the projects and the
public at large.
The proposed development preserves many mature deciduous trees, conifers and
evergreens on the site. In addition, the relocation of the new townhouses, preserves the
integrity of the existing architecture of the Herbert Bayer townhouses. With the new
townhouses, located apart from the historic townhouses, the relocation further establishe~
the importance of the Bayer architectural legacy at the Aspen Institute. The relocation of
Unit 1, to the south and away from Unit 2, preserves trees and views for Unit 2. The
relocation of Units 10 and 11, about 40 feet from Unit 9, preserves a mature growth of
trees growing directly nelct to Unit 9 as well as a significant evergreen tree to the north of
Unit 9. There are no adverse environmental impacts on trails, open space or the general
public as a result of this amendment to the SPA.
5. Whether the development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Aspen area Comprehensive Plan.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding
neighborhood.
funds,
The proposed amendment will not require the expenditure of excessive public
7. Whether the proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent
meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(2)(b).
8. Whether th~re are sufficient GMQS llllotments fro the proposed development.
There are no new units created by this SPA amendment proposal.
NOV-d6-Sb ~ED a~:5* ~M
"""',
r.~:;;o
'"
(Final Development Plan cont.)
b. A precise plan of the proposed development......
The proposed development plan including land uses, densities, landscaping,
internal traffic circulation and acceSgways will remain as originally approved for the SPA
for the Aspen Meadows. A copy is available through the City of Aspen Community
Development Depanment.
c. A Statement specifYing the underlying zone district on the parcel land, and, if variations
are proposed a statement of how the variations comply with the standards of Section
26,80.040(B).
A Zone District statement is attached for your review. There are no variations '
proposed as part of this development amendment proposal.
d. A statement outlining a development schedule specifYing the date construction is
proposed and initiated and completed.
Construction is proposed for April 1, 1997 and will completed no later thim 18
months after completion. This is subject to the approval process and the Building
Department Pcnnit procedure. This statement is for Lot 5, Units I, 10 and 11 only as is
relates to this proposed amendment.
e. A statement specifYing the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the
proposed development.
The statements that were represented in the final development plan of the SF A
will remain the same.
f A statement of the reasonable conformance of the final development plan with the
approval granted to the conceptual development plan and with the original intent of the
city council in designating the parcel specially planned area (SPA).
The proposed amendment conforms with the original intention of the SPA.
g. A plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section
26.88.040(D)(1)(a)(3) and (D)(2)(a).
A plat will be recorded after the final review by all the applicable review board~.
~~V-0Q-96 w~~ d4~d~ ~~ .. . ' . L
,.' It. "
, " ".,,~....... ~"h:( "I .. .' ",' liJ'Q '~'I.'L1:.' " l' " ~,. ..
(:.~:.;.. .....1.' .,},..'_It.. 9.",.. '\."lo..,~ :'.11.' ~ .r.:""/j.' d;.,~,.. ..........i~~'..oi...,1.'~.,.~f ~"..:. I
.., ." " '..... " .. ~. t . " . '. ',ti",f' ., . '0 . ,. r:; . "oIIil
. 1;1ff.;;:~!~,\.~,k,'!.d(~~;r.cl;ji'.l:iir~tt.j";;i"1i ');'~~. ;.ffi.,;".., ....Q........ ";" ',:;J./!tb . :1 .1. ~".'.!
, . I....'
#:.140'137 01/::1/92 ,1." I) RIO'" ~I\Oo).OQ m< 667 PG 761
Si.l"j;, ))'')\'110, F'it., in C,,+,:,y Cl~t"k. lklt: 1~.,jO
I. Dimensional ReQuirements and Varialions Therefrom
The following dimensional requirements are for Ihe RMF Zone District;
varia lions in Ihese requirements lhat have been granted for Ihe developmenl
activity contemplated for Lot 6 are nOled.
a)
Minimum 101 size (sq. ft.):
6,000
b) Minimum 101 area per dwelling unll:
i)
3 bedroom unit:
3,630 sq. n.
c)
Minimum 101 width:
60 feet
d)
Minimum front yard:
e)
Minimum side yard:
5 feel
j
.
~
I
I
t,
I'
I
I
,.
~,
i)
Principal building:
10 feet'
ii)
Accessory building:
~. A varialion from minimum RMF Zone District fronl yard
setbacks for accessory buildings has been granted by the Cily 10
zero feet (or Lol 6.)
15 feet
l)
Minimum rear yard:
i)
Principal building:
10 feet
ii)
Accessory building:
15 feet
g)
Maximum heigh!:
2.S fect
Cllilli:. A dimensional height variation for Ihe center portion of Ihe lennis
lownhomes has been granted by Ihe Cily for up 10 three feet as shown on
Ihe PIa!.) .. .
h)
Percent of open space required {or building site:
35%
~. Minimum RMF Zone Dislriel open space requirements have been
waived by the Cily (or Lot 6 in consideration of Ihe open spaeeolhcrwise
provided in the SPA development plan.)
27
'~.....,1tt7'"
, .'
'.
Nov-a6-96 WED ~4:55 AM
"' ' ,'(.I,!,t "'p''''1l\~''4,,...,... I, ~ '.. , . .
,I..,. ':'\',.. .... :.1". ,.,.' ',. .
. .. '. Il" .: '''~ . )...,.. ,.( AlM'.~.4. ~H'.'. _
P. 11
!I3<l')?~l" 0:'11:::.1/',;: .\6: I:: r<(.(;' .,.4.),'" .;..;. 01 667 1'0 762
~~\1,,"~...1 O~\VJ!,.'rj!ll" r:..,,'. 1;1,..;,'''1.. I)llr. '1_.. f)",
~
'.' '''''IIM.l~''f.~' <a:.'~:"" h.' ~ J:~'iJ(ill, .r' ,
'". J~:;'jI.'I_ .All'; stG~) I;'V;' (. \'-: :&..,.,,...,. ..;,.~}l.7'6.iI. '~r~"Y1':'
" ..... .... N .""-"J. . k' I
' . . ,.. I
~~J'.... .
.. "
i)
External FAR (maximum):
1:1
j)
k)
Inlernal FAR:
no requlremenl
Off-slreet parking requirement:
I space pcr bedroom
2. Condominiumi7.l11ion and Six Monlh Minimum Lease ReQuiremenl
Pursuant to findings made durini the approval process and in accordance with
Section 24-7~1007 of the Municipal Code, the City grants and awards
condominlumizalion approval for the seven tennis lownhome units on lol 6 as
approved by this SPA plan.
The six monlh minimum lease requiremenl for condominium unilS as contained
af Seclion 24-7-1007 (A)(l)(b)(\) of the Municipal Code has been and hereby is
waived as 10 lhe seven condominium units on Lot 6.
~.
3.
~ ImDrovcmcnls
.
,.
(a) Utilities. All telephone; eleclrie and cable lines on Ihe Property servicing
lhe improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer
lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance with standards of the
City and of the ACSD and wriuen easements will be provided if and as
required confirming the as-built locaHon oE each easement.
(b) I..and~('aoe Improvemmtl. Savanah shall lib ide by and substantially
conform to the tree removal and landscape plans recorded as part of t:le
Plat in BOOk..as:. at Page L, el set]. of Ihe Records. The landscape
plans depict and describe the nature, elltent and location of all plant
malerials in appropriate relation 10 scale, species and size of ellisting plant
material, flower and shrub bed definition, a planl malerial schedule with
common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment oE
all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, lurf, gravel, terracing, eIC.), decorative
waler features, retaining walls, fenCing, benches, and all other agreed-
upon landscape features. Such landscaping shall be compleled in II logical
sequence commensurate with lhe staging ofirnproVemenls as contemplated
in the Lot 6 Construction Schedule, bUI in no evenllatcr than one year
. after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final
phase of improvemenl~. It is the mutual understanding of lhe parties that
Certificates of Occupancy may in fact issue for improvemcnts even Ihough
the landscaping jmproVt~rnenlS relaled therelo have not yel been complet-
ed, so long as the portion of the financial guaranty provided for in this
Agreement which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscaping
remains available to the CilY pursuant to lIle terms of this Agreement. All
,...
t~
( ,
I
r
W
!~
28
'''.....r~.
~
Nov-e6-96 WED ~4;55 AM
.' .. ~'.!'t '"'~'~II;'~'If. t....., " &'''' '." .'
.\ -I' ',:~.. .... ~ "'.' ,.. ."
" '. Ii, '. . ..~ .. /""" I'~ ...l\i'.~.i ~r;", .
2.1.1.
!/3'1'~?:17 ';'1/:;:.1/',;: 16: 1:' r'c',- ./..,')"'. (.(. 01 66? 1'0 762
Si!......i. 0;,1 D<l\Vi!:,.' rJ ! Il" r:'II.\ t; I....:.,. f,. I)ty-. 'f,. r),',
.' .'.. " .~l\l~":r.~' ~~~~~:~ '1~.'...,4 ,,~'iJlil~. ...;.,
"...c; J",~'!h,.c";.'l',I'r.i;.li:l1; ~ \'~-'I'...,...<".If.,.",..~r~'~1." ,
. . . I.,;
~~r"'" .
.. I;
i)
EX(~rnal FAR (maximum):
1:1
j)
k)
Inlernal FAR:
no requirement
Off-street parking rcquir~mcnt:
I space per bedroom
2. Condominillmi7.alion and Six Month Minimum I.ease Reollircm~
Pursuant 10 nndings made during the approval process and in accordance with
Seclion 24.7~J007 of the Municipal Code, the City grants and awards
condominlumizalion approval for the seven tennis townhome units on lot 6 as
approved by Ihis SPA plan.
The six month minimum lease requirement for condominium units as conlJlincd
at Section 24-7-1007 (A)(I)(b)(I) of the Municipal Code has been and h~reby is
waived as 10 lhe seven condominium units ou lot 6.
."
3.
.wr. Imorovcmenls
.
,.
(a) Utiliries. All telephone; eleclrie and cable lines on the Property servicing
the improvements shall be undergrounded. All water and sanitary sewer
lines shall be designed and constructed in accordance wilh slandards of the
Cily and of the ACSD and written rasemenls will be provided if and as
required confirming the as-builtlocalion of each easement.
,--
f~
jj ,
I.
I
,
W
Ir
(b) Landscane Improvements. Savanah shall lIbide by and substantially
conform to the lree removal and landscape plans recorded as pari of t:le
PIal in BOOk ..a.8:. at Page L, el Jet]. of the Records, The landscape
plans depict and describe the nature, elltent and location of all plant
materials in appropriate relalion to scale, species and size of existing plant
material, /lower and shrub bed delinition, a plant material schedule wilh
common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of
all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, lurf, gravel, lerracing, tIC.), decorative
waler ieatures, retaining walls, fenCing, benches, and all olher agreed-
upon landscape features. Such landscaping shall be Completed in a logical
sequence commensurale wilh the staging of improvements as contemplated
in the Lot 6 Construction SchedUle, but in no event Ialcr than one year
. after the dale of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for Ihe linal
phase of improvemcnt~. II is thc mutual understanding of the parties Ihat
eerlincllles of Occupan.:y may in fact issue (or improvements even though
the landscaping improvemenls related Ihereto have nOI yet been complet-
ed, so long as the ponion of the nnaneial guaranty provided for in Ihis
Agreement which Covers lhe estimated cost of such unfinished landscaping
remains available to the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. All
28
"~.'~.
~
-
\,
).'.1, I (
-( (k/C'!' " '/' .;;
[lJ ~ 4>-
--~
~.
7ru" vl..~,
IA.J.I ~ ^' l~;"., "'''/ ~ I Iu //fAJ .,tu/-tl
fJ'rt;'" 1u
d"Y
rYO.l1i>
,..0Y~qvt>/t~- """,-",f'-.--,:'I 'f~"''''~C:
1
0.".. CO~ 1.,1,,,,,("-/,';"'"
.6'1 10 /IIVU'~~~I
-I'~ --T rLU- .
.{
S4",:e./'"
-/ '-~e<.3
o",I.;,Jr 'f
-rr.. 01 r ~ .LI ~ -r5
r,.", oj -(:;/( t
I(),-,.,l... ,
.i / (,,:
,
'~I'/ ,,',.. ,"
?..(
fG
/').1 "
A/oJ rr~/..../-tJ k
//JI/4....,,'
/ ,. J"'I '.... /_:,/".,I'-./'.~'.:I!"'.
~u d ^'j '-<>"i J",. ;r'r' " ", 4
---'?-{ .J lod -INP - ri.'" In /lA.,.ij,."" 10')) "Yt- !""OM /-N 1/).
~
JrJ
@ 4,
uhf
I'. I' I ."t,J;,.l!,Ji"..,,!t;f;,....,
off' / " ..i "j'
//
j" 'J' v,:,I'/
fa (C V"'d()
:1-4" Pine
.8" Pine
4 2" FGJdaII
..; :-
- " ASpen
1':"2\ ASpen 3-
2-8"'. ~pen 1-1
1-6" Plhe
"" -1'-6" Aspen
~dead Aspen
1-8" Pine
-6" Pint
. 6" Pine
pen
ved due to
(/ I
if'~\
~"^: .
::
\. .
'(
;,
c~
\-8" Aspen
4':..6" Aspen
.1-~~ne
1-6" Pi~-
. 1-11" AsPen
3:..6" p!ne \
" .
'-
7116.~
c-
~ ~
- \~!
. /~~~ \ \
1--;"'0 \ \
/ '\\'
\ .
\ \
Existin.1l parking " \
31 Spaces \\
.' '\
, " \
1~-~" ave. ASpen, I \
. ! \
- \
. BuSh \
,{. ~
I
I
I
I I,
'i.'/
"
~<'8FtOCATE 1'"""
\.
'LEGEND
t:j;J
w
-
....
. Buildings to renmi>>
Buildings to be replaced ,or
Trees, to be removed. ",'
remodeled
· Trees to be relocated
'-./
..
z
0
tc 0
:s ....
<!'w
Z..../
_W LO
1-1-
(J)(J)
Xc:( ....
WW 0
,
~
o
C\I
.
41
.
'VTV ONINNVld ONVl ONV 31:l01:>31IH:>I:lV. .
0
N
Z
0
~
~ 0
W .....
<l'm
~J: It)
1-1-
(/):J
-0
~(/)
~
0
(\I
z
0
~
:s 0
w ....
<!'m
~::c to
1-1-
(I);:)
-0
~CI)
-
,
,
'\1"'\1 8NINN\lld ON\ll ON\I 3l:Jnl031lHOl:J\I .
IiI'"
)
~-'
c
~'l
...J
o
C\j
z
0
~ 0
o~ ,...
Ww
(/)..J
OW It)
0.1-
o(/)
a:<( ,...
o.w 0
I
.,..;
-
,
J
0
l- N
Z
:::>
,
. ZO
OZ
-W
~:z: 0
O~I- '.....
WW:::>
(/)...JO
OW(/) 10
a.1-~
~~W
--
(/) 0
l- N
Z
:J
ZO
OZ
-W
~ 0
o~iE ....
WWa;
(/)-10
OWZ
Q.I-~ J
Ofaw
g:~Z ....
..... 0
z
0
-
Ii
~ o.
O...J .....
~w
Oi: 10
Q.a:
00
~z .....
0
- - ------~._~" ^'- - '-"~"~'~-'--~-~
~f
--- ..._..._-~-_....~ -_._--,._-....~--
....'1'... DNINN...'d ON"" ON'" 3~nl031IHO~... . 'ONI S31...,OOSS... ON"'I'l'OHNI.:l OI^"'(]
ElNlstlOH 33lSrnu 03S0d0ttd - ~r.
SMOOV3W N3dSV ~!~
~ o~
-
-rei- 1
f::1. h~9, l~
r I ~-........:: '....
'-- ~ Jr- ---.......:::-~ I~.:
"'- --1:A /I I . '. rr-- ---;, r......
k:--...Y rflJ; )}OJ+-~h:'-,
:.;::-.;. ~ t.L.r1E' }r-
I/; I j ~K I ~ ; ;; )
/ / II!"'", i~N
. '/ / I / / /A ,'~" -H-
f ;!
...
_. .
:::::-- .
/I
~
~-1
;:::
,..
t.,
~
~
-
/
I
1 r- 7
1/'
I
I
....
l
~
I
,
IL =-
_'>t 0
'6JUl
1/
/1
I
~
!
/ O!-l.
i c;fJ
..L. 11
.J 'II
.=. -=---.1' ~l,
~ . -=-=-
! I I,
~'i' \. OC) t-_ I'
'- '0 h- -'I,
U' ~']
r-'---jX 1 L I ~ I I
1 II /
r '<'1 \.L _",
,L_ "J
lji
I
/1
II
I J /
J / / I 1 T
~/~
J / --~ ~ ~L
/ / / /
~ I / / J r '\
/ //
~ / -' 1 1./ J r
r.. . I / -,./ ! .
:A~~ 1 II
~ ~.L I
~~ ::oI"i>1
'7 .
I
I
I
I
. .......
1 ;"
II :1 Ii.
I DO,It- -JL~J
I II J!
I.~II
~O-:: ,
'~"-. ~ 11>1
,:p.~ u.... 1i --1
"~.';lIii ,I I
~,~TTr -,I-J
~l\:)r;::;' II II
II JI
1
o I
.0=='
I
I II
I
I
I
\
\\
\1
\
I
I
r-
~ I
I
I
.
-
I
",".
\
Q..J 0
.,...
WW
en>
OW It)
a.z
0-
a:< .,...
a.~ 0
il-
:1
: I .,....
I
II
I)
.I"'IIIJAO
-.l.-.lil-.l~-.ll I I '''M'
OQ1.l'1IU.O
0 c"
..... ,,:xl
"0
C11 m"
:xl 0
rcn
mm
..... <0
0 m
r
I\)
o
. .
.', "n..
"".'~ '
, .
. .
, 8' , :
. .
'.. .
"T1 ",'
,'.
'-.
-- .---..---...--..
".
.----.-,. . --.-.-.- "-~
.... _..._'--_..-..._~._".-
" , .
,
. ,
'TI iil
~ .- !
~.
, ' al ,
m -
~
. ,.'
. .,
',' "
.-
. .', ."
. ,
. ,',
=-- =-
'. '.
D~2:'::...
o
. . "
': .:: .."
" "
, . ". .
. .' .'
.,' .
t, ....
. "
. .., .
. '.. "
.' ..".
..' . .
. .'
.'. ", ,"
'.'
:ii,
'. .
. "
"
,
'. .
I
I
I
I
I
'_>_.._.H._..__~~,.._
~
~i~. 0
C\/
-'
W 0
0> ,..
, WW
,
'---. (1)-'
-.--- 00: It)
'---. a.W
o~
~9
D
o
o
~.'l.
-.r
'-'--
.--~---.
r
7
w
~
(J)
i
~
~-,.- -~-""----
~
o
o
o
--_. --- ...------ ..,-._-
'-'-'--
"-
r
~
I
,
~~~ 0
C\I
...J
W 0
cGj ,...
-.
, W...J
CIJ
00: 10
c..W
03:
g:g
I
z
o
f3
w
cC/)
w<.!'
C/)z
0-
a..C
o::!
a::J
a..m
o
....
It)
\\
~":.; 1 /.,'
" if '-
l
l'
.
- ----
....
\
,I..." '
,\
:.\-
'\
::..\,
~, \ " '.,
:<\ ',::.
"-\" ....
\.,
I
._....'.
.\
) ,
"
I
,1'-
I
" ,
1
..-
\
\
\
I
I
\
,',' .
~ ~
...-
~
~
i
5l )
:ll
z
:5
Q.
W
!::
(/)
g
51
'"
'"
-
---1
.---- \
--~
---- \
~ \
L---1
--: \
o \
----I
\
---\
---- \
J
--
--
.
~
I
r
I
1
I- ----
I -- I
I I
I ______-1
r ' I
I I
I ---1
r----
I I
~--i- --1
I I I
I 0 _J
t--'1! -- - I
L_J-- ---~
\ I
1 ___-\
1----.-
I I
I I
L._.____ i
\ \
I __~
_'_-_.._--~--,~-._-_."._._.".^."."_.~_." "
~
)
z
0 It)
~ (')
::>
w
.....J 0
W C\I
f- 0
en ~
w It)
~ 0
)
0
C\l
'",..,
..,)
z
0
~ 0
;::; .....
c:JW
z..J
_W It)
1-1-
0000
X<( .....
WW 0
,.....''''"'
~.'"
. ,,-IV"
,
,
~
~,.'"
"~"'-"--,~
"''''',
-
z
0
0 ~ 0
::> ,...
CJ~
zw
.... i=~ LO
e/HI)
-w
~~ ,...
0
,
,/
0
C\I
Z
0
~
:::> 0
LU ~
...J
(!)LU
Z:I: It)
1-1-
cna:
xO
LU
~ SPUn
If./$1X;3 8 '"'g;gj
~lJ.1)13
(~)
~o)N~
.JJ4 qhfJ Q.~
~NPilll1
?aP4 /'Iajlt}
-;;;r
009spg
.0., l .tH :31V:lS
NOllVA:na .lSaM
" .;
.....
@l
-
@l
@l
6u!sou
(]l
(]l
~"
-"
<tv
Z
6U!Pl!nq
IU8:l9!PV
S9113u!l/S
.....
H
@
@
@
-
~~W
a\..- N"fI'Wlb
~If'l~
~ t1tJJ1
~-
....)
:'!!
"
z
o
~
~
(!). ..~I
~:z:
1-1-
(1,)::>
XO
. W(I,)II::
; .~1lIi1 .;"
0
(\J
z
0
.;:;
~. 0
@~ ,...
cnW
OJ: to
a..1-
O:J
0::0. . ,...
a.cn 0
w.
\"..
c
z
o
~
~I
<!Jm
~:c
1-1-
cnC!:
-0
(JSz.
/""""
,..-.
r'
,,-
z
o
~
::::;;
OW
w...J
Cl),W
, O:C
0.1-,
.'00:'
-(to
'D:;Z
13fl31l:l3dcln
~~ @l
w'"'
""~l
~II 0 II@
.---"
"
, ,r--.
J @~ I
" 4 ~
I
L. 8 0
.0 ~,~ = .v/~ :31VOS
"""
cJJN1)
~\L4~<i
~
~IW~
3A31i:l3M01 .
.u-,til:I
13h31Nrm
o
o
(0
~1l
~t1b1Xa~
tt?~ ,01
~r,J~
-
,..,-
I!
o
C\I
z
0
~ 0
::> ...
c:lW
z...l
_w It) .
1-1-
SQC/}
. x<C ...
ww 0
~~r1t
j.<:J
i~
~
o
(\J
z
r 0
j:; 0
Cl~ ,....
UJUJ
(I)...J
OUJ LO
0.1-\
0(1)
0:< ,....
- o.UJ 0
- ,.
~-"^'
{~
~
~~.r..~.~ y' ,.
.
iV'
~..~::"\.~
",'I
~,.
\:Jri~J
"'i!'
~~'(
,,'
.~- .
~-I... .
t\ ,
.Q '.-,
,),,,.
t\c::;
,v~ .
~"'. ,"
.r........,;.
- -\
~/'.I,'
.,,-~~
.~ 'I
- ,
'"
~~
cv-0 .
(1'-1
~"''''l
Z0'C1
~I
I
;t
. .
II I
;L ~
J~ .
(/')
9:
I
(/')
Z
O.
t;;:
..J
W
a:
..J
~
W
o
..J
<(
a:
W
t;;:
:IE
-0
C
~
>-
a:
f-
Z
W
"~
W
Z
C)
Z
~"
o
I
.(/')
Z
o
~
::>
w.
'..J j'
Wi
.
..J"
.<( ~
~I
rEt
~ ~ Ii
= 8 i
! ~ ~
u~. ::
~ i ~ I
i~"H .1
l!l ~ i d '
,
~
~
r~
.~
1"
'I'
\, II
I, .1
~
~
~
,
,
" .
[ -Ii .J 0
i
~
w
- ---1:=-: ;
, ~
,
,
" 0
" ~
,
I'
I"
-. '.j
0 \ ' i:
i i ~ 0
0 i
~ " ~ ~ ' "
~ m .
~1i. "'- " ~-
~ ~ :0 ~- ~
"
\,
.,
. .
..J
..J
~.
o
z
W
.-- ::J
....
J:.
-
z
o
~
a
W
(/')
..J
..J
"!d:
5:
..J
..J
~
o
z
W
@>
Z
<(
..J
0...
u..
o
o
a:
>-
a:
f-
z
W
::J
....
J:.
-
z
o
f-
a
W
(/')
..J
..J
~
_ _ -'" ......L--"'6....__.....
,d-'
....,-
'~ .-
~
A\iM3^I~a V'JO~.:I NOll\i^313 lS\i3
"'",",-,,--!-'
.,
i ..........II'.Il2II', f
'I ...........-a\~
.~I
. - ~ <
"'it<
~._'
''<IT'<I 8NINN'<I1d ON'<I1 ON'<I 3l:Jn1::l31IH::>l:J'<I .'::>NI 531'<11::>055'<1 ON'<I ~10HNI:l 01^'<I0
eNlsnOH 331Sm:tl 03S0dOl:ld i>
. , .....
, 'z
SMOO'v'3V\1 N3dS'v'.-~
c
NOII\f^313 HInos .
.,...
NOII\f^313 HInos
.,
."',"""
......
<-
"'0,"-,
I
NOI1VA313 lS3M
NbilVA313 lS3M
~it~
1U~
--
'@
---@
, ~N
rn ~ @
() I , -@
> tr.I /
....
m CIl
- >-l
;;: tr.I
. t"'"
" tr.I
- -<
I~ > --@
>-l
-
0
Z
~N
@
'li~ @)
l?i"
[f.
~~
~~f jj i~ -::::--
-
-~
IX)~ v"Z. \~ ~1
6' "0\
Ji ~ ~
~
-
,
\.
~
~
~ ~
~
.~ 9
h It
~
e
M
~v
~~
afl'".
8 :z
0
....
E-<
8--1 -<
:> ;,
~ .'
~ :
~ ~.
::z:: ~
~ !5 ~
o <
e 8 I 'J:J :il
@
EJ I @
~~
e
&-
.@
u.."
8--
~~~~
~ ~~
~ II.)-~
$Sl ~ "3
~~j t!;
~ ~%
~ ...c\~
8--
w-
e--
e
~
~
@----J
o
(0
{i~
z:: ~ S:.(\
:1- ~ f::'
4U~P. .
~~
~
"
l
H
/
i
'"
I;;
il
z
/~ '
~.
~ 0
..J -'
r.tJ :
li~ :I: ~
~ic E-<-'
~!. ..,..
i . ~ I-ioI w
. ~ 0--'
(!l ~ . ....
~ z u
00
----II
I
I
I
I
I
I Z ~
f I
I 0
I
I
I -
I E-<
I < ;, I
I
I ;;.. ~ ~
~ I
I ~ "
I ...J
i I ::
I ~
I -
I E-<
I
I r;n w
I < -' I
I ..
I ~ ()
I "'
I
I
I
~~ E ,...--
H' 01> ...r,
~i I
I
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
@ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
@ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
~
"t~
~
3
\.
(
(
\-
.-...
,...,
""
...
\.."
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
5) Fencing visible from the street shall be res~udied and
perhaps moved one or two feet back and look at an alternate
solution of vegetation. The fence can be whatever on the
west side.
6) 7' rear yard setback variation, finding that such variation
is more compatible in character with the historic landmark,
than would be development in accord with dimensional
requirements.
7) Parking reduction of one space, finding that the maximum
number of parking spaces have been planned on site. The
parking space in the front yard shall be eliminated and re-
vegetated as proposed.
Motion second by Glenn. All in favor, motion carries.
Les Holst wi~l be the project monitor on 214 W. Bleeker.
i
THE MEADOWS - RESIDENTIAL ONLY
Roxanne: I have reiterated the conditions of conceptual approval
in the memo and have responded to them. The Planning Office is
recommending approval of the meadows with conditions to be
approved by Staff and the Meadows sub-committee of the issues
that were not yet met for their final approval.
1) Detailed preservation plan needs clarified for the Trustee
townhomes.
2) Palate of materials.
3) Amendments to the design.
4) Covenants to more clearly define the massing, scale and
articulation issues.
5) Clarification of the material treatment of the end walls and
party walls and clarification of the tennis townhomes west
elevation regarding correct scale of door and windows.
6) Clarification of tennis townhomes regarding balcony snow
removal.
Perry Harvey: Lets discuss the Tennis townhomes, Trustee and
then the single family homes.
Nickie and David Finholm presented materials and responded to all
concerns of Staff as presented in the memo May 8, 1991 (attached
in records).
Nickie: The snow removal of the Tennis townhomes will consist of
5
-..
'... "
c
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
all internal drainage. The north/south wall is designed to be a
rubble wall. The partition walls are done in the rubble also.
The tennis townhome parking is the same design as the Trustee
houses with the earth berm and use of natural soil. The curb of
the berm is similar to Anderson Park. Natural vegetation will be
incorporated.
Bill: The Board is in approval of the Tennis townhome~.
David: On the townhouses, three units were added. We have also
created earth landscaping. We will remove all the stairs and
keep the window detailing exactly like it is. The fascia is
shingle. We would like to change the color of the roof asphalt
singles which are silver color now to a darker color (cedar mix).
Bill: Changing
the structure.
applicant.
the color doesn't effect the historic nature of
I would think the color selection is up to the
David: There is room for two cars in the covered parking and one
on the side.; All the architecture is glass with sun control.
\
Bill: The Board unaminously approved. the Trustee homes.
Perry Harvey: I will discuss the single family homes. Regarding
the covenants we will have a design review committee. This is an
R15 zone. Council had requested that we lower the lots to 12,
000 sq. ft. We have created building envelopes that range from
61 to 64 hundred feet which is down to an R6 lot. After
reduction of rear yard setbacks etc. we have created 30 foot
combined side yard setbacks. This creates view planes of the
Meadows as you come in. The homes are a little over 4000 sq. ft.
and the accessory dwelling units are 500 sq. ft. We are going to
market the lots.
Roger: Do the covenants state that you can't build a linear box.
Perry: It talks about creating movement.
Bill: The City in their attempt to protect sage meadow is
forcing them into a box which is going to create a design which
is a box. In your architectural review committee you might force
the buildings to be more irregular. The buildings along that
area in the west end are less rigid and in your guidelines if you
require that you get a little more interest and vitality and
avoid the "wall".
/
\-
Les: Who is the design review board for this project?
6
#' '
,
(
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
Perry: Us as the developers with input from the Institute and
the property owners and David and Nickie Finholm.
Les: I would suggest that there be one member of the HPC on the
Board.
Bill: Board unaminously approved the single family homes and
~ecommendations to Staff and to the applicant.
Bill: Trees along the rear property line would be a help in
reducing the massing and soften the area.
Bill: All the conditions for final have been met.
Bill: We have reviewed the palate of
residential portion and a condition
that the palate of materials and
submitted for the meadows.
materials and color for the
of this approval would be
colors still need to be
MOTION: Glel1n made the motion that we grant final development
approval for~the residential portion of the meadows as sUbmitted;
second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries.
(
"
MOTION: Les made the motion that the outline for the single
family parcels is appropriate with the recommendations that were
made to Staff during the meeting; second by Glenn. All in favor,
motion carries.
....
601 W. HALLAM - DELETION FROM INVENTORY
George Vicenzi: I received notice from Jed Caswall that the
building permit is illegal and I feel it is alive and well.
Staff ,was concerned about setting a precedent and I don't feel
that is a problem because no one can ever equal the same
situation that I have due to Ord. #17 is now in effect and would
preclude anyone from getting a demo permit to any structure that
you are interested in. Most of the house was built after 1910
and has no historic interest. It was moved to this site and was
vacant up until 1960. '
(
George: I will not go into facts as to why this house has no
historic value. The main factor is that the old house which is
the gabled end, south side of the house is pre 1910 and does have
minimal historic value (the bay window on the east side). The
victorian porch was added by myself and I did the dining room in
1970. 70% of the building wasn't even constructed prior to l~lO.
The part that was constructed before does not have historical
value. It also has no historical value to the neighborhood
because it was moved there in the 60's and on a vacant lot. This
7
.
1""'.
"-'
........
-
.
MEMORANDUM
To:
Aspen Historic Preservation committee
From:
Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer
Re:
Conceptual Development: The Aspen Meadows, residential
portion only, Public Hearing
Date:
February 13, 1991
NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING YOUR. MEADOWS PACKET FROM THE
FEBRUARY 6 WORKSESSION.
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual development approval for the
residential portion of the Aspen Meadows, including the
remodeling, renovation and three new un~ts to the (Bayer)
"T~ustee Townhomes", seven new units referred to as the "Tennis
Townhomes" and advisory review of the four single-family home
sites.
LOCATION: Westerly portion of the parcel commonly referred to as
"The Aspen Meadows"
APPLICANT: The Aspen Institute and Savanah Limited Partnership,
represented by Perry Harvey and Joe Wells
ZONING: SPA, underlying zoning pending
PREVIOUS HPC ACTION: Though no formal action has been taken
previously by the HPC, a worksession was held on February 6, 1991
to informally review the proposal. Positive comments on the
Trustee Townhomes regarding massing; scale, height, spacing and
site planning were received from the HPC. Concerns focused
primarily on specific materials, details, and landscaping. The
earth covered parking spaces were considered appropriate. Most
Board members considered the massing, scale and modular design of
the "Tennis Townhomes" compatible with the thematic International
style of the Meadows. Comments generally focused on the stepping
of the units, design of the end walls and treatment of parking.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: Currently, eight (8) Trustee Townhome
exist, with incorporated carports attached to each.
remainder of the proposal consists of new construction.
units
The
PROJECT SUMMARY and REVIEW PROCESS: The Development Review
Standards are found in Section 7-601(D). The applicable portion
of the Guidelines are found in Section VI. Residential Buildings,
Renovation and Restoration and Section VII. Residential
Buildings, New Construction. The Guidelines generally address
detached buildings of the Victorian era, however, the intent and
o
~
.
.
square, fascia thicknesses carefully designed, and roof
material not wood shingle. Asphalt roofing
alternatives should be studied and presented to the HPC
at Final.
2) Finish and color of materials is important. A palette
of materials, textures and colors shall be prepared by
the participating architects, and submitted for HPC
approval at Final. This palette would also apply to
the single Family home sites as well.
3)
An exact materials representation
Final, including major materials,
railings, decorative features, etc.
shall be
windows,
made at
balcony
2.
standard: The proposed development reflects
consistent with the character of the neighborhood
parcel proposed for development.
and is
of the
Response:
Standard,
itself.
The Planning Office feels that the proposal meets this
defining "neighborhood" as the large Meadows parcel
3. Standard: The proposed development enhance:, or does not
detract from the cultural value of (designated historic
structure*) located on the parcel proposed for development
or adjacent parcels. (*historic resource)
Response: The Meadows parcel represents perhaps better than any
other the diversity in Aspen's culture. We find that the
proposal does not detract from the cultural value of this
important parcel, representing Aspen's post-war renaissance
heritage.
4.
Standard: The proposed
diminish or detract from
-(designated historic
(*historic resource)
development enhances or does not
the architectural integrity of a
structure*) or part thereof.
Response: The architectural integrity of the Trustee Townhomes
is critical to maintain. We find tl.at the conceptual submittal
of the addition design does not detract from the existing
conditions. However, due to the importance of materials in this
project, and the need for careful study of compatibility issues,
we feel that a higher level of detailed drawings and material
specifications is required of the applicant to determine if this
standard has been fully met.
~are concerned about the
an
~;l ferm at FiR~l
onver
. rrc:r this element be submitted in
4
.
o
o
'.
The Tennis Townhomes and the single family home sites do not
apply under this standard.
ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider the following alternatives:
1) Approve the Conceptual Development application as
proposed.
2) Approve the
conditions to
a)
7
tudy of Tennis Townhome carports to reduce
visual impact~MlO ~ NOO(?v.
b) Detailed preservation plan for Trustee
townhomes materials and architectural
features. subtle. comoatible design ~
differences shall be ~ncorporated into the 71'
three new Trustee Townhomes units, to discern
between original and new.
Detailed site and landscape plan, indicating LOW 1
existing vegetation and including a study of
enhanced vegetation buffer },cO;~o!oH hi"Lu...k
..c'Qt.t::lltJCl ;:linn new constrllr+; nn _'11..11 prepoi::Jt::d
fel,cin9 GRall be detailed
f{
~<;
~ Trustee Townhome carport remodeling
(representative) detail drawing
.....\1 - 4) ~ of' design, articulation, materials
I'~ ~ and texture of all end walls
4)
%)
Massing models ~ '^f' ~ ~ .
Material representation: An exact materials
representation shall be made at Final,
including maj or materials, windows, balcony
railings, decorative features, etc.
~)
A palette of materials, textures and colors
shall be prepared by the participating
architects, and submitted for HPC approval at
Final. This palett:~ ,'ould alEe apply te the
~in91~ Family h~m~ ~it~s ~~ wpll
W)
Recommendation from applicant for compatible
5
,.....
"'"
~,
."
massing, scale, height, setbacks, materials
for the four single family home sites design
covenants for HPC consideration (advisory
only). oN ( c.vvvIV.t]/lf7tU,~ W WMr ~.
3) Table action to a date certain, to allow the applicant
time to restudy specific areas.
4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the
Standards have not been met.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC
grant Conceptual Development approval for the Aspen Meadows,
residential portion, with Conditions A-J (stated above) to be met
at Final.
The Planning Office further recommends that the applicants
process an application for Landmark Designation for the Meadows
Parcel.
Additional
recommendatione, ~~~~~
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------~---------------
REVIEW COMMENTS:
memo.hpc.meadows.res.cd
6
c
o
MEMORANDtlM
To:
Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer
From:
Re: ~Worksession: Aspen Meadows Conceptual Development
application, residential developments only
::::~=====::~:::::=:~=~::~~===~:~=~~~==~=~-~~~-=
SUMMARY: The applicants for the Aspen Meadows have requested a
worksession with the HPC to review the residential develooment
portion only of the overall Meadows project. The conceptual
development review/public hearing is scheduled for February 13.
The HPC is requested to carefully review the proposal, and be
prepared to enter into a dialogue with the applicants. Feel free
to offer suggestions for amendments you feel would be appropriate
to the plan at this time, understanding that no formal action can
take place at this worksession.
The residential portion of the application includes only:
t. Trustee Townhomes (Bayer design):
.
.
Renovation. modifications. new additions, site
planninq. materials, landscape buffering, parking, etc.
~. Tennis Townhomes:
New construction. site planninq. materials. lanrl",,...,,,p"
buffering, parking, etc.
~- Single familY home sites:
Four sites at the far south end of the Meadows parcel,
of which the HPC has advisory review only. Suggestions
for Design Guidelines are sougnt: general massing and
scale, materials, building envelope and site planning,
landscape buffering at edge of oval open space area.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC
carefully review the proposal and enter into a dialogue with the
applicants at this worksession. Important issues to focus on are
the preservation and new addition compatibility of the existing
Bayer (Trustee) TOwnhomes, and the general compatibility of the
seven proposed "Tennis Townhomes". No formal action shall be
taken at this worksession.
memo.hpc.meadows.wrksn
/"
".....,
""'"
~
/
- THE ASPEN MEADOWS
HPC CONCEPTuAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
REVIEW OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
),
c
~
EKHffiIT Al
UIND USE APPLICATIOO FURM
1) Project Name
2) Project lJocation
THE ASPniI ME'A!X)WS
845 Meadows Road / 1000 North Third Street
(See attached l~ description on Subdivision Exemption Plat (Exhibit A3))
ervatJ.OO
3) Present Zoning SPA (no underlying zoning) 4) Lot Size 85.5 acres
5) Applicant I s Name, Address & Phone II
See Cover Sheet of this Submission.
6) Representative I s Name, Address & Phone # Joseph Wells, AICP
602 Midland Park Place, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925-8080
7) Type of Applicatioo (please checK all that apply):
Conditional Use Conceptual SPA -L Conceptual Historic Dev.
Special ReviBol Final SPA Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline _ Conceptual PUD 'Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin Final PUD Historic DeIlolitioo
Mountain ViBol Plane Subdivision _ Historic Designatioo
Condominiumization _ Text/Map Anendaent Ga; Allotment
Lot Spli t/Lot Line
- Adjustment
8) Descriptioo of Existing Uses (number and t~ of existing structures~ appro-
xiuate sg.ft. ~ number of be1rooms~ any prevJ.Ous approvals granted to the
property) .
Approxiuately 140,000 square feet of meeting/performance facilities and
ac...:ul:Ill....Jations. (See oontents of subnission for specific breakdown.)
_ GtlS Exemption
9) Description of Developnent 1lpplicatioo
Expansioo of 50 lcrlge rOOlllS, 10 new townhomes, 4 single-family homesites
with accessory dwelling units, an 11,000 square feet rehearsal hall and
4,000 square feet of accessory uses.
10) Have you attadled the following:
Yes Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents
~ Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents
~ Response to Attachment 4, ReviBol Standards for Your Application
Sf
.-,
-'
-
THE ASPEN MEADOWS
Request for HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review
of Significant Development
January 21, 1991
Submitted to:
The City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-920-5000
FAX: 303-920-5197
,
OWNERS:
LEASEHOLDERS:
The Aspen Institute
100 North Third Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-6396
FAX: 303-925-4188
Music Associates of Aspe~
P. O. Box AA
Aspen,' Colorado 81612
Phone: 303-925-3254
FAX: 303-925-3802
and
and
Savanah Limited Partnership
c/o Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc.
600 East Cooper Avenue #202
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-4272
FAX: 303-925-4387
Aspen Center for Physics
P. O. Box 1208
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-2585
FAX: 303-920-1167
INTERESTED USER:
International Design Conference
in Aspen
100 North Third Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-2257
FAX: 303-920-1167
PREPARED BY:
Joseph Wells, AICP
Joseph Wells, Land Planning
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-8080
FAX: 303-925-8275
r,
...
c
CONSULTANT TEAM
Architect for the MAA Facilities
Harry Teague
Harry Teague Architects
412 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 8161
Phone: 303-925-2556
FAX: 303-925-7981
Architect for the Lodqe
Howard Backen
Backen, Arrigoni & Ross
1660 Bush
San Francisco, California 94109
Phone: 415-441-8457
FAX: 415-441-8360
Architect for the Residential proiects
David Finholm
David Finholm & Associates
P. O. Box 2839
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Phone: 303-925-5713
FAX: 303-920-4471
site Planners/Landscape Architects
Donald Ensign
Suzanne Jackson
Design Workshop, Inc.
710 East Durant Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-8354
FAX: 303-920-1387
Leqal
Representing Savanah Limited Partnership:
Robert Hughes, Esq.
Oates Hughes & Knezevich
Attorneys at Law
533 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-920-1700
FAX: 303-920-1121
s.
:)
"'"
.......
......
'-;,...'
Representing the Aspen Institute:
Gideon Kaufman, Esq.
Law Office of Gideon Kaufman, P.C.
315 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 305
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-8166
FAX: 303-925-1090
Title Information
Vince Higgins
Pitkin County Title, Inc.
601 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-1766
FAX: 303-925-6527
.
j,
, ~ ~'~T__ _ _ ~__,
c
"
.;'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION
Page
1
A.
Existing Improvements on the Property
2
2
B.
Conceptual Development Program
II. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION
FOR SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (~7-601{F))
32
A.
The Residential Projects
32
B.
Submission Contents
34
C.
Conceptual Development Plan Review.Standards
36
II 1. EXHIBITS
A. General Application Information (~6-202)
1. Land Use Application Form
2. Applicants' Letters of Authorization
3. Street Address and Legal Description
4. Disclosure of Ownership for Institute
and Savanah Parcels
5. Vicinity Map
6. Property OWners Within 300 Feet
.
-,
"
""'"
-
-
I. INTRODUCTION
This submission for HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review of
Significant Development of the residential projects at the Aspen
Meadows is filed on behalf of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic
Studies (Institute), the Music Associates of Aspen (MAA), the
Aspen Center for Physics (Physics) and Savanah Limited
Partnership (Savanah). The residential projects are being filed
for HPC review prior to the other projects in order to facilitate
their review at a worksession scheduled for February 6 and the
subsequent public hearing on Februry 13. The other projects will
be filed for HPC review within a matter of a few days in a
separate application.
On November 22, 1988, these parties joined with the International
Design Conference in Aspen to form the Aspen Meadows Consortium
and to enter into a Statement of Intent (see Appendix B of the
February, 1989 Conceptual SPA Plan) regarding a proposal for
preservation and development of the Aspen Me~dows property,
presently owned in part by the Aspen Institute and by Savanah.
The proposal outlined in the Statement of Intent was the product
of the efforts of the Institute, MAA, Physics, IDCA, the Aspen
Valley Improvement Association, the Aspen Community and Institute
Committee, the Aspen Foundation, and other interested parties.
In February, 1989, the Consortium submitted a Conceptual SPA Plan
for the City's review. During the review process for the
SUbmission, however, the City expressed its desire to undertake a
master planning effort of its own prior to considering a specific
development plan for the property. That effort took place during
late 1989 and 1990 and resulted in the adoption on October 16,
1990 by the Planning and Zoning commission of the Aspen Meadows
Master Plan, an amendment to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
The City's adopted document states that in order for the plan to
be successful, it must accomplish the following things:
1) Provide a secure, long term, suitable lodging base for
the Aspen Institute through transfer of land and all buildings
associated with the lodge operation to the Aspen Institute.
2) Provide a land ownership opportunity and secure the
future for the Music Associates of Aspen and the Aspen Center for
Physics.
3) Preserve the important visual open space character of
the campus.
4) Provide compensation to the principal landowners
sufficient to return all land to non-profit or conservation use.
01
c
~
A. Existing Improvements on the Property
The existing facilities within the two ownerships include
the following:
1. The Academic Parcel (Aspen Institute OWnership):
a. Paepcke Auditorium, Boettcher Building, seminar
meeting rooms, classrooms, offices and related spaces in three
structures owned by the Aspen Institute and used by the
Institute, and occasionally by the IDeA, MAA and Physics Center.
These buildings contain approximately 27,000 square feet.
,
b. A 1650 seat temporary performance tent of
approximately 16,500 square feet with permanent backstage and
rehearsal space of an additional 4,700 square feet, on a parcel
leased to the MAA on a long-term basis and utilized during the
summer by the MAA"and IDCA. The IDCA also erects a small tent of
approximately 1,000 square feet for outdoor discussions during
the Design Conference.
c. Three buildings belonging to the Aspen Center for
Physics consisting of 13,446 square feet: the Physics Center
received a separate SPA approval from the City in 1977 for these
facilities, which are located on 2.3 acres leased from the
Institute.
2. The West Meadows Parcel (Savanah OWnership):
a. The three Chalets, the Kresge Building and the
Trustee Townhouses, used as short-term accommodations, and
totalling approximately 49,400 square feet of floor area, 20,700
square feet of resturant and administrative space in the
Restaurant/Reception Building and Kresge Building, as well as
5,700 square feet of health facilities and six tennis courts with
a pro-shop. These facilities are located on land owned by
Savanah and are available for use by the Institute under the
terms of agreements established at the time of the sale of the
property in 1980.
B. Conceptual Development Program
In conjunction with the planned sale of the Conservation
land to the City of Aspen and the final approval of the
residential townhomes and single-family lots, the present owners
of the two parcels have announced their intention to turn over
ownership of the remaining property to the non-profit
2
o
I
""'"
-
"-"
'-........
organizations currently using the property. The boundaries of
the three parcels to be owned by the Institute, MAA and Physics
are described conceptually on the proposed Conceptual SPA
Land-Use Plan (see following page). It is likely that these
boundaries will be adjusted as the final agreements are resolved
between the parties.
Maintenance standards, reciprocal easements, restrictive
covenants, architectural review rights and rights of first
refusal will be developed within the Meadows Consortium to ensure
that each Institution has the quiet enjoyment of its own property
during the time that its activities are held on the Aspen Meadows
Campus and to ensure that MAA's rehearsal facility, as well as
the Aspen Institute's lodge expansion, are constructed in a
manner that is consistent with the existing campus ambience.
1. The Aspen Institute Parcel:
Savanah will gift to the Aspen Institute all of the land within
the West Meadows parcel not included within the residential and
conservation parcels, including all of the existing buildings
within that portion of the property, to secure the future of the
Institutions and to maintain a cultural campus at the Aspen
Meadows. This gift of approximately 30 acres will include the
restaurant/administration facility, the three Chalet lodging
buildings, the Kresge Lodge, the tennis courts, the sculpture
garden, and the remaining "race track" open space area along
Meadows Road.
Under the City's Master Plan, the existing lodge may be expanded
to 110 rooms. The Aspen Institute proposes to reconstruct and
expand the 44 lodge rooms in the Chalet buildings and reconfigure
the 16 rooms in the Kresge Building.
The 50 new lodge rooms approved under the Master Plan will be
located as follows:
1. A new building with 20 rooms will be added to the
southeast of the health center.
2. six additional rooms will be added to Chalet C.
3. A new building with 24 rooms will be constructed to the
east of the Kresge Building.
As discussed previously, architectural plans and elevations for
the lodge will be submitted under separate cover.
3
.
/tJ
f..':~;'\
- '
,. ; .-.-::-"
/,';..F;:-- .
...t.'"' 1
f
....
c
:)
The ASp'en Meadows
c:J
CIIoooo
-......
....~ol AIpm
-..c--....",,'-SIC:S
l.ancIIcape ArchitKts Nortl>
~WorbhDp,1D<
:'1(1 EMt Dwanl
.....prnCoIono:k>llt>ll
4l(l~, '2.<..33:.4
~
~
HIIlbd . Mpen Koldmf'
~"""",c-I
~
, ;..' :-..-' ,. ...
.......lo-I"U\T.(!
\
~
D
-.......
1IE Aft:N IEADOWS c::or<<:2I'nIALSPA
lULISt'I.ATlVE MASTER PLAN
!
I
~
...-......
C;:)
"'\
, ..
M~\ \ '
l
.C
. ~ .,
.,,-
'i?
o
/
........
[]
./
~_I'"
.-
0" 0
~.
--------~-
\,. - '..
"
..'..,
I.
,
~
Q
/'z . ..... ....., Leh
. (rJ -.........
-
.
~ ...,.........,.....
~/?,: ~)
..J i. ......
..:J...-.....~_..:.:........-..
,
,
J.
II
,.
-="
'.
".....,
........
-
CIN::EPlU1lL DE:'JE!illMENI' ~ !Xi.sting
Facilities Nell Facilities Final Program
Iodga ~ Iodga
Units Sq.Ft. Units Sq.Ft. Units Sq.Ft.
I. ASPm INSTl'lUIE WIIQL (42.4 l\cres)
k. CalIpls PoD ' ..." .,. tials
1. atilding 1 (Olalet A) 12 5,620 3,310 12 8,930
2. BJilding 2 (Olalet B) 16 9,100 2.270 16 11,370
3, atilding 3 (Nell Olalet) 20 13,200 20 13,200
4. atilding 4 (Olalet C) 16 9,100 6 5,420 22 14,520
5. B.1ilding 5 (J:resc;Ja Building) 16 12,130 16 12,130
6. atilding 6 (New Kresge) 24 18,210 24 18,210
9Jbtotal : 60 35,950 50 42,410 110 78,360
3. MeetinglPerfOOllm:ll! Facilities
1. Paep=ke A1J:l.i.torimI 13,000 13,000
2. 5aDi.nar BJilding 7,000 '- 7,000
3. 1loel:td1er aill.ding 7,000 7,000
4. Kresge BJilding 6,060 6,060
9Jbtotal : 33,060 33,060
C. ~"""Y Facilities
1. ~ 14,700 14,700
2. Health Facility 5,700 1,800 7,500
3. Tennis 5:rIp 500 250 750
9Jbtot:al: 20,900 2,050 22.950
Total for Farcel I: 60 89,910 50 44,460 110 134,370
n. M!\l'. PAR:EL (9.5 l\cres)
k. Meeti.nglPerfCll:lll!lllCe Facilities
1. Tent 21,200 1,500 22,700
2. Ilehearsal Hall 11,000 11,000
9Jbtotal : 21,200 12,500 33,700
13. hJcessrry Facilities
1. IalI:nade Stand 200 200
2. Gift ~ 100 100 200
9Jbtotal: 300 100 400
'l\:lta1 far Farcel n: 21,500 12,600 34,100
/ J
5'
~_J
c
All &<pm! f-rl--'PS are gross interiat" sq.ft., i!IllCI!pt far the tI:wnlaJes, sin;1e-flllllily ms:i.deroes arrl
%l!hearsal hall, far >lhich FAR ~ footaga Umitaticrs Imle been estaI:ilished mder the City's adc:pt:&i
!oIuter Plan.
I ~ 6
,,,,",,
....
-..
, <
2. The Music Associates of Aspen Parcel:
The Aspen Institute intends to convey to the MAA a parcel as
identified on the Land Use Plan as the Music Associates of Aspen
Parcel. The site is presently shown as 9.5 acres in order to
accommodate the alternate rehearsal hall sites. Now that the
City has expressed a preference for the eastern site, the acreage
of the MAA parcel may be changed.
The Music Associates of Aspen plans to increase the seating with-
in the performance tent by approximately 400 seats. This may be
accomplished by changing the layout of seating sections, using
current building code requirements or by installing fixed
seating.
The outdoor seating area will also be improved with a series of
berms. Conceptual studies indicate that if the berms are built
at the same angle as the floor inside the tent that sight lines
for the orchestra stage can be aChieved without any modification
of the present tent design. It would therefore be possible to
achieve visual access to performances from the lawn area by
simply removing the side panels of the tent. A decision as to
whether this is desireable, however, will be made by MAA at a
later date.
A bacKstage expansion of approximately 1,500 square feet is pro-
posed to the east of the existing backstage area. This expansion
is necessary to bring restroom facilities for the public and for
musicians up to current code requirements and to provide adequate
dressing rooms for performers.
The MAA proposes to build a new 11,000 square foot (FAR) rehear-
sal facility on the eastern side of the MAA parcel as designated
on the Conceptual SPA Land Use Plan. The structure will not only
be fully enclosed, but a significant portion of the building will
be buried below natural grade. The excavated material will be
used around the perimeter of the building to further reduce the
amount of exposed wall surfaces. Architectural plans and
elevations for the MAA facilities will be submitted under
separate cover.
3. The Aspen Center for Physics Parcel:
The Aspen Institute will convey to the Physics Center the 2.3
acre parcel which is presently part of the Physics Center's
long-term lease as well as approximately one acre immediately to
the north of the leased land. No new buildings or expansions are
currently planned for the Physics Center site, although there
have been discussions with NASA regarding the possibility of
'?
/y
9
~
locating a research facility on the site. The adopted Master
Plan permits an amendment of the plan to incorporate an
additioqal building on the Physics Center site provided that it
is compatible in scale, materials and massing with other
buildings on the Parcel.
4. The Residential Parcels:
Three parcels are proposed at the perimeter of the Campus for the
residential units approved under the City Master Plan.
a. The Trustee Houses:
The eight existing three-bedroom Trustee townhomes located along
the bluff to the west of the health center will be renovated and
condominiumized for sale. These units are identical in floor
plan and are laid out in a repeating fan shape along the crest of
the hillside. Each unit has the same horizontal relationship to
the next. The townhouse at the south end is the highest unit:
each unit to the north is stepped down two feet in response to
existing topography. Because of the alternating flat roof and
pitched roof elements of the design, these uriits read as
one-/two-story detached residences from the Campus side of the
site and two-/three-story units on the creek side.
Three new units are proposed to be constructed adjacent to the
existing units -- two at the north end and one at the south end.
The square footage of each of the 11 units will be limited to
2,500 square feet of FAR floor area. Because the residences are
located at the perimeter of the Campus, they will impact only
minimally on the continued use of the Campus by the Institutions.
The height of the Trustee townhomes is generally less than the 25
foot height limit of the R/MF zone district, measured according
to the definition for height in Article 3 of the Code. In order
to maintain the vertical and horizontal relationships established
for the existing Trustee houses, however, the two northern-most
units exceed the 25 foot height limit by several feet and will
require an SPA variation for the additional height.
b. Tennis Townhomes
Seven new three-bedroom townhouse units are proposed for the site
that presently serves as the parking lot for the tennis courts.
These townhomes will also be limited to 2,500 square feet of FAR
floor area. These units are located at the top of the bank
overlooking Castle Creek so that the perceived height of the
three-level units from the Campus appears to be only one and a
half stories.
a
/~
~.
,
~
ftt\
\ ,
\
\
\
\ i
I~.
-i
/'"
('~
.\S2)
'\'
..
cl
i . \
~~! \
/--'
r
~,.~:;;~
". ~......
.~'l'. ,"
,i" ~,.
, .,
"
o
o
i ! i!
11
i
~
\
\\
~
-
e1t~
'0 _ j.. '1{.~'
,~
~
'---
-
6'tl
~~
JJO
r-CIl
mm
<0
m
r-
N
o
ffi~~
~:jz
:::
,...,
I "
I
I
I
L
,~
~
I
I
!
0 1l
~ >oJ:!
-0
(11 Z1l
mO
<(J)
mm
~ ,...0
0
'"
o
. i
i I.
,
I:
Ii
i
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
.-
~
0....... .Q~
....,......
o
-
(Jl
-
o
",
o
H~ ASPEN MEADOWS
111 PROPOSED TFlJSTEE HOUSING
I ~~~~I~, FI~!"'9~L~}~NO."~SSOCIATES INC .
AVIO FINHOlM ANO ASSOCIATES INC. .
, . , ." ...,
I
ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNI~? ~;I,~1
o
, I
I I
I
i
I ,
m~1l
Xm:D
1ncno
-i-i 1l
zmo
Glfn~
-0 c:lilc
~~
-i-
cnO
-z
'"
o
m ASPEN MEADOWS
~~:, PAClPCSED TRUSTEE HOUSING
I DAVID FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES lNC
'0"" ".,,,-..-.,, .
II
I
;~il
:E~~
mO
....cn
mm
:li'0
m~
zO
OZ
c
Z
I\J ::::j
o
IIII
I I
I I
!
01,..
i"iliJ!
LI= _:_~~::ii'
1-=-=-::?--
~~~1
~....;--~~-~...,.., -:;
~::'-'~-~-------
~~~~~-
-~ - ....;-
~i~
o.
i , 0
I I
I ,
i
i 1
I I 01
I
\.
r\)
o
PACPOSED TRUST& HOUBaNB
.,~~~I~_ F~~~<?,l~.A,.ND .~SSOCIATES INC .
~ 1'AUBT& HCC.-.
"A~IO FINHOLM AND ASSOCIATES INC. . ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PlANNIN~ A"L~.
-
o
'"
o
.
o
Q~
.
E~
o
'.ualliu611~ p~O~ MaU a~.
10 aP1s ~.~ou a~. uo pa.~ool aq o. a~~ S.Ol asa~ '.01 ~o~a uo
ap~~6-ahoq~ pad01ahap aq o. .1un DU111aMP ^~ossaoo~ .001 a~~nbs
OOS ~ DU1pn1ou1 .nq ao~ds aD~~~D .dmaxa 10 ah1sn1oxa 'aouaP1sa~
~ad ~va 10 .aal a~~nbs OvS'v o. pa.111i11 aq 111M aD~.oOl
a~~nbs DU1P11ng 'u~ld asn pu~~ l~n.daouo~ a~. uo ^lSn01ha~d
UMO~S s~ 'laO~~d ~a.ua~ S01S^~d aq. o. .uao~~p~ ^.~ado~d
a~. s~a.ua .1 S~ .aa~.s ~.uahas ~o q.~ou aq. o. pado1ahap
aq t11M ~o~a .aa~ a~~nbs OOO'Zl ~o S.Ot ^t1m~~-a16u1s ~noa
:taO~~d ^t1m~a-atDU1S .aa~.s q.uaAas '0
'S.1un pa~o~.ap ~o sa1~as ~ ~o dn ap~lli s1 6u1P11nq
a~. .~~. aou~~~add~ a~. ah16 ~01qM .1un ~o~a ~o 1aha1 ~addn a~.
.~ s.uawata 100~ paqo.1d q.1M U01.~u1qmoo u1 pasn a~~ sloo~ .~ta
'sap~o~~ ~a6uot OM. a~. ~o au~td a~. ~~a~q o. xu~q a~. 6uot~
^lt~.UOZ1~oq padda.s a~~ s.1un a~ 'sasno~ aa.sn~~ aq. ~o uD1sap
aq. lliO~~ paMo~~oq s.uamata sapntou1 S.1un asa~. ~o uD1sap a~
,
.
.'
\
\
\'
\
",
\
I'
,
,
e
.\ \
1\ '
, \
,
i
i
~
---
~\
-- --- ,\
. ,.
, ,
,~.
A~
-----~ ~ ~,'
.
\ \
---
.
en
~
m
"
r-
)>
Z
.~ ~~~J
\1J M \ --~--
;~~."- ~,:.. ':-:------
".,;.
""I .. \jv?
~ 1\ ,:i,vA
":!}\" ~
,I, (\'-,:
'"
~
"
I '
,l:
.
\
:--.
.
t ".\
.---"'/
.
~
w
.
I
Q)
s
;Iij PROPOSED TO-.oIIES FOR THE ~
~.~V,I~ F~~HOL'!,AND,ASSOCIATES INC . ARCHITECTURE AND LAND PLANNING A I A I
I
- 5 I
'"
\
C/O =E
m \
- JJ '1
0
r-
m I
< CJ I
m
~ r
I
I
~~ I
.. -i
. :I:
I
\
\
~
I
I
I
\
\
1
I
PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS
I
I DAVID RINHOLM AND ASSOC IA rES INC . ARCHITECTURE AND lAND PLANNIN~ A I.A i
0.......00
-"
'" ~
)>
-
'" z
- r
0 m
<
m
r
'"
0
~~
PROPOSED TOWNHOIlES FOR TIlE IIEAllOWS
I pAVt~ F~~~Ol,"! AN.O ASSOCIATES INC . ARCHITECTURE AND lAND PLANNING A I A
, , ==== "
'1 , . . .
-
1__1
I I
1_- -
- - - - - - - - -+
I 71t , ~1111ffit-i
I
I I
T
,
0 I
,- ill
I
T - -1:--
-
r- ----1
:: , :: :; :; :: :: ;;{(t\: :::;:: :::<
. - - -, .........
0
, , , :::::::;:;:;::>:::s:::::::::::::;::ec::::::::::::::::::':':.
~
.. .~,:::::::...'..
;- [7 i
- Jlfl-t II
I ~III
I
- C
.., I
"1J I
'" "1J
rn 0 I
JJ Ir
- ~ I
0
I - -1=' U-
rn ..
<
m 1-' --1
~ - I
I JI II I .il Ii III1
~ z I
0 I
~ I I
:I:
I I
I
... PROPOSED TO~S FOR THE IIEAIlOWS I
i ! 0 A V , 0 , , N H 0 L M A N 0 A 5 5 0 C I A T E S I N C . A RC H I TECTU R E A NO LAN 0 Pl A NNI NG A I A i
A{
\l' I \l' DNINN\l'ld ON\l'l ON\l' 3l:;lnl:J31IH:)I::I\l' . ::>NI :lUI:lOSS'v' ON.,. r-tlOHNI.:l alA.,.
SM00Y3W 3K111O~ S3IIOIlNM0I. CBSOdOlId
5\
z
o
~
::so
w
....J
W
I-
en
w
3:
'"
"
, __ _ ll....",h..,
......1\ cu........... e' , -- ~-'
'. EllIlII.......... *
, : PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE IIEAIlOWS J r~ :
bAVI~ ~NHOL~!N'O' ASSOCIATES INC . ARCHITECTURE ANO LAND PLANNING AI,AI
a
I
2
i
i
m
'" )>
c C/)
-l
m
r
m .-
~ :'.
.
""l ....-,
'"
'" 0
Z
~
01
~
o
'"
o
'"
(11
(11
o
PROPOSED TOWNHOMES FOR THE MEADOWS
I ~AVID FlNHDlM AND ASSOCIATES INC . ARCHITECTURE AND lAND PLANNING A '.A i
.
en
:::j
m
"'0
~
Z
~-'
,'" ."
. \ ~
......N ;"'-
~,
y~/
"--- ' 1,,<
m, ~ '/'
J
,\
". SE'JEtm-t STReET
-
<'
/
/'
,
/
,
, , .rrl \
I i~\
, ~
, 1 k'
1.,..; \~
I ,"
" "
" ~.
~ i
I '<::..J
/
-
-
c
ir ZE
~
.....",,1
~ua~~~p~ aq~ U~~~ ~aMoI ~aa~ OM~ pe~~~Ot Sl s~lun ~qDla aq~ ~O
q~~a ~~q~ q~ns peuDlsap Sl xetdmo~ e~ '~aa~~ eI~S~~ DUl~OOt~eAO
a~n~l~suI ueds~ aq~ ~~ pU~I ~o q~uaq DUl~~~-~saM ~ uo pa~~n~ls
sl '~a^~8 ~~aq~aH ^q pauDlsap ^II~UlDl~O 'Dulsnoq ee~sn~~ a~
Be.oquMO~ ae~Bn~~ '1
B~~a~O~d IVl~uePlBa~ a~ .~
.^tt~UOlS~~~O ^tUO sa~~ds asaq~ asn
o~ paD~~no~ua aq ttlM s~aUMO ~nq 'auoz aw/~ aq~ ul ~uama~lnba~
DUl~~~d aq~ ^~Sl~~S o~ ~ap~o ul ^~~ua aq~ aPlsaq pasodo~d sl
a~~ds DUl~~~d pad~~spu~t ~ 'p~oi ^~~ua aq~ wo~~ ~a~~ DUl~~~d aq~
~o ^~ltlqlslA aq~ aZlmlulm o~ ~aa~ aa~q~ ^ta~~mlxo~d~ hq pa~aMOt
pu~ aZls Ul pa~npa~ uaaq s~q ~e~~ DUl~~~d aq~ '~aa~ 09 o~
OL mo~~ pa~npa~ aq o~ DUlPtlnq aq~ ~o q~DUat tt~~aAO aq~ SMOtt~
~~od~~~ paq~~~~~ aq~ ~o t~Aoma~ aq~ 'a~ls asnoquMo~ Mau aq~ ~V
's~sanD ~O~ ~a~~ slq~ ul paul~~a~
aq ttlM a~~ds DUl~~~d a~~~~ns auo 's~lun aq~ qDno~q~ MalA
~ aPlAo~d pu~ sa~u~~~ua aq~ o~Ul ~qDlI a~om MOtt~ o~ sasnoquMO~
aa~sn~~ aq~ o~ ^~~~~ua aq~ ~~ pappv uaaq s~q SS~tD t~uOl~lPP~
's~~a~o~d q~oq ~o~ ~lun ~ad s~~~ OM~ a~~pommo~~~
ttlM s~~od~~~ a~ 's~~~dml t~nslA aq~ a~npa~ o~ pad~~spu~t
aq tIlM s~~od~~~ aq~ ~o s~oo~ aq~ pu~ aplsttlq aq~ o~ul ~tlnq
aq ttlM s~~od~~~ Mau a~ 'uol~~~Ot ~am~o~ ~laq~ ul papp~ uaaq
aA~q S^~M^~~Ua pad~~spu~t puv s~lun aq~ ~o ~s~a aq~ o~ pa~~~ota~
uaaq aA~q s~lun aq~ o~ paq~~~~~ ^tsnolAa~d a~aM q~lqM s~~od~~~
a~ 's~lun aq~ ~o~ ^~~ua snol~~~D a~ow ~ a~~a~~ o~ pu~ atlqow
-o~n~ aq~ JO ~~~dwl aq~ aZlwlulw o~ MalAa~ ~dS t~n~da~uo~ a~uls
s~~a~o~d asnoquMO~ q~oq ul ap~w uaaq aA~q saDu~q~ uDlsap t~~aAas
'U~td ~dS t~n~da~uo~
aq~ ul paql~~sap s~ tt~ "~~'bs 09E'et ~o t~~O~ ~ ~o 'q~~a '~~'bs
OtS't o~ pe~lwlt aq ttlM sewoq ^tlW~~-atDuls a~ 's~~no~ sluua~
eq~ ~~au s~lun Mau aq~ ul pesodo~d sl '~J'bs OOS'Lt pu~ semoquMo~
ae~sn~~ aq~ ul pesodo~d e~o~e~aq~ sl '~~'bs OOS'LZ JO t~~O~
V '~e~~ ~OOt~ ~~a ~o '~J'bs OOS'Z o~ pe~lmlI a~v sesnoquMO~
eq~ '~uawee~D~ ~Ol~d ^8 'pa~senbe~ ostv sl S~Ot ^tlW~~-etDUls
~no~ aq~ JO MelAe~ ^~OSlAP~ :~u~~n~~se~ sMDp~aw eq~ ~o q~nos eq~
o~ ~~a~o~d ~lun uaAas Mau ~ ~o uOl~~n~~suo~ eq~ ~o~ pa~sanbe~ sl
MalAa~ 'uol~lPP~ uI 's~lun t~l~uaplsa~ Mau aa~q~ ~o uOl~lPP~ aq~
puv sasnoq aa~sn~~ DUl~slxa aq~ JO uOlsu~dxa pu~ UOl~~Aoua~ aq~
~o~ t~Ao~dd~ U~td ~uamdOtaAaa t~n~de~uo~ s~sanba~ ~u~~ltdd~ a~
((t)(a)to9-Lf) ~dOTaAgG ~I4IRDIS
1104 UIMnl mt'Id J.mrHdO'l3J\aG 'IYn.Ld:il~NO~ ~dH ~oa JoS:iIOOD . II
--
OjE'
-.
1e~n~eu aAoqe spua~xa }1eq e pU~ ~001} e ~noqe ^1UO ape~e} ~sea
aq~ DU01~ 'peo~ ^~~ua aq~ mo~} ~~~dm1 1ens1A ~1aq~ a~npa~ o~
ap1s111q aq~ 0~u1 passa~dap uaaq aAeq s~1un ^~c~s-aa~q~ Mau asa~
'sasnoq aa~sn~~ aq~ ~e paz111~n s1~1~a~em pue s~da~uoj aq~ }O
amos saz111~n ~eq~ u01~n10s 1~~n~~a~1qj~e ~a1nb ^1aA1~e1a~ ~ q~1M
me~Do~d aq~ qS11dmo~je o~ s1 s~1un Mau aq~ ~O} ~ua~u1 uD1sap a~
s~~no~ sluua~ aq~ ~eaN sasnoquMo~ 'Z
'uc1sa.. 1euH
aq~ o~u1 pa~~~od~ojU1 aq 111M DU1~s1xa asoq~ o~ ~e11m1s Saj1Aap
10~~UOj uns '}OO~ 6u1~s1xa aq~ ~aAO pa11dde aq 111M sa16u1qs
~1eqds~ q~1M }OO~ pa~e1nsu1 ^11Aeaq Mau ~ 'sa1Du1qs ~~nq ^~U~}
pue p~~pu~~s }O x1m ~ ~o p~~pu~~s ~aq~1a aq 111M 11eM pua a1Cu1qs
a~ '9X1 aq 111M oU1P1s 1~~1~~aA a~ '1eu1D1~0 aq~ o~ ~e11m1s
aq 111M xa1dmo~ pa1apoma~ aq~ }O s1e1~a~~m ~01~a~xa pasodo~d a~
.
'^qd~~Dodo~ 1e~n~~u aq~ }O
asn~~aq 'sd1qsu01~e1a~ asaq~ u1e~u1~m o~ '~a11~~ ~aa} 1e~aAas aq
111M q~~ou aq~ o~ S~1un OM~ aq~ pue 's~1un DU1~s1xa aq~ ueq~ os
a~om aP1s111q aq~ 0~u1 ~j~q ~as aq 111M q~nos aq~ o~ ~1un Mau a~
'am~s aq~ aq oS1e 111M s~1un aq~ }O sa1Due pue saDu~q~ 1aAa1 aq~
}O ^~~amoaD a~ 'aAoqe paq1~jsap s~1un pa~~Aoua~ aq~ se ames aq~
aq 111M s~1un asaq~ }O ue1d a~ 'pua q~~ou aq~ ~~ OM~ pu~ pua
q~nos aq~ ~e auo __ xa1dmoj aq~ o~ papp~ aq 111M s~1un Mau aa~~
'pa~~a~~ aq
111M a~1ns q~~q/moo~paq Mau ~ 'aje~~a~ DU1~S1xa aq~ M01aS '~aa}
ua~ ^1a~~~1xo~dd~ }O moo~ f:U1A11 aq~ }O aP1s ~saM aq~ uo u01~1PP~
u~ pu~ uaq~~1~ pu~ 'sq~~q 'smoo~paq aq~ }O U01~~Aoua~ ~01~a~u1
u~ }O s~s1suo~ s~1un DU1~s1xa aq~ }O DU11apoma~ pasodo~d a~
,
'auo~s aA1~~u }O apem a~~ s11~M 6u1u1~~a~
aq~ pu~ auo~s6e1} mopu~~ a~e sa~~~~a~ ~01~a~xa a~ 's111a~~
pOOM }O ma~s^s 10~~UOj uns ~ pa~~a~~ OS1~ ~a^~a .~w '~saM
pue q~nos a~aM sMa1A ^~~m1~d aq~ a~u1S 'pooq~oqqD1au u~1~0~~1^
~ua~e~p~ aq~ 0~u1 a1~ o~ ^1qeqo~d 'u01~e~01 s1q~ u1 pa~e~1pu1
Sa1Du1qs n~~nq ^jU~}" Moqs s6u1Me~p ~a^e8 1eu1Dpo aq~ ~~q~ a~aq
pa~ou aq P1noqs ~I '~aq~eaM o~ ~}a1 pu~ ~010j 1e~n~eu 'Sa1Du1qs
~epa~ ,,8 a~e 's11eM aP1s aq~ uaaM~aq u1 ~1} q~1qM 'S11eM pua
a~ 'a~1qM pa~u1ed pOOM 1e~1~~aA vX1 q~1M pa~aAOj a~e s~1un aq~
DU1~~~~das S11~M a~ 'pa~eau11ap ^1dm1s ^~aA s1 a~n~ja~1q~~~ a~
'}OO~ paqj~1d DU1d01S ^1~uaD
e seq ~uama1a s1~ '1aAa1 }1eq e aP1s111q aq~ 0~u1 passa~dap
'~1un ^~o~s OM~ e s1 q~1qM 'a~eds DU1A11 pas01~ua aq~ pue '}OO~
~~1} ~ q~1M ~uama1a ^~o~s auo ~ s1 q~1qM '^~~ua ~~od~e~ aq~ --
s~~~d OM~ }O dn apem s1 ~1un qje~ '~1un q~ea ~O} ^jeA1~d,a~~a~~
o~ pu~ a~1s aq~ uo sDu1P11nq aq~ a~epommoj~e ^11~~n~eu o~ saa~oap
S'L ^1a~em1xo~dde pa~e~o~ s1 ~1un q~~a pu~ q~nos aq~ o~ ~1un
c
/ /) t~
""""
,..;
's~uawaho~dm1 pasodo~d aq~
a~E~~snll1 EZ PUE 8 saoEd 6u1MOll0~ s6u1ME~P lE~n~~a~lq~~E a~
:tvsodo~d aq~ ;0 UVtd q~~a~s 'z
'9E aD Ed uo oU1uu1oaq '{~)II u01~~as u1 passa~ppE
a~E Sp~EpUE~5 Ma1ha~ UEld ~uamdolahaa lEn~da~uo~ ~l~l~ads
:Sp~EpUE~S Ma1ha~ ah1~uE~5qns q~lM a~uE1ldmo~ (D)
'9Y ~lq1qx3 SE paq~E~~E 51 al~l~
~~EMa~s ^q pa~Eda~d ~aa~ OOE u1q~lM ^~~ado~d ~o s~aUMO llE ~o
~511 E '{(a)SOZ-9~) a~l~oN ~llqnd ~O~ pa~lnba~ sY (~)
'la~~Ed ~~a~qns aq~
sa~E~ol 'SY ~lq14x3 s~ papnl~u1 'dEW ^~lU1~lA a~ (a)
~lq1qX3 SE pa40E~~E sl d1qs~auMO ~O a~nsOl0s1a (P)
'W~O~ U01~E01lddE aq~ UO UMOqS Sl lao~Ed aq~
~o U01~d1~osap lEoal aq~ PUE ssa~ppE ~aa~~s a~ (~)
'EY
. ZY ~ 1q 1qX:i SE
paq~E~~E a~E U01~Ez1~oq~ny ~o s~a~~a~ .5~UE~11ddy (q)
'lY ~lq1qx3 SE paq~E~~E Sl m~od U01~E~11ddy (E)
:(ZOZ-9~) s~uama~lnba~ uOI~v~llddy lv~auaD '1
:SMOllC~
SE a~E MaIha~ ~dH lEn~da~uo~ ~o~ s~uawa~lnba~ u01ss1mqns a~
:({E){E){d)109-LS) s~ua~uo~ uOIssIwqnS 'S
.
.
'SMopEaw aq~ p~Eto\O~
u01~E~aoah lE~n~vu ~o ~~Eq~as ~OO~ 51 E u1E~uIEm o~ pa~lnba~
aq 11IM s~ol aq~ ~o s~asEq~~nd '~Elnoa~~l aq 111M sa~n~~n~~s aq~
uaaM~aq souluadoaq~ ~Eq~ a~nSSE o~ pal~Eh aq OSlE 111M s~~Eq~as
P~E^ aP1S 'paP10hE aq UE~ ~~E~a~E~ aq~ ~o pua aq~ ~E sou1Pl1nq
~o llEM E ~o a~uE~EaddE aq~ ~Eq~ os pa1~Eh uaaq ahEq SU01~
-E~nol~uo~ ~01 a~ 'Ea~E ~oE~~aoE~ aq~ ~o pua aq~ puno~E paddno
a~E pEO~ aq~ ~o q~~ou aq~ o~ s~Ol Mau ~no~ aq~ PUE ^~~ado~d aq~
s~a~ua ~1 SE ^l~uao sah~n~ sMopEaw aq~ o~uI pEO~ ^~~ua Mau a~
^~~U3 ~aa~~s q~uahas ~vaN s~o~ ^llwVd-alouls 'E
'OU1Pl1nq aq~ ~o SSEW pahla~~ad a4~ aonpa~ o~ ~OOl~ alPPlm a4~
~o apE~E~ a4~ wo~~ ~~Eq~as sl ~001~ do~ a4~ PUE uOI~~a~lP ~saM
/~sEa a4~ u1 ~aa~ L ^la~Em1xo~ddE padda~s a~E s~lun a~ 'apE~o
~
~~5'
~
~o a1^~s pu~ sl~l~a~~m 'a1~~s aq~ u1~~u1~m S~lun MaU aq~ a11~M
'u61sap 1~U161~0 aq~ u1 pa~s11q~~s9 d1qsu01~e1a~ aq~ s~~adsa~
u01su~dxa MaU a~ 's~~a^ aq~ ~a^O pa~~~n~~o seq q~l~M U01~
-~~ol~a~ap aq~ ~l~da~ pu~ s~lun 6u1~slxa aq. ~o ^.11~U01~~unJ aq~
a^0~dm1 o. sl ~~a~o~d samoquMo~ aa~sn~~ aq. ~O ~ua~u1 u61sap a~
:samoquMO~ aa.sn~~ (~)
'M01aq passn~slP a~v s~~a~o~d 1~nP1^lpUI 'a1q116au Sl
pooq~oqq61au aq~ ~o ~a~~~~~q~ a~~ uo ~~a~~a aq~ '~a~~ 6u1Puno~~ns
aq~ pu~ pasodo~d ~uamd01a^ap a~. ~c ~som uaaM.aq u01~~~edas
a1q~~aP1suo~ aq~ pu~ 1a~~~d sMop~aw aq. ~o aZ1s aq~ ~o asn~~ag
:pooq~oqq61aN aq. JO ~a~~v~vqJ puv a~n~~n~~s ~l~o~SlH
aq~ uodn ~uamd01a^aa pasodo~d JO ~~aJJ~ JO ~uama.9.S .t
'sawoq ^11m~~-a16u1s aq~ ~oJ pa~s11q~~sa aq 111M Sl~l~a~~m
~o a6u~~ e ~~q~ pa~ed1~1~u~ ~ou sl ~1 'am1~ ~uasa~d aq~ ~~
:sa~lsamoH ^11mv~-a16u1S (~)
'~01
6U1x~ed uo l~l~a~~m a~a~~uo~ padmv.s ~o X~l~a
s~~od~~~ uo ~oo~ pos a1q1ssod pu~ 6u1m~aq q~~~a
sa~l^ap 6ulP~qs uns
s~~ap pu~ sX1~M auo~s6~ld
~oo~ a16u1qs uOl~lsodmoJ
6u1P1s pOOM 9X1
^~uos~m q~lM X~olq SS~lD
sll~M 6u1ul~~a~ ^~uos~~
SlleM 6U1Pl^lP ^~UOS~w
:sawoquMc~ sluua~ (q)
'sll~M 6ulul~~a~ auo~s
'~l~~dse ueq~ ~a~~os sl q~lqM 6ul1aaJ ~
a~~a~~ o~ 1el~a~~m a^l~p a~a~~uo~ padm~~s ~o X~l~a
5Ul^ed pu~ sx~ap auo~s6e1d
sa~l^ap 10~~uo~ uns
~oo~ a1cu1qs U01~lsodwoJ
SlleM 111Jul a1cu1qs ~epaJ
slleM pua pOOM 1e~1~~a^ 9x1
:samoquMo~ aa~sn~~ (e)
:s~~a~o~d
aq~ ~o~ ^llen~da~uo~ pasodo~d a~~ sl~l~a~~m 6U1M0110J a~
'slvl~a~vH 6ulPllng ~o~~H JO uOl.~alas l~n~da~uoJ '(
c
~
~~.
9E
'a~l~~O DUlUU~ld aq~ Aq pa~saDDns
s~ UOl~~l~~A VdS U~ qDno~q~ paqslldmo~~~ aq lll~ sa~ls aq~
o~ pallddv aq o~ s~~l~~slP aucz DUlAl~apun aq~ mo~~ pa~lnha~ a~~
q~lqM SUOl~~l~~A AUV '~~l~~Sla ~l~o~slH uv ulq~l~ ~o sa~n~~n~~s
~~~mpuv~ ~OU a~~ q~lq~ ~nq 'A~o~uaAUl ~l~o~slq aq~ uo pa~sll a~~
q~lqM A~~ado~d aq~ uo sa~n~~n~~s DUl~slxa aq~ q~lM A~lllql~~dmo~
puv A~ua~slSUo~ aPlAo~d o~ sl s~~a~o~d aq~ ~o ~ua~ul uClsap a~
.'B~uame~lnbe~ IvuolBuemlP q~lM P~O~~V Ul ~uamdo1eAep aq PlnoM
uVq~ ~~vmpuvl ~l~o~slq eq~ q~lM ~e~~~~vq~ Ul alql~vdmo~ a~om sl
uOl~Vl~VA q~ns ~vq~ pU1J Ilvqs ~dB 'va~v ~oolJ peM01lv aq~ paa~xe
~o '~Ol aq~ uo sDulP1lnq uaeM~eq a~uv~slP mnmlulm aq~ o~ul pua~xe
's~~vq~as p~VA ~va~ pUV p~~A aPls 'P~~A ~uo~J o~ul pua~xe PlnoM
~uemdoleAep pesodo~d e~aqM s~~vmpuv~ ~l~o~slH ~04 '~~vmpuv~
~l~o~slH uv o~ ~ua~v~pv sl ~o '~~l~~slP AVl~aAO ~l~o~slH
'H uv Ul 81 e~ls ~~e~qns aq~ uaqM sla~~vd ~ue~v~pv uo ~uemdo1aAap
q~lM puv 'la~~vd aq~ uo pe~v~ol se~n~~n~~s ~l~o~slq pe~~uDlsap
q~lM ~e~~v~vq~ ul a1ql~~dmo~ 81 ~uamdolaAap pasodo~d a~.
:A~lllql~vdmo~ '1
:sM01IOJ s~ 'sp~~puv~s Ma1Aa~ S,~dH q~l~ salldmo~ l~sodo~d a~
:({l){a)109-LS) sp~vpu~~S MelAa~ UVld ~uamdolaAaa Ivn~da~uo~ .~
'sndm~~ a mo~ pa^oma~ os a~~ Aa
a~uls at ~s 1~uol~~u~a~u1 ~o A~vlnq~~O^ aq~ u1sn pauD1sap
aq ~ou ptnoqs ^aq~ ~pooq~oqqD1au t~1~uap1sa~ pua ~saM aq~ o~ a~om
a~~la~ ptnoqs Aaq~ J~q~ uaaq svq uOlsnt~uo~ aq~ 'samoq asaq~ ~o~
a~~l~do~dd~ aq PlnoM ~~q~ ~a~~~~~q~ u01sap aq. .noq~ suo1ssn~slP
~ol~d uI 'sMop~aw aq~ ~o .~~d ~ sv u~q. pooq~oqqDlau tV1.uaP1sa~
pua .saM aq. ~o uOlsua.xa u~ s~ a~om u01.~un~ a~o~a~aq. pu~ A~.ua
.aa~~s q.uaAas Mau aq~ .~ pa.v~ol a~~ S~Ot At1m~~-atDU1s a~
-
:sa~lsamoq AllmvJ-a1DulS (~)
'sMopvaw aq. .v
pasodo~d SDu1Pl1nq Mau ~aq~o u~q~ sndmv~ aq. u1 sa~n~~n~.s ~aq.o
aq~ o~ d1qsuol.~la~ ~ ~o ssa1 .~qMamos aAvq a~o~a~aq~ puv xatdmo~
DU1.s1xa aq. ~o ~a.am1~ad aq~ ~~ a~~ s~lun asa~ '~vt1m1s
oSl~ sl slv1~a.~m ~o a~.allvd a~'sas1lla~~ tO~.uo~ uns pu~
sapv~~J padda.s aq~ 's.uamata ~oo~ paq~~ld puv .~t~ aq~ DU1pnt~U1
's~~no~ sluua~ aq~ ~~au .t1nq aq o~ s.lun Mau aq~ ~oJ paAOtdma
a~~ sasnoq aa~sn~~ aq~ ~~ pasn s.uamata uD1sap ~o~~m aq~ ~o amos
:samoquMO~ sluua~ (q)
's.lun
Mau pu~ t~U1Dl~O aq~ uaa~.aq atqvu~a~slP sl u01~~ul.s1P ~ .vq~
a~nssv 6U1t1v.ap pu~ suo1.1Puo~ ~lqv~Dodo~ 's.lun t~U161~0 aq.
"......
r;/;>
Li
"""
~..J
. ~ 11nq a,1ill'l
haq~ q~lql'l u1 p01~ad aq~ mO~J a~ls aq~ uo scu1P11nq ~u~~~odm1 aq~
S~ a1q~zluco~a~ u1~ma~ P1noqs scu1P11nq cU1~Slxa a~ 'sculP11nq
CUl~slxa aq~ cU1~~~11da~ ~o cUl~~~lml ~noq~ll'1 sa~n~on~~s
l~Ulcl~o aq~ q~ll'l a1~~s pu~ Sl~l~a~~m 'culss~m qcno~q~ ~a~~~~~q~
cU1P11nq ~ua~slsuoo ~ qS11dmoo~~ o~ sl ~ua~ul UClsap a~
,,'Joa~aq~ ~~~d ~o a~n~on~~s
~l~o~slq pa~~uc1sap ~ ;0 ^~1~Da~u1 1v~n~~a~lqo~v aq~ mO~J ~ov~~ap
~o qS1u1m1P ~ou saop ~o saouvqua ~uamd01a^ap pasodo~d a~.
:sa~n~~n~~s ol~o~slB ;0 ^~l~Da~uI 1v~n~Oa~lqo~y .t
'a~u~~lJluc1s l~~n~~a~lq~~~ ~laq~ uo s~ ~a~ua~ l~~n~lno ~ s~
q~~lqa~ s,uadsy JO p01~ad ~~q~ ~~a1Ja~ haq~ ~~q~ ~~~J aq~ uo q~nm
s~ sd~q~ad s~sa~ sCU1P11nq asaq~ JO a~u~~lJ1Uc1s a~ '~ah~g
~~aq~aH hq pauD1sap sa~n~~n~~s a1h~S l~uol~~u~a~uI CU1~slxa
aq~ ~uama1dmo~ o~ papua~u1 a~~ s~~a~o~d 1~1~uap1sa~ pasodo~d a~
,,'slao~vd ~uaov~pv JO ~uamd01a^ap ~oJ pasodo~d 1ao~vd
aq~ uo pa~~~ol sa~n~on~~s ol~O~slq pa~vuD1sap JO an1v^ 1v~n~lno
aq~ mO~J ~ov~~ap ~ou saop ~o saouvqua ~uamdo1a^ap pasodo~d a~"
:an1~^ l~~n~ln~ 'E
'pooq~oqqc1au
~ua~~~p~ aq~ a~ll ~001 o~ ap~m aq ~ou Plnoqs ~nq cU1ss~m
pu~ 'a1~~s 'l~l~a~~m u1 pa1Jlun aq Plnoqs s6U1Pl1nq sndm~~
a~ 'pooq~oqq61au aq~ o~ anb1un a~~ q~lql'l sasn a~~pommo~~~
OSl~ haq~ ~nq 'h~lunmmoo aq~ JO q~nm JO q~l'Io~6 aq~ mO~J ~~u1~slP
Sl ~~q~ h~O~slq s,uadsy ul aml~ JO pOl~ad ~u~~~odml u~ JO
uOl~~a1Ja~ ~ h1UO ~ou a~v sndm~o aq~ ulq~ll'1 s6ulP11nq a~ 'pooq
-~oqqclau aq~ ~~aJJ~ h1a^1~~cau ~ou 1111'1 ~a~~ l~l~uaPlsa~ h11m~;
a16uls aq~ JO ~~q~ u~q~ ~ua~aJJ1P ~a~~~~~qo ~ q~ll'1 s6U1P11nq l'Iau
JO uOl~~a~~ a~ 'sa~~ld snol~~^ u1 s~ap~oq s~l CUlq~no~ 'pooq
-~oqqclau aq~ ulq~ll'\ ~a~v a~~~~das ~ uaaq Sh~l'\l~ s~q sl'\op~aw a~
..'~ua1l:d01a^ap
~O; pasodo~d 1a~~~d aq~ ;0 pOoq~oqqclau aq~ JO ~a~~v~vq~
aq~ q~l~ ~ua~slsuoo sl puv s~oa1;a~ ~uamd01a^ap pasodo~d a~.
:~a~ov~V~ pOoq~oqqc1aR 'Z
t' '....
\.....
-----0
""'.
" ,;
.-
I ~CC(
'5'\\~ Y
~t-T ~a -P')t'" '00 \ '"
~'^ \^~ ~1J-~l'
. 7"'<;;cJ 0 YJ '% CWo) rvr--J
~al, JJ~ a-t ~1fY\r)"^'~
---a- " '0 ,~~, ~ (Y\ '0 '\ (?
--0- -c ; s/'o- )^ V) 1 -- s '" ~
SJ-,,'B, ~J-~ Jd'\\
Up
PUBLIC IJO'r:tCB
RE: LAIIGLBY SUBD:IVJ:SJ:OIJ, SPBCJ:AL RBVl:B1f, ags EXEMPTJ:OIJ, DElJI)MEJIT
TO THE OFFJ:CJ:AL zon DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEIJ AllD
LAllDHA1Ut DESJ:GJlATJ:OIJ
IJOTICE IS HEREBY GJ:VEJl' that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, November 22, 1994, at a special meeting to begin at 4:30
pm before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in the Second
Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena street, Aspen,
Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Bob & Darnell
Langley requesting approval for subdivision, rezoning to Affordable
Housing (AH), Special Review for parking and open space, GMQS
Exemption for affordable housing, and Landmark Designation. The
property is located at 939 East Cooper Avenue, Lot A, Block 37,
East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen. For further information,
contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S.
Galena st., Aspen, CO. 920-5l01.
./Bruce Kerr. Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on November 4, 1994
City of Aspen Account.
, d c tv /)r:u.WJ La_.I\.!Y&. ~ ,JO/? f /q Y
/1'tcuM-- &pl'J 0 U
~n
~u.
cY~ OCl)
~
~
::f::,
./ \;
~/
~~. \
~'..7/, '
/ .--.----
-~--.-
I
,
'I' I
'\ I
I))'
l .....
(If
I ( . ~//
x/
/ ,
(
,
1/,
c
\\
~~~
~,'
~"\l"1
r;-~
&,.~
~J~
!
/~\
~ '
~
p.t ~
- -z
:1 0-
~i i1
:!l 'iji'
3 c.
s- dir
;j}~ f
r ~
'"'
ji~~
~:I~
j~~
~~
,.
.
"
'1
~I
:'i
~,
,
,
,
0_ ~.
.:rI\
.~~
:>
z
:::
't ., "i i i n' "''l' ";\ f
>0-;0 -f -p- ili .
;~gm o :D~ a r-J '.l~:l" 1 , ,
~oi;i: " ~ s:.' ~~ J i~u~i'111 '
. ",...0 =e c~ if z. 1:1 ~). It:t ~.. J.1 11
-" . 'E ,! ~ W'~l: 'I! ilt~'i!!\
o~~m :~
Omm Z I@ ~i Ui ~ : l$UI~?~,:
'>;J>r- :J: (I) :1i
gag); ~f i~ +.t~ t ~~ lt~"f'i~f
;o.o::e c o -f> d
a:((,llo ;~ Ii iii I ill iiihhh
OCll-t_ i: m8 ;f ~ -0 ~ ~JtI Ri.JI
~:tI2I-I 8~ ':f" 'il.H
;o~- ~m~ 1:
-->m 0 i~ !'I~ ~~ H ~ "l1 .~,,:.j;
-...omz -'D
,0., ~ :: .vn :31VOS
NVld 'HOOld: ltlA:n 'HtlMOl
.LINn MtlN lV:::lIdX.L
NflJ
~lWn
hQg
@
r -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,
s/.,'~'b
(0
'Vds 0/- ~~I'dci ~/~qra]JBW
.0 -, ~ = ,tll :31V:::>S
NVld H001:113A3.1 H3.ddn
.LINn M3.N lV::>IdX.L
9IIeldW.-ee~'LV'E+~llI!1l8PO\l8Jlllt
8(B!l8l11llp.leUl8\l8d6l.QlPC94:l1B1l1 ,.
,.,""",.,."_..,,..,\ (~~ c71NlJ.GDta Nlrtldzl)
-rl
'iT 11
-
.
::--
,r,L+__...
IJUIIU.tllldwoo
..... -
putlI8\IOllOOOl
--=
o
---
@
G>
@
@
CD
---1
I~
~
Fi
~r.?:
-I-\;!
~
Q
"
"
I.-
"
"~
b =~"~
~1","""',",1
>3.<0..1
~ >"^o.oo> \
Ii
f;
..." 1
..., 1
~x Ir
0..
II O~ZIIA~ f&,
.pM'AtdllpBJ8~
8tJ111!W.8'>UO
PlIlOqJalI:I8ll811
~-ll } '19lIBdX::: OOlp9(]8W1~
~ "blY ....,," , 1" I~.'
~ I.KlO()~W lUYB iI.lSVW l\g
TI -,r W' i
"~ "
O~o....,~o
_,tX~UOUO!l8JIBU!
:SIIlMJO!lfIIUI
.,..L+I
pI.I\llre"'jOd~' I
.pooIlIAjdIO~
Ol~Oll\!IIS
J8lIIW/O~.IDlIII
.\IOIIlCIflu!ql1l\lllPl:l'l
""""'"
....'"
SteW4llUOO8(JllJIM
lE!PIX)l:l9Jqlllll"H
..~
ums lIUSVW lr1
/.eI.lIJ91U90
.oA..... ~
I
"--- - -=-
_ ollulll'lSlueoe!Pe":"="""'"
UlU~lF*IOflu!tlPo19.Wlp1111W]B ~
I.KII"llullOPJWpwplllWllOO ANO:l'lV&
~OJO;:lllllUO'Jlnl~
.(qPl~PWllPOO
JIldWlllWWII!l'r'llll:l"epo:J
JedJDOPBItOlIIIJOlOell108lIOWS
'\:lO.9~!d
\.9t+II'Jpmt;
"8!P.lI~ ~
'.oc+~1'J8Il
.:7
~~I~I
,..lr4
'1l8U8d988tfl~P!1S
I
"".,
"',"'.,'
MOlaq SU!U!Q SUlAn
. l--~
~~""
1/-------
I
-:--------t-<--::E
3.
Q
-
'-
1lMIll~jlr__
~ I ""~J/
========~~'"'====:7' ~- , IV Ndt::JJ(()~
- ~~ ~1~~. &
_00 ~, ,"
-~ MC!pU!A'<&S8J6& \ I
--
~
~
-~
\.V
=~
\
-
-1
~....::"",.(
(/
3~~~ ~
~ l....v. .\...0.
~
=-
MOlaga
~W!'JOOll
\!>
~ ~ .t<J1/Jo&1'J~
..----------- i , ,\ \. --'J': ltJ n:;r
\b..
J
OflWl1l1JDQ1pl1BJ8l8IIW
llllU&~IOUlOIlOC!Cl~OSfY
'IB^81U~lIlkllXll>BuffilOlJO!llOd
.oLMUpulIMu3l'9QlI1lilu!dcqUlOSlf'
O~.INIOIllI!lUIl
q\l1S8lilI:lUOO\I!futcJql\llPlljO(
S:i.LCN NYld
v
g
.-
-
.Q',' tE/f:,
(0
@
@
G>
G)
I
-J
--
-vd'G QL ~ ~/~ s('(QJt/;}W
nO', ~ = .vn :31\1':::l5
~)~~ NVld~OO>>
.LINO M3N lV;:)IdA~
1,
.lhOi!H+
Ie8p!'tjJNlO1
3:
..."
.....
8~ X 9
8~ X 9
--
<
I l!Un~ I
,(l-X~I +
...,,",,,
Nlwn:a
g
v
--
-
Cj.}Nfln
!:.V' ~Jd)
-
y
@
~ ~~ ~ WV1:L
c_~M!M,,;re~4l_ ?
~"H YJ/J~/I /J/lA~ ~
~ -AIJ/ V .~ v v ~
,r RO."""" ,,_. / .....,
- .... endoollony
R.. ~NOTEONDlSABL.EDACCESS: V"
~ ?::_t:=;E~:: I ~::GC I ..4. ; ~
1t1tlisabedJl8l"lh9reqUl8I!l8f'M GuLogAppllllncewl
~lalulellhBtapply,and fi$lglaasand ""V-33f
-- ~_"'Slslandards. recirWalingYlll'1ls_ I...,,""l ~
.~-=''''''' ....00""'''-----' (.,. ,
~
-.
@
\
~ ~H
/.........o&. "1r\ I~. . /r ' I.... I
-..."""........ I'-" I~~f.or' Ir>ooo
M~'
'\ I
.:t
tro~
....\
I
"
"
i.J'
, ,~
,
"
"
"
"
PLAN NOTES
~
It
lP
1,RadlanttubinginCon:rel8
Slab8l1lnlowtl'llMlI.
AIsointopi~slabsatEnlry
~andIl9W10'POlllorlollMrJ;J
I Aoomon '1H.IeI,
-.
-
"'
;
-
"
" t
l'lllrdlOraln II ~
--'Ir--r-++--- -
............+-rr-,
~ I II ~
I" ·
I::
k~
III lreIii
1'tJ' I :: aOOva ~
".,,"' ,...h";';
~ - - ___L__......__1JJ-___
t canlilevertrelisaboYer II _
salelyglass 11'--
I' Acees8PBn8lloctawl~ \. II ~
1:~. 'DN
+.iE--=- \opo/closet~7'-4'
~:r1~~~;6
RooI mUR
Wood~ drlIirI UP
ria ~ BA0675"..('
!I ..."...---:. rro 11'-6' S'
1 -~ ~~
.", ~.",
I 8IIletVglUll aafelyglasa
~
f
TERRACE
s..._
-+"""-
\
,
11\"
'eV
\
- ...........
t;:J
c--
~l-
9R06" lh ~
8T0143'4'
/:. --::"~'~N,r-=--=--=-C -=--=--::;"::;j-=--=--=----=- I::.-=--=--
"." .." ,'I
~
~
/,
- _At
W~1D ~
~1
~~~,--------
1"0 ~)4C=I{lN0 -\ /
/,.,
j;:7.... ~
1 ~fn..;;;---------
(~Iw
Landscape
Planter
,.
\-
,....
r ..-
hafdsurlacefOf
parking
anddrMlw.y
~"""'
D
'.m
.,.,
....""
'wi' KiRO,~M ~
.~.gn~,~
",'.'
W8a1h8rstnpt1l81lhold
flash wi 1'drop kllBnace
/'~~
{~a..'"J (.I
NORTH WALL;
lhoura~y:asdascrbedbelow.....
~ swroved byBulllklg CodeOlfDal:
314'OropSldngeaolaurtace
51S'JiY*ood
2x481lldsat 16"ocwltl
FuIBa1lsR.13
nm'llslJipsw!lh2IayefflWrefler:tix(Al0)
SI8'TypeXGyp.Bdoni1lerior8Urface
~--"
,-
81oneonrisers
36"gtllfdrall
pickeis6"o.c.
haM~s+36'
11fl'dlLlil'.
glasal8ils
.J. --...
Windowlal~
end~loriy --...........
L6
-(j5;;;;'
1~~1,~
1&T.108.14'
::::"'~'
-~~--------- -
I!l barsir* I
....
6 Po 24" KITCHE~'I
'f!) wood~ wood~oor
h-----, i=
~ - I
l><~1Hl '-r- ""'24' ,
....~ I ~-.:ar- I
f !I ~ L___.jg_.gj~____1
..
,
,
,
,
,
STUDY/ EN
BEDRO( M 1
~..
lu....
12X4klrilgi1side
S'oonc,wBlI
lrr-2'relmngWlllI
-+-'-
....
-
roo/lFIdlnlliaaboYe
__~ _,1.______
'Q
M
~ i
TYPICAL NEW UNIT
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/$' = 1'. O'
~~RrHf:Fn f<F:M9nr.J5 '7J c;PLI.
E
r
~ t
,
,,"
o;y
r
I
CD
o
~
o
~
@
iYi;"-"",-,'1i;;;;"@
s
a-.
~
'I.
(2)
q~.Of;::-
*
&
'~
~
:I:
f-
er
0
Z
C '"
....
)
:il
'-, "] .;..J
a..
UJ '"
I- 0
~
Cf) '"
0
c.:J
Z
Cf)Cf)g
=>~Ci
009
Ioo
<(0
UJUJ
~~
Cf)Z
=>UJ
II a..
I-Cf)
0<(
UJUJ
Cf)I
Ol-z
a.. w
O!;;:~
...' '. II
a..
(/)
, w
~
_to
oil:
~~ ;
CI)...J .b
<0. ~
od 0 I:'l'
::; ~ ~~
...J.. 8~
~~~~~
U:~13gf
~~~~~
o<:i'~~
~
Cl
z
15
...J
5
CD
....
Z
Ci
::l
;5
(/)
w
er
c
,
<..
(
(D.
i i' '. ,.Ji
If .. -/.~. /..
c
(
(
(~
:$:.
f
f
I
I
r'/iH'IiJiiI'ifH'lr
7
LU
()
~
CI)
-'
~
a:
()
J:~_
z....
sa:
Q.O
z.
....J
Cl~[
wW
C/)....J
00:::
a.w
03:
g:9-=
c
(
(
(
I
/, ,...
I
j
!
I
l' ~
. /./ ,/ ." 7 Iff 1-LJ
>-.. ..L /, .:::tf\71 --I ::t:-
,- I !J~._-.L j I"":~ LJI If_, /1
1-- _.~ I -1 b Li
, = - ~ .I ~ J =2- Jr;? Cj 1m II' II'
.. .c f 1 I f I .I1-L~ I.. j. '\ J:1~ .."-~ ~g" /10 ~,= %./~iJ.._{~.11/1
CL,.lr_l~_I-J~ 1/11:l~ Jr' q I /i,...,C I rn
I ' =r J --1.. / --L 1-/ -- "11 j '-HIfEj ry-- l.1/ / _J
I J I / f=- ([i/ .- 'I n
. ~ ~~U~, ~L.7..' ~T- Ilr .~. /It
~ L 1.. -- /I 'I
... ""=- t-. -,-.. I 1/ I /1
1.r1 ..... "--I -= ...~
J/
! r
f-;
1 /
, t-
L, I
!
',~,
,.
-
J
~
ii
\1'1\1 8NINN\lld ON\ll ON\I 3t!nl::l31IH::Jt!\I . '::JNI 831\11::J088\1 ON\I V'llOHNI:J OIA\lO
ElNISnOH 331Snl:ti 03S0dOl:ld ~
SM O'v'3V11 N3dS'v' "~
c
:...-
~:--...
yt--::: ---=: I"_VII..J.. -.....
~ p-... ~
~---- J. ~ r)~ ~ ~'~
'\;:: Y11/~ 1::-1
/, 'Ii ImJ;;JQ
, fj:'~~ '> !
----
~
/
IAift, /
::-'- JJ:IJ I I
-....... ',---.....___l/ j....
1/ IIII ~~~..:
/1 /k /( ....
O/"~~ II/,
'I --
r;,,!i.
7 /I ~ '
1t,'1 ~ I~
u'/ n.!
fill /7
Il/ 1// rr
. .
-
I
I
I
I J r- 1
Ill.... I
!
I
-
-- F-
zj!:~-
:5a:
l1.!E
Cl....J[
WW
en>
o~
a..z
o -.:!
0:<(
a..~
r.
I ~
~ I ~
2 I
0(
~:I.'I
Ll
..
I ii/II
: [J=l ... .. ~,
:j [~l~]r :.: LIJ
1'1. :IJlJ
I I
Z I
Q I -=I
I LI
"' ,.....
--- ~
I ...,..,
\ '1
\ .. 1-
1\ -:ill
\ r 11
\
I
~""In...o
II /I I I I I I d3"S
oq' ...1113^0
tf
.
u,
I
I
I
I
_1.
.- ,. r- _ j~ __ =TJ 1 I eJ I
.- r- ~ --l l.b-_
-- --~< .1 I I
I\~ /' I l~
..- 1 I ffi
I r I I
I J
1
,_ "14i:
! I
o
o
r
_.
F-
. .
-- r-- f-
I
~.
J
.
l
~
,
1'>.,.
':'\"
..\:..'.
I)
;/
il
I
~.
_e
'z'
. ~:1.
\fT\f 8NINN\fld ON\fl ON\f 3~nl:)31IH:)~\f
zJ:~
:5~
11.0'
z
o
C\J
....!
W 0
0> ....
WW
CI)....!
00: LO
, a.W
00.
0:0. ....
a.::> 0
I
I
I
I
L
I
----=
----=
! r
I
i
I
I
80.:
'J
1 . "
,-
I
I
I
I
L
JOe']
u..
0'
0-
'0:
'. ~'
.u..
c
(
(
c,
(
'-
?;,-
"
z
o
~
:5
CJ~
ZLU
f-f-
CI)CI)
-LU
[;5~
I
I
-----,-------
-.------.--..-
-----.---
-------
-----.-.-------
-~_._--_.-
------.-------
----__.'m_
--_____m ._on __. n_
-------.------..---.----
-.-------..-- --
---.----.-----
c
o
C\l
c
,...
o
~~~'~ ,!
fVf'-) , 0'
~,,~l ~~i f .
j, q ~t~
~~'Ql ~{
Rbo, ~ . '
'Wl..y-;f~)W~
r
'-..
c
"'-""
~ir
e
0
I- <.\l
t, Z
("-\./'>~,ir C'J( :J
-, ZCl!
~ q OZ
~~ -LU
~ 0
Cl~~ 'T"'
~~ LULU:J
cn....JO
OLUcn LO
0..1-3:
ocn
0: LULU ,T"'
o..3:z 0
.....
I,
,~ '.
'.
~
,0
o
C\l
z,....,
000
-l-
f-,:- 0
Cl~~ ....
LULUC)
OOmZ
o _ I.()
0.1-1-
o 0000
c: LU-
Q.~~ ....
:0
'-'