HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sr.500 S Galena.1981
A
500 South Galena Street Project
r"'""'.
Project Summary
1. Applicant:
Hans B. Cant~up and June Allen
Moss Cantrup, c/o H.B.C. Invest-
ments, 450 S. Galena Street,
Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-9365; (303) 925-8610
2. Project Name:
500 S. Galena Street
3. Project Location:
Lot 16 and Parcel B, Block 2,
Anthony Acres Subdivision,
City of Aspen
4. Parcel Size:
21,600 square feet
5. Current Zoning District:
L-2 zone with RMF Permitted
use, City of Aspen
6. Zone under which application
is filed:
L-2 zone with RMF Permitted
use
r"'"'"
7. Maximum buildout under
current zone:
21,600 square feet
8. Proposed buildout:
;:lJ,::l-50
20,450 square feet in 16 one-
bedroom units and one employee
unit
9.
Size of units:
(3)
(13)
(1)
1,140 sq. ft. RMF units
1,310 sq. ft. RMF units
800 sq. ft. employee unit
10. Open Space:
11. Parking:
35%
26 underground spaces
12. Projected population:
34 people
.r--.
r
B
500 South Galena Street Project
.r--.
Project Description
The project site is primarily vacant land with one
small dwelling unit that shall be removed prior to construction.
The site is flat and does not contain any significant vege-
tation. The property is not on, or near, any natural hazard areas.
The 500 South Galena Street Project is located within the L-2
zone, where residential multi-family dwelling units are a permitted
use. Surrounding land uses are a mix of lodges, commercial fac-
ilities, multi-family and single family units. Immediately
surrounding complexes are the Tippler Inn and Lodge, Continental
Inn, Alpenblick Inn, and Durant Condominiums.
The proposed project consists of sixteen (16) residential
mUlti-family units and one (1) employee unit. All the multi-family
units consist of one bedroom apartments. The sixteen one-bedroom
units are located in seven 3-story high columns, each accessible
via elevator and stairwell from the parking garage. The three
units on the north end are 1,140 square feet each. All other
units are 1,310 square feet each. Both end columns contain three
units, each one story in height. The middle five columns contain
only two units, the upper unit having a two story high cathedral
ceiling.
r--.
The employee unit is a two bedroom apartment located
on the terrace level of the project. The "sitting area" in
the southern end of the building on the terrace level is the
day care facility for the project. The project will maintain
heating of domestic hot water by use of a passive solar system.
The collectors will be located on the roof, in a size and con-
figuration yet to be determined. All parking is located under-
ground, with a total of twenty-six (26) spaces being provided.
Amenities include fireplaces, and an indoor/outdoor swimming
pooL
Future Applications:
The Residential Bonus overlay District (R.B.O.) was
established via Ordinance 16, Series of 1980, and is incorporated
as Article X in Section 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen. Also established in the Code under SEction 24-11.2(i) is
an exception from the Growth Management Plan for those projects
which provide that seventy percent (70%) of housing constructed be
deed restricted within the terms of Section 24-10.4(b) (3). As a
result, it is intended that a new application be submitted Shortly
for an additional twelve (12) employee units on the Durant property.
Those units will be matched with a corresponding five (5) residential
multi-family units on the Galena site. The forthcoming applicaiton
will utilize the Residential Bonus Overlay zone as well as the
70:30 exception.
r--.
~
C
500 South Galena Project
Adjacent Property Owners
r--.
1. Alpenblick Condominium Association (15 condominiums)
c/o Fasching Haus
747 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
2 Anderman, George G.
506 Denver Building
1776 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
3. Blitz, Robert
716 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
4. Cantrup, Hans B.
P.O. Box 388
Aspen, Colorado 81612
5. Colgate, Stirling A & Rosie W.
4616 Ridgeway
Alamos, New Mexico 87544
r--..
,
6. Kettle Corporation
P.O. f'J~ 8080
Aspen, Colorado 81612
7. The Tipple Lodge (12 Condominiums)
A Joint Venture
P.O. Box l47
Aspen, Colorado 81612
8. Popeil, Ronald M.
1292 Monte Cielo Dr.
Beverly Hills, California 90210
r--.
,
,-..\
~, ,.
r--.
,~::;,
,,,,,",",,
,'~.
Table of Contents
I
Letter of introduction, request
for subdivision exception
II
Subdivision Application
A. Project Summary
B. Project Description
C. Adjacent Property O"~ers
D. Disclosure of Ownership
E. Project Location Map
F. Vicinity !1ap
III Comparison between the 1978 G.M.P.
Application and current proposal
IV Property Survey, Architectural Drawings,
Plat (separate enclosure)
f"""'"'
H.B.C. INVESTMENTS
450 S. Galena Street
Suite #202
Aspen, Colorado 81611
November 2, 1981
Mr. Sunny Vann
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 500 South Galena Street Project - Comparison
between 1978 GMP Application and the Current
Proposal
Dear Sunny:
In accordance with your request, the following is a com-
parison between the 1978 GMP Application upon which an allocation
was granted and the current proposal for the project. It is my
understanding that, despite the fact that the current proposal may
well be substantially better in terms of land use as compared with
the prior application, the fact that there is some difference re-
quires that it now be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission
for possible rescoring.
,-..
We would like to reiterate that the changes have been
necessitated by changed economic and market conditions and we think
you will agree that the new project is substantially better than
the previous one. While maintaining all of the amenities, certain
specific areas of improvement are site design, underground parking,
large indoor/outdoor swiming pool, improved views for many of the
units, and a more efficient orientation for passive solar implementation.
Those qualities enhance the overall appeal and as a result the design
is much more effecient.
The following summary comparison is for your convenience in
reviewing the changes:
Public Services
(a) Water System - Both applications are for the same number
and type of units. The 300 fixutre unit count converting to 80
GMP remains the same. The project is thus still easily serviced
by the 6" C.I.P. water main located on Galena Street adjacent
to the project site. Improvements in the system since that time
(i.e. additional water storage tanks and Aspen Mountain interconnect
system) assure the ability of the system to provide for substantial
additional evelopment in the area should it ever occur
f"""'"'.
y
.-,
(b) Sewer System - The project site is still served by an
existing 8" sewer line that extends up Galena Street and is also
located adjacent to the project site. New facilities have also
been constructed since the earlier application that would allow
for some increased development in this area.
(c) Storm Drainage - The drainage control system will still
collect and retain all site runoff with on-site drainage facilities.
As in the 1978 application, the current project had a series of
dry wells and retention wells to sufficiently retain and disperse
surface site and roof water runoff.
(d) Fire Protection - As neither the fire department nor the
site have relocated, the distance to all hydrants, fire station
and response time remains the same.
(e) Parking Design - A major improvement over the 1978
application, the current project allows for all parking to be
located underground. An increase in the number of parking
spaces has also been provided, to 26 spaces. The prior application
called for only 17 spaces, of which only 10 were underground.
(f) Roads - As the number of units, the type of units, and
density remain the same, so do the results of the transportation
studies included in the 1978 G.M.P. application.
~
(g) Energy - As mentioned earlier, the project will use
solar collectors for domestic hot water heating as well as
electric energy. Exact placement and quantity of roof-top collectors
is to be determined. Efficient fireplace design will use double
damper control, exterior combustion air, glazed fire opening and
heat return ducting.
Significantly exceeding regulatory thermal standards,
exterior walls will be insulated to R-26, roof composites to R-42,
floor composite to R-20, foundation perimeters to R-14. Exterior
wall exposure is further minimized over the 1978 G.M.P. by elim-
inating the "L" shape and maximizing common wall area.
Social Facilities and Services
(a) Public Transportation - The project is still located
350 feet from the Durant Avenue bus route and the Rubey Park
Transit Station.
(b) Police Protection - The response time, location from City
Hall, are the same as in 1978, and do not require any additional
police personnel or equipment to provide normal protective services
to the project.
,-..
( ,,-....
,-..
,~
(c) Child Care Facility - As mentioned previously, a child
care facility will be provided on the terrace floor of the project.
(d) Bicycle/Pedestrian Paths - The project is located about
450 feet from the Galena Street pedestrian mall. The project will
also provide sidewalks (and curb and gutters) along the South
Galena Street perimeter of the project.
(e) Recycling Facility - Such facility will be located
by the south entryway ramp to the parking area on the terrace floor.
(f) Handicapped Features - The site and building design of
the current project insures unobstructed movement from any location
in the parking garage to every condominium unit. This is accomp-
lished by means of a hydraulic elevator and path surfaces which
wll not exceed a slope of 1:15.
(g) Proximity to Commercial Support Facilities - The project
is located 1/2 block from the CC Zone and about 450 feet from the
Galena Street Mall.
Respectfully submitted,
H.B.C. INVESTMENTS
/'
By //~ ,Z/ ';;!~-u~
Mark A. Danielsen
r--.
H. B. C. INVESTMENTS
450 S. GALENA STREET
,
SU ITE # 202
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
November 2, 1981
Mr. Sunny Vann
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Glaena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 500 South Galena Street Project
Application for Subdivision Exception
Dear Sunny:
,-..
Submitted for review and approval is the subdivision application
for the 500 South Galena Street Project. The location of the site
is lot 16 and Parcel B, Block 2, Anthony Acres Subdivision, City
of Aspen. This projcet was approved for the 1978 Residential a.M.p.
allocation as the companion project to the 925 East Durant Employee
Housing Project. The 925 East Durant Employee Housing Project has
received all the necessary approvals, the excavation permit has
been issued, and preliminary construction has begun. Consequently
it is now appropriate that subdivision reviews be made and all necessary
approvals be obtained on the 500 South Galena Project. This project
was approved for, and is now submitted as, sixteen (16) residential
multi-family units and one (1) on-site employee unit. It is also
appropriate at this time to seek G.M.P. exemption for the one (1)
on-site employee unit. This request is made in accordance with
Sections 24-11.10 "Employee housing" and 24-11.2 (h) "Growth
Management 9uota System Exceptions". We would ask that these matters
be scheduled for the next regular meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
An exception from the subdivision regulation of the City of
Aspen is hereby requested pursuant to Section 20-19 of the Aspen
Municipal Code. This written application for subdivision exception
is made to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission via the Aspen/
Pitkin Planning Department. The following grounds are offered
in support of the subdivision exception request:
1. The proposed project has been reviewed under, and approved
for, residential multi-family dwelling units under the Growth
Management Plan. As a result, the proposed subdivision does nothing
in and of itself to violate the orderly, efficient, and integrated
,,-...
I"""
Mr. Sunny Vann
500 South Galena Street Project
November 2, 1981
Page 2
development of land within the City of Aspen, nor undermine civic
public services to be provided by governmental improvement programs,
nor does it violate any of the stated purposes of the Subdivision
Regulations as described in Section 20-2 of the City of Aspen Municipal
Code. These special circumstances affect the subject property such
that the strict application of the provisions of the subdivision
regulations would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the
land.
~
2. The property involved consists of two lots under a single
ownership within a zone (L-2) that permits, as a matter of right,
residential multi-family use. Hence, no additional purpose would
result in requiring the owner of the property to comply with the
strict applications of the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations.
The exception is therefore necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in
which the subject property is located. The subject real state
is presently for lodge and multi-family use. Any additional density
(R.B.O.) is not permitted under the current City of Aspen Zoning
Regulations without going through an additional review and rezoning
process.
4. The 500 S. Galena Street Project is the companion project
of the 925 East Durant Street Employee Housing Project. The Galena
Street Project enables the twelve (12) low income employee housing
units to be created via a substantial subsidy of funds from one
project to the other. These projects thus contribute significantly
to supply of low income housing in the City of Aspen.
In view of the foregoing it is submitted that there are in
fact special circumstances and conditions affecting the property
such that the strict application of the provisions of the subdivision
regulations would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of
his land, and the exception is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right; and the granting of the
exception would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property in the area in which the property is situated.
It is further submitted that undue hardship would result from the
strict application of the subdivision regulations.
~
~
Mr. Sunny Vann
500 South Galena Street Project
November 2, 1981
Page 3
It is important to note that this project is the companion
of the 925 E. Durant employee housing project. Inasmuch as the
Durant site has already received final approval and must be sub-
sidized by the Galena project, it is crucial that this project
be reviewed and approved in a timely fashion. Thank you for your
cooperation on this important application.
Respectfully submitted,
H. B. C. INVESTMENTS
// ;/ .....,'---:;::? . /"!
~,,-' #' ( ?U-.~
"'.z:"''-/'-,,-, _J /7.__ ',' "
....- -..;.;:..;....;..;...,..._~. -" "'....-;.--..-
Mark A. Danielsen
,-..
I""'"
,......,
t '\
1;,
''''~-
Table of Contents
I
Letter of introduction, request
for subdivision exception
II
Preliminary Plat - Subdivision Application
A. Project Summary
B. Project Description
C. Adjacent Property Owners
D. Disclosure of Ownership
E. Project Location Map
F. Vicinity Map
r
III Property Survey, Architectural Drawings,
Plat (separate enclosure)
..-.
f.
,-
.
..-.
!
.'
\-.,
500 South Galena Street Project
Project Description
I"""'.
The following was incorporated into the 1978 G.M.P. application.
As they remain unchanged they are made part of this preliminary
plat application.
PUBLIC SERVICES
(aa) Water System
The project water demand is directly related to the fixture unit
count, consisting of 300 F.U., which converts to 80 GPM maximum
probable current ASHRE guide standards. The 6" C.l.P. water main
located in Galena Street, adjacent to the project site, will provide
good flow and pressure to the project development.
A project review by Mr. James Markalunus indicates that no fore-
,~ seeable deficiencies exist with regard to providing water service
at adequate pressure levels and no substantive impact on the treat-
ment plant, which is currently utilized at approximately 75%
capacity, will result from the project development.
(bb) Sewer System.
The project site is served by an existing 8" sewer line in serviceable
condition extending up South Galena Street and located directly adjacent
to the project site.
Applying the Colorado State Department of Health standard of 100/gal./
day/person to project occupancy standards of 1.5 persons per one-
bedroom unit, the total project would generate only 2600 gallons per
day. This would add less than 1/7 of one percent to the plant capacity,
thus is well within the service capability of the present capacity.
r-.
"
500 South Galena Street Project
Project Description
1""'-.
(bb) sewer system contd.
A preliminary project review by Mr. Heiko Kuhn indicates that
no foreseeable deficiencies exist with regard to providing sewage
service to this project and no substantive impact on the treatment
plant, which is currently utilized at approximately 75% capacity,
will result from this project development.
(cc )St0'rm Drainage
The drainage control system for this project will collect and retain
all site runoff and interrupted subsurface flow with on-site drainage
facilities. The project shall have a series of dry wells and retention
wells sufficiently sized to retain and disperse site surface and roof
~ water runoff. Consistant with standard engineering practice, the
drywells will have overflow outlets extending to South Galena Street.
A planted diversion berm will be created at the uphill side of the
project to divert excessive surface drainage away from building
development that would result from abnormal precipitation.
(dd) Fire Protection
.
The project site is located approximately 1300 L.F. (4 city blocks)
from the fire station and can expect a maximum response time of ;5
minutes from alert siren to equipment arrival at site fire location.
The project development will provide an on-site fire hydrant which,
in addition to serving this project, will upgrade the protection
system for the immediate neighborhood.
The building development will be additionally protected bya dry
,-.... standpipe system, completely sprinklered parking garage and ionic
smoke detection in individual units.
"
500 South Galena Street Project
Project Description
t""'\
(ee) Parking Design'
A major improvement over the 1978 application, the current project
allows for all parking to be located underground. An increase
in the number of parking spaces has also been provided, to 26 spaces.
The prior application called for only 17 spaces, of which only 10
were underground,
(ff) Roads
As shown on the vicinity map, this section, the project is located
on Galena Street approximately one block south of Durant Avenue.
Due to the project's immediately convenient location to downtown
,~ Aspen, Little Nell Lift and Rubey Park ski buses, it is estimated
that a high percentage (60% to 75%) of skiing, work, shopping and
entertainment trips will be non-automobile trips.
Potentially 60% of the total projected trips per unit wi 11 non-
automobile trips. The estimated 2.8 automobile one-way trips
per day are equivalent to a resident's using his car on an average
of approximately one time per day. The walking and public trans-
portation convenience of the project's location plus the project's
low resident population results in minimal traffice impact created
by the project.
(""'.
"
1"""'\
500 South Galena Street Project
Project Description
(gg) Energy
Consistant with the solar geography of the site, all project con-
struction will be designed and built to maimize solar utilization
I
andito minimize heat loss, thus reducing the demand placed on the
,
fossil fuel resource for space heating. The following techniques
will be implemented in this project.
Insulation
Significantly exceeding regulatory thermal standards, exterior
walls will be insulated to R=26 to 28 min.; roof composites to
R=42; floor composite to R=20, foundation perimeters to R=14.
r-
Devi ces
Consistent with solar geography of site, solar collectors will
supplement domestic hot water heating. Electric energy will be
designated for primary space heating to reduce fossil fuel demand.
(approximatelY 50% of electric power used in the Aspen area is hydro-
generated). Automatic thermostats will be specified to control
night time space temperatures. Fire place design will use double
damper control, exterior combustion air, glazed fire opening, and
heat return ducting. Humidification will be used to reduce temp-
erature required to achieve equal comfort levels.
r-
"
500 South Galena Street Project
Project Description
I'"
SOCIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES
(aa) Public Transportation
As shown on the Vicinity Map, this section, the project is located
350 feet from the Durant Avenue bus route and the Rubey Park
Transit Station. These distances equate to a 1% minute walking
distance, thus easily accessible.
(bb) Police Protection
Conversations with Aspen Police Department personnel indicate
the average response time to this project would be 1-1% minutes
and that this project would not extend present patrol routes. No
,~ additional police personnel will be required to provide normal
protective services to the project.
The project is bounded by Galena Street thus facilitating access
and visual control from patrol vehicles. Additionally, a private
security patrol service will be retained on a continuing basis to
provide normal protective services thus reducing the frequency
necessary for public police patrol.
.
(cc) Child Care Facilities
A child day care facility will be provided for this project. As
was mentioned earlier, it will be located in the "sitting area"
at the southern end of the building.
1''''',
"
500 South Galena Street Project
Project Description
~
(dd) Bicycle/Pedestrian Paths
The project is located approximately .450 ft, to the Galena Street
pedestrian mall. Additionallylconnecting to the City sidewalk
system, the Project development will provide sidewalks along the
South Galena Street perimeter of the site.
(ee) Recycling Facilities
Such facilities will be provided in the parking garage portion
of the project, conveniently accessible to both occupants and pick
up of the separate refuse by the recycle center vehicle.
(ff) Design Features for the Handicapped
f"""'o
The site and building design will permit unobstructed movement
(for a wheel chair confined person) from any location in the
covered parking garage to virtually every condominium unit. This
is accomplished by means of hydraulic elevator and path surfaces
which will not exceed a slope of 1:15 (U.B.C. requirement).
(gg) Proximity to Commercial Support Facilities
The evaluation is convenient walking distance from the project to
commercial support facilities. Th-is project is located I;; block from
the C-C Zone and approximately 450 feet (11;; minutes walking distance)
from the Galena Street Mall, thus are easily accessible pedestrian
destinations from the project.
/""',
"
---_........._-":'~~.,-
U-'lIFE TITLE INSURANCE Company of Oallas
.-/'
Commitment
for Title Insurance
,.
c)-,
c
",'
USUFE Tille Insurence Company 01 Dallas. he'ein cailed. the Company to' vatuitble Co"s'<I,,'at,o". he'''by Co",m." to ..sue ,!~ pOh", 0' pO",...",
of lil1e insur"nce. es id.."tif,1J(j ,n Sct,edu'" A. In la",,' 01 !he p'opo<c<.l I,,".,'cd Mmed ," Sche<lule A. a~ o....""r ," mO"ga(le" "I tne eS'~:" ".
inlete-s1 coveted tlereby ,1'1 the I.."d d~scflb"d or ,~I~rro<J 10 Hl Schedule A. <,lpen payment ot 1',,' p'em'um. arod cli~'ge' 11"".,1.;" A" ,u~.,~,' "
lheprovisionsol$chedulesAand BendIOth"Corid'I'oniandS,'pulatlo"stle'eof
This eomm'lmMl shaH be elfe<;hvll only w"en th~ ,dllnlltv 01 Ihe p'o:>o~ed 'Insurlld and Ihe amount 01 lhf pOh~V 0' p<>I'G'~' ('."'n""~" I,,, "n'"
been ,nserted '1'1 Scl1edule A hetNf t.ly the Co',nNrly ...the, at thl> bn'~ of the ..."anee of th,~ C"n,milmem or "y <ut.lseQ~~nl ~"d"'"~,,,,..,,,
TI\;$ Commilmcnt 's p'"limIMrV 101M ,,,,,;on,.. 01 ,,,~h ,~)kV 0' pOI.">e' ,,It,lle i"~lI'd"C~ and "1I11~!,,I"v ~<ld <>hJ'Il;o'""" .....'~,,"(l~' ,h,," <'''.,'''
lI"d IermiMle six (6) montl'& a!1e' the ~ttec\'ve d,,'~ h",~OI or ",h~n th" POlicy 0' pOl,c'~' c,,~Hf';llc(l to' $".:1 ,"~~ W'H:-"C.o" I"" ,. < ""
pro~;d"d Ihal Ihela.lure 10 issue such pOliCy or poJ,c,e, is nOI 'he fa,,1t 01 Ihe Comp.>ny. Th,s Comm'tment shMI nel be >a"d 0' DI"':'''\l ,,"'.,
counle,~;g"t!d by ~n a"lho,":ed off,ee' Or "g"nl
Sched"'cA
1.Etlcr;rw~"ale Ocl:ob.er 1,1981
2. POIO"yor POI;(iCSlO "" ,,,,,ed at 8':00 A.M.
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY
I<lCl"u"",sd,r<;<;:e<:lt<, 925-4444
Caser-.o A81:-39~
A AlTAO",,,,,,s P"""yP",p',W(tl.".,,,.,j
An".."." \ To be deterlllincd F"~m"m' To be determined
TO BE DETERMWED
B ALTA lo~~ POI,CY P")pn.,'d In"",.;j
P'''''',um,
.o..'''0''''!'
c
r'e",,~m ,
/'0,."""""
3 The eW'I" 0' ,nl~'e.,t ," :h" Vl(j d""'"I,,''' v' ",.'I~"~d I" .n
atrheeHectlv"d;otehe'eol.".,,',,<J,.,
"""''',''n~''t a"d c".".,,'d t",'~;n ". '~t, ,," ;I'" .n ,I' ,I"""
JUNE ALLEN MOSS Cfu~TRUP
4. The la"d 'ote"e<:! to ,n 11", c.)'n,n",ment" d(""'.~J"~ '" 10:10"'"
PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED TO A.'W MADE A PART HEREOF
SChedule ll-Seehon' P~qu,'eme~!s
The 1(,llowlng are me 'eQ"''''~'~~!' '" M CQmpl."d IN'I"
l1en'lal Payment 10 0' 10f Ih~ aCc'o~nt 01 '''e 9,.,n1O'S Q' ~\0"g"9D'\ "I .,,~ 'ull co~"d~'alcQn to' !he e.ldl~ 0' '~t~'e" Ie, b~,' "_".'d
Item jbJ r'ope' onsl,,,n'e,""1 C'ei"'~cj "'e ""~'e '" ''''~'~'''~ tl~ '''>l''''d ",~>t too e'('c~I'-"d ""d duly foled fo' '~"o'd ,",''',,
1. Deed from June Allen Moss Cantrup vesting fee simple title in a grantee
to be determined.
NOTE: Upon dete~ination of grantee, additio~al requirements and/or
exceptions may be necessary.
OTHER REQUIRE~ENTS NOT TO BE'DETE~~I~ED
1. Evidence of compliance with the provisions of the Real Estate Transfer.
Tax, Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979).
lOVER!
'''''''.'', llAUA'. 111,[ ^'<lJ (,UA~A~f' ':"M"A"V
C~
3
/'-~
~j
:.",~~~"I" e. ,..S"~!'O,, 2 Except'o",
Sllee'Add,e,.oIP'ope''Y..
"'" p"i.~y or pohe,,,, In be i..ue<J ...tll eon'i,n ...cepllon, to Ihe. 10110wing unle,s lhe 'a....... ere disposed 01 to the ut.,facliQn of lhe
','''''P''''v
I""
<I",)"." ," clJ"",ol P~(t,,,,.,, po"""",,, <lot ,howl' b~ the put>I<~ '''co'ds
'~"''''enl'., 0' el..,,,,, 01 "Ueme"'S. no! ,Mwn by.,oe p'Jblo~ 'eco'ds
O"""P~<'C'U, r.onfhCI' in bo"nd~~y h",,~, sho"age ,,' a.ea. enc'oachments and ''''y tael' wl'''c!> .. corre<;t "'f\<ey and inSpoc1ion of
'c." P"""'''' ",;'uld d,~ln... d~d whIch ,.." nOl.hown by the putll" ,ecord,
dnv 1,,,1' 0' "91>1 10 a Ii.tn. 10' ~''''CeS, labo, 0' ma'Mlal therfllofor" 0' h..'Nfle' fu,n,Shed. Imposed by 1_ '<'ld nOl .hown by 11>"
".","', '.~r,"J,
'i.."," ',,'n~ ",,<<!mt"''''l'r, ,wlv""" cl~,,,",, or ,>",~, m,ll"''",.,' d~' c'..:tT~d I"ST ~PPM,"n<'J ,n It", publiC 'II(;O'';S 0>' ati3cl\i~'J ....boaquenl
" .".. ..,,~,.t,v" <l~le h,,',,<>1 bul P'"'" '0 lh~ dill<>.lh.. p,"~(,~"ll '~.u",d ~<<lU"~' <:>1 '~cQ,d I,,, v31ue Ih" ulale 0' Inl"''''1 0' mortgaGe.
., e.WJC ~',~w..,j by ,~" Comm'lmc~t
(";o'~I"\M numb<>'~d
-0-
.a'~ It~'~by,,'m'lled
PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED TO A.~D MADE A PART HEREOF
"':)','.I1",n5
t'.I"~I". "h(." ,,'N! hl"~'n, .,h,,11 " <'1,,(1.. <I",,(! "ll'~S!. t(,,<I ,j..~(j. 0' "th~' ~~r.u"ty ,n~"um~nt
..>I In,,,,,,,! h." "" a"'1U"~' "';""11 ,~(Jwl,,'iq" c,! "ny ~"I'('l, I,,'n: MCUmtJ'anco, ad~Nse cl~Im 0' o~h~, ma!t~, nfl~Clinl)
.1 n' n,,,,t<),,'-I" I~w',"n ctM,",d bv ",,' CO"'''''l'''~''' ,->11'1", '''~n 1""~~ $"nwn In Sc~od",c B he'oof, and shall lall ~o
""""d~,, I., '''~ Comp.",v .n w"I'''\1 ,,,., C,,,',,>,,,,, '~'all ll" 'QI'"v".j Ir~m ',ab,I". fOf 3ny 10'" tl' damaG~ fl:'$ulllnQ l(tlM
. . ,,'", ", "~(~nr 10 t~,~ ~d""t Th~ Company., niel,,(l,~~d bv 1~,lu(a to $0 d'$CIO~" SUCh ~nowledlle 1l1he prtlllOsCd Insuc~d
. "" ., ,..",,,,!.'<jq,, T" '~'e C"mp~ny ",. ,1 ,n... C,,,,,p''''y ""ww",, aC<l"'''cs actual kn",,,,led!;" 01 any ,uch defCe!. Iron. ~ncumb'anc".
n,,_. m;""", Ihe C,,,"p.,,,. al ..., "'''''''' m,"1 :""""~ SC.M~"I~ 1I 01 th,~ Cnm""II;,e<\l aCCO(dln(jly, bul .uch "mOndm~"1
. ...1,.." """ Cwnp~ny !mm lidb,l,t~ p<ev,eu,lv ,~cu,,~rll.'U!5";o'" !o paIBq'"ph J 01 Ihese Co~d",o'" ~"d $tlllUlatlons
(:"I<'"""V unde, Ih., Comm,''''''"' ",,)11 ~J~ nnlv 10 t,,~ Mmed lI'Ollo,ed.ln""'\I'; an'; suth pa(MS inCluded under ~he
I,.' ,,' "',,','d.n HlI. 10'''' 01 poliCY or po!>",,,, comm,:I"d 10' "~d'orlly for aClualln.. incuffed '" ,~Ii'nco.."e'eon in unde'\akinQ
""I ," ,,, ';I>"'ply w,lh Ih., ""IU1(~m~"" hn..",t 'JI ill) T'> ~liml"aM ~",el'''O~~ ~h,,,,,n ,,' St~lld"le e, 0' (clio "cqu"~ 0' CTeSlC
"'"",,, 0' '"("''1"(I~ Ihor~Oll COl'p.'ecl bv tilt, Cllmm"m~nt 1,1110.~ven! ,hall ~,,,:h J'at"I"y e.o"cd Ihe amount ~la!~d In S"h~dule
" ".' I"~ ~". ,., ", pol'eIl" (ommllled 10' ~nd such 1'.b!I.W IS s"bleCi.t~.~I.he.IMl1"~g prOVIs,,,ns, ~.cl~$i"n I,,,m covc'age. and lhc Condil;ons
.",d S"~,, ' "'''~'. ,,' 'he !-o"", of pol,oy or pol,o;"s comm.tted fo' ,n favo" of the proposed Insu'"d wh.ch a'e he'eby "'corpo'a:ed'by roIe,once
."",..", ''',1,1" ,I I>.",!)t !hOS Comm"m~M~.c~pl as e,p'''s,lv n"'d.I,~d hNe,n.
~ Anv cid,m <>1 I"., Of dam~gc, wheThef O( nol b~'ed on negllg~nce, l>~d which 8fiS/:'$ out of Ih/:' smtus o/the tItle to .the eSlllte 0'
"""~,I .}, :~~ I.e~ of t~e Insurcd mOflg~g<l- cove'ed hercby or any aCl;on' a5$e'\InQ .uch claim. shall be '''SI"CtC'; 10 the p,ovi$ions 1111';
c',, 1.,'o~' .,c<l '''oul,,,,o,," of ,~" comm;tmp.Il1
.
I"-J Wil"ESS WHEREOf. ,h~ Compa~y ha, oaused !h,S Commitment to b<> SIgned and sealed, to bec"me v~lid whe" countc,"~gned by
.", il\.I"''''IM Qff'cP'f or aqenl 01 lh" C<:>mpanV, 811 In atco'dance wllh liS Bv.Laws. Th'$ COmm'lmenl i. effl.'Clive i$ 01 the datil sh"y,."
n S':~~,biff A ,,. "EHcct,y" Da'e"
uS LIFE T'llc I!>sl.l(ance Company 01 Dalln
;;t.&/t/~
.""""..".""[..,,,,.,'>",,,.
!dC4./ /It,rik/(}taL
.... h. "," ","do'" s"'.,,'~ '",1',."",,.
" "If
').,+><\"\,'0"";'."",,-
...,.,o"s..../"" '.'\
EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED TO A."WHADE A PART HEREOF
BASI-398
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Parcel A
Lot 16
Block 2
ANTHONY ACRES SUBDIVISION
and also:
Parcel B
A tract of land situated 1n the Northwest one-quarter of the Northwest
one-quarter of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 WQst of tht:' 6th
P.M., described as follows:
c~';-
BEGINNING at a point whence the Northeast corner of that certain tract
of land described in Deed recorded in Book 197 at Page 568 and in Buok
19Sat Page lID, bears North15Q30' East 30.00 feet;
thence South 15030' West 140.00 feet;
thence North 75QOO' West 115.42 feet;
thence North 15000' East 73.98 feet;
thence along the arc of ~ curve to the right with a radIus of 31.00 feet
a distance of 39.50 feet, the chord of which bears North 51030' East
36.89 feet';
thence along the arc of a curve to the left with a radius of 90.00 feet
a distance of 62.05 feet, the chord of which bears North 68Q15' East
60.83 feet;
thence South 75000' East 45.97 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Both of, above parcels being in fitkin County, Colorado
("~
,.,...,.
"--
"
----.
C~
Cr:
_/
"
I
/
/
;~.......~-........~-._.,.._..,~
EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
IJA81-398
EXCEPTIONS (continued)
6. Taxes due and payable: an)' unpaid taxes and assessments and any and"
all tax sales which have not been properly redeemed or cancelled. Tax
Certificate ordered, not yet received by Company.
7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in United States Patent recorded
May 20. 1949 in Book 175 at Page 202 and as contained in United Staees
Patent recorded August 26. 1949 ipBook 175 at Page 298 as follows: right
of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom,
should the 88me be found to penetrate or intersect the premises, and right
of way for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United
States.
8. All of the minerals, mineral deposits, oils and gases of every kind and
nature underlying subject property, together with the right of ingress
and egress for the purpose of prospecting for, mining and removing the
same. prOVided the owners of the mineral estate shall not interfere with,
or cause dam.age to result to improvementS placed upon the subject propfC'rty
and in the event of mining or drilling for minerals, lateral support of the
surface shall be provided so that sllch activity shall not cause daf.\ages
to improvements. as reserved in Deed recorded May 21. 1958 in Book 184 at
Page 45.
9. Terms, conditions, easements, right of way and restrictions, ~hich do not
contain a forfeiture or reverter clause, as contained in Protective Covenants
recorded in Book 206 at Page 436. as imposed upon subject property by
instrument recorded January 29, 1965 in Book 211 at Page 344~
10. Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Contract for Water Service
with City of Aspen. recorded January II, 1965 in Book 211 at Page 160.
11. Exceptions, reservations and easements for utilities and automobiie parking
and rights of ingress and egress to and along the course of said easements
for purposes of maintenance, repair and replacement of said utilities, as
set forth in Deed recorded April 13, 1964 in Book 206 at Page 444.
12. Any tax, assessments, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of the ,
subject property in the Aspen Fire Protection District, Aspen Metropolitan
Sanitation District andlor Asepn Sanitation District and Aspen Street
Improvement District and Aspen Valley Hospital District.
13. Deed of Trust from Hans B. Cantrup and June M. Cantrup a/k/a June Allen
Moss Cantrup to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorado for the liSt'
of The First National Bank of Denver to secure $1.250,000.00, dated
December 3, 1980, recorded January 6, 1981 in Book 402 at Page 542.
A check may be made with the lender concerning possible limitations
Deed of Trust on the right to transfer the property and assume the
NOTE:
in said
loan.
U-i.IFE TITLE INSURANCE Company of Dallas
,,-,
Lot 16, Block 2, Anthony Acres
NW 1/4 NW 1/4 18-10-84
Cantrup
Endorsement
Attached to and forming apart of
COMMITMENT
A81-398
No,
Issued by
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD.
USLlFE TITLE INSURANCE Company of Dallas
Sche4ule B-Sectiort 2, Exceptions, is hereby amended by deleting
Item 11.
I"'"
,"'"
,,>
.
This endorsement is made <l part of the policy or commitment and is subject to all the terms and provisions
thereof and of any prior endorsements theretO. Except 10 the extent expressly slated. it neither modifies
any of the terms and provisions of ' the policy or commitment and prior endorsements, if any, nor does it
extend the effective dale of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements or increase the face amount
thereof.
Dated:
December 1, 1981
USLlFE TITLE INSURANCE Company of Dallas
~/!/~
Presidont & Chief Executive Of/icer
'L...7i~.
Attest Senior Vlce.~fesident, Secretary and Treasurer
Issued at Aspen) Colorado
Countersigned"
'/'."7
A::.--.-..
..J!e c..- L .-:;1/
Authori~ed Officer or Agent
"
,
/
Formerly DALLAS TITlE AND GUARANTY COMPANY
FORM S 10 20M sets 1276H
.:;.,. ,-, ..""
.
i"""'"
r"""'.
,-,
/"-.,,
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY
A TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY
POST OFFICE BOX 9590
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611.
(SOSI 925-4,444
December 2, 1981
To Whdm it May Concern:
I
!
On October 1, 1981, Aspen Title Company, Ltd., through USLIFE Title Insurance
Company of Dallas issued a Title Commitment to June Allen Moss Cantrup con-
cerning the real property as described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
The commitment under Schedule B, Section 2, Exceptions, Item 11 refers to
utility easements as set forth in a Deed recorded in Book 206 at Page 444 of
the Pitkin County records. By endorsement dated December 1, 1981, said excep-
tion was deleted for the following reasons:
The Deed referred to above is dated April 13, 1964 and was recorded the
same day. The Grantor, Luke W. Anthony, Inc., a Colorado Corporation,
conveyed Parcel B on Exhibit "A" to John Marshall Stirling and Rebecca
Birch Stirling reserving an easement for utilities 10 feet in width along
the entire Easterly 140 feet of Parcel B, the same being a common boundary
with Tipple Woods Subdivision and an easement for underground utilities 20
feet in width running along the Southerly and Southeastetly boundary of said
property from the Southerly and Southeasterly line of the road which wilLI be,
platted and constructed along the boundary of said property. Examination of
the plat of Anthony Acres Subdivision recorded in Plat Book 3 at Page 15
shows that Parcel B abuts Lot 16, Block 2 of said subdivision. The Easterly
line of Parcel B under the description of the easement reserved would be
subject to a 10 foot eastment and a 20 foot easement. The Southerly line
of Parcel B is the division line between said parcel and Lot 16 and would
be subject to the 20 foot eastment. The road to be platted, referred to in
the reservation, is now South Galena Street which abuts the property on the
Westerly side. It was probably intended for the 20 foot easement to read
that it would run~ong the Southerly and Southeasterly boundary of said
c.'
property. (f
I""'"
,-...
t"""
~
<"?
The plat of Anthony Acres Subdivision was recorded January 4, 1965, the
dedicator being Luke W. Anthony, Inc. Luke W. Anthony, Inc. has since
conveyed to third parties all of its interests in Anthony Acres .Subdivision
and examination of the Pitkin County records shows that said corporation
does not own any property adjacent to said Lot 16 and said Parcel B. We
are informed that no underground utilities were installed in the 10 foot
and 20 foot easements so reserved.
For the foregoing reasons, we and our underwriter have decided to delete
said easements from our Commitment as it would be highly unlikely that
Luke W. Anthony, Inc. would install utilities in property in which it
(J Vi.tI d-
has no interest and which in no waY~be of benefit to it.
Very truly yours,
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, LTD.
$t;~,~
Bill E. Tom
Vice President
BET/hgy
Attachment
"
rr,;;,,, ".<, ,,'",:<..
.'.L;.-.P
~.../ ~'~-'..:
,.1::::1'1 ...~:::::. ~:-.-=
:t::t:tE~ E-._........~= -- ...
;:~ ~..-; ~.::: t...o.:::=
l,.;........~...... ..._........_u.........
_~i..- ..,,-..................
......... ....~ ,...................-...
lZ...... a!i;:1 ~-= t:'~
~~:::::l::;:::!:.:::::::::::
H ..._~!:...-
o t:'.::t g[~ ~:::::; g::~ -.
~-lf;@ t;l~8~
(~::;::=. ~~ -- .
, ~l~ ~I~ ~~ ~~ ~--- . -
fuI;;E.Fm ~i&f:;;;:; .-. ft'~
wef.. - ---
="'.._ "n::.:: ~ - _..:g~
J'~~\~U~~~$
~:::::;.:.;:;..~P::..: r;::::'2~' '" r0"'
"""" [E.:;:: 0,= t=~ ~ ~ ~
H'ilf,~"~J.iJ , '~'uS ... ~) - - ~ - ... 0..... ... :::
':'l'~ -- ~ .... 0::-""-
'\ '\' . . . . - ~:'( '"
.... ...'....,' <:fif"'"
?~///k c# ~
i:::':::::':'< if
~.,..-.~..:.,:..:.....,:..; .,.....,-,.v.... .,.. , ,..............., '" (
. ~..,...'''' ,'. ,/'.'~"") f"".............. ,~
r-:::i{i:j.} ~>>?<~ ?><X ?:.::.>:.:~.~\.. . ~ . ,
..........".. _.-:.,.:..,..:;;: v.....v..;l...,.,."...'~I. ~~ .
~<>:.::::::-.::: ~{.<?:) ~.f~;J:: ~.>:>:;<~'i ~~~"'<- ~'_J::>
d."............. ,.v' ......;1...... .:",/.l '. .....',.. "
.._ . ., ~ ,"'* ,< ...,,,....y/,,.. ~.:&...M~!'.. '.'
,'. ."'V.~~" 4.. ......" .. vy~,
..................l ......:... ..A<...-? ,..~.)..........H .... ....... j .
............,.'~ .1'....,..'..:--....-...; ::,..'............. ".'..:'-:'-:-.... ~.~ l""
; r:{)':D:'~)~ L:;-//J.~~ f>;}:?J r}<>IO~}~I~~l ';" .>".\O-n' ~500 SO. Galena
..,,' v".....;.- , ," ,>' .... . ." ........... n .
~;;-:;;:. 'i;;':::':'::~;:~ ...;::-;::;:.~:'< ~-:::,<"l' ~ :.:.:.:.::;::.:::....J~_ dOject
... . -".9..,::, UU;'^"6 :,.<,y 1 '.>~~ ....:.." ......~:::::,..-~ .
~.:':~:.~.:,~ 3:~~~~,:::,>} . :.:::};~:~. .,.':L1 ;;;~~...~~:.::.~.:)~::.; .~-
""""'Q' .....,..., ",0' ,J.~ 1:1" ~\ .......>-.. 0....... ......
;:.:-:.:-: '.: ....:-:....;.:-::: .:;::.';..-.: ~ ."->0 1"')"" :::: :.::.~r::so:r.::i~e~..:.;- --
,......' (;... ." ,.... ~ ;;;~ ,,\J?j.' ." '.'''' r.7-,':.~'JJ.l ..- -- -
-:;".':'~;:"<:'~ ..;::::;,-.:"'~,~, <:::::;:....i ,.:: '- ":'j' ::-:.: :":':::"':::"<.: .:: ::.:--..---......
"vn'..... v'...'..... '/",".''- ' .... ...;..... ". ""1'" -
...-.a/v. ~v,^ .' ^.. . '.' .'. " ...... .', ...-'-'
J,"'Ny.n' . ,. ' . <. \'< .........:.::.... ......, ',,'. ---.-
/...""..,l I'A...'Y'oI....V) . .~ - '~'.'j1"".""'" "l ....-._~_.-
,../'.....'........"" :'m> '.o"'~
.( .;,...:. .x. ,.;._._....~.'..., . .', ."...... ...;.. . - -'-'
........,.,' ........,....";..., .;...:.............,'.. ''':. .
.....,.... .......:-.; rC' ..... . .... '.'
y<::::-:::~ ':.':::::::::'>> ~,.' )~.:::.:....::::..:..,'....:-:...::.. ---.
~".,?,\.,~....."..~ . " ~...,.. ....... .. .....
x-'/':"':\ ,...;.:...:......'1 0, ,..... :-.. .., ..' ... .' .' . : '.' ':.'
.-. /. U'. ,('. .X' "'>>, ,. .... .' . . .. .' '. . . . . .
.. "<t-'i(;,:,::::;'::::::.'.:::i:': .:-.' : :::
..'..."..:.". ';:....-::>!.-. ..'.~ ;....:.!:...: .... ,:." :
,OS: :::!.{;::.::.:~:. .:~.:~~~ ::'.:.:::~;if;' ~
~~..., ...... ..,tC~
~"'t'{};;':::::':':";':HJ ~ ~
.. .<:~. . ':.-:' .;;';" ;<15'- ~. ;;> ;.>
C'1 .". ..~.~ Ci
j + ....:...;-r,~. ~)
1-f/'V.' ,,,.,:-.::::::'Uj~.E:J ~~
~<':::::>
MAP
^
r--.
7:~
...." 925 Durant
Project
c
~
-G~
~
PROJECT
LOCATION
400
800
/'r-
/~t?
~
o 200
r-
UFT I'"
;-I'tl:!: SW1~
/ jrt;J.ILE srA'Ul
,!~~ ~f~!f.l~{~ !~! ~
". '.' .,.,...,'.'" ,....."....., ,",., ""..,' . \\W" ,...... I
~Jt[R~1~:~~ tilll ~ijf~@1i itl1t~~;~ ___,,_ I
~'<:ii:;"c~ ,_ E,:,Ji::'f''!l 'f::?':J:'<< ---- ~ .
""'- . .,.../,.... ..,.......,....,:; \'......,...,~
~ - :~ f;)Ji2j~~!f?ii _~~~;;~ -)
~ ~ ~'7Jii \1:>/::"'<' "':':':><:>,:; :.::.:.,;.,.~;.
lb...~ i:.:....;::':~; '';7:;::::::8~;~~ ~;';~;;;:;:;;::;:~;' ~:~;':?<~:;:'~;';
. ~~. "\ ~ *...>./~:;:;:;~ ~_:;.;~$;:-:'~~J::"~~:>:;:;;.:~"'''r.'
1/1 ~., - =---~-,
"';;r;' --:-- -i}'T:n,~?":, ' ~
.;! "7/,,,.,i! ,X/,,':?,....,;. ~
ffi>5<. !~ 'ill G"<JO<Q.J:;
<1"0""'''''' -,...".~::'......:.I .7,,,,- - b-
"ft'.<.:,: ,,',".': :~'::::.:: :;("'>:6 ~,;:,
~^.. .. "_"'Jj"'o ...
,." :'. '. '",.,-'.. .,~ '"
~' ," ..,~..., ,-;j'" .r.
\<:.,:: ....::,..'..BI~l:.:.: ....L .~~ "'''''''D
.- .. " .'.. ,im'??,-,
. . '.' ..,.... .' ~
/i'i':: ,.... ,',:. ,..::'...~\,"6'.
,. .' ..,.... \ \.
~...~.. ...........:':~:..::...:;'I..I' ' ~-----tDIt:J
t.c"" " ...". ! L
"-Jt.\--"~_'::'''.,. :.::::,};;i: I,,'
~'I'''''''i'\I'
'~';':I!;i'1ii
~: I i I; 1\' .
\ 'ilii.'./'
~\
\
D.JQ", ;"VCIM.
H'Sf<'''pY U!~><~---<
E:'tl'Snl-!J ....AW,.S
\.,:.tC-~!'A~"'-
r-...ee!'~?.clJ.l
C'~
\.
,-
!<b f;:\.':!.
UITI".~ ~ UFT
re<?';W CITY TrAt.
m;;CCT SI1'E
~~
MlU. ?m:ET
R'~
~~1
'Jj''''':'''''':''iJ.;''' (JfE.
(./"""
~
tJ:1Ja :.t:r;'::.O.L ~'.""f:~
W-~
r-, .,:~f;~ !
...........
~~T~T' r.E:,;!'~;L~IS.L.{~h:
~~,t ,1...,
tYj r1'!{i' 'r.~~,-'~
o
Vicinity Map
"-" ~~
"'"
/
. -"
V
f"""'.
.ROCKY MOUNTAIN NA TURAL GAS COMPANY, INC.
~0Rf:.~~ . ASf3EN. COLORADO 616" . (303) 925-2323
0132 Atlantic Ave.
12-9-81
H.B.C. Investments
Box 388
Aspen, Co 81612
Attn: Han B. Cantrup
Dear Hans.
I read your letter dated 12/7/81 in relation to Gas lines on
your project on South Galena Street. I speak specifically of
the 700 South Galena St. project.
r--.
.
Your are speaking of our 211 Main line running South on Galena
St. from Dean St. to Mill Street. At the time this line was
installed the Gas line was in South Galena St., and now
as lines move we find the Main line into your property approx-
imatly 30 feet.
We will work with you next spring to have this line moved out
into the street again, and I hope this will slow down the
movement of some of these streets.
The Service line you speak of can be cut-off, and removed
next spring when you start construction, and should not
bother your project.
I will continue to keep posted on your project to assist
you when we can do this work.
wee/lo
2r iklf 7 '} ~
/A /~ffdl/ (~1,1:k~
f~~llard e. elap~ .
District Manager
Rocky Mtn. Natural Gas Co.
r--.
, ,
r--.
HBC Investm~nts
P.O. Box 388
Aspen, Colorado 81611
December 7, 1981
Mr. Willard Clapper
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Co.
0132 Atlantic Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 700 S. Galena Street Project
Dear Willard:
The referenced project was a previous Growth Management Plan applica-
tion that received an allocation for 16 residential multi-family units
undergoing subdivision review at this time. One of the items to re-
solve with regard to this project concerns the location and future
placement of R.M.N.G. lines.
There were two gas line~ that served a couple of residences on the
property. One residence has been demolished and the other is scheduled
for demolition prior to project construction. We would therefore
seek to have these lines disconnected after subdivision approval.
,-..,
There is also a gas line that currently runs some thirty feet onto
the property, serving the southern areas of Galena Street. Due to
design and construction requirements, the line will conflict with
~he development program. The most efficient resolution of the con-
cern would be to have R.M.N.G. vacate that existing right of way
in return for our participating to help move ~he line over a few
feet next to Galena Street. Jeff, from your office, did a site
inspection of the area involved last week. He indicated that there
would be minimal difficulties involved with moving the line. We
would therefore seek your approval to vacate the premises and move
the line so as not to conflict with present or future needs, and
we agree to help participate in such a transfer. Your a.ttention
to this matter is greatly appreciated. Should you have any question
or need additional information plase contact me.
Best,Regards, /
r ~;!f.1 h I {~t Gv~7/.1- '7
'Mans B. Cantrup
H.B.C. Inve~tments /
HBC:kq
I"""
"
~
l
J WNtt-J~Je:
~K.
!
L. l
-J
r--" "1 r"
: fq.{P"Y pAAJ<.' ,
1., l L..
t:XJ11:ANT ~
-, i8ciTTTn r---.-
-1 IIBBa-LUll I- L,
l~ . t ~-~rl
I~_ .~1
At?)~a,^J'r WJrI' ~NC6 - : itTr iT" n' \ : j . . "-j
r' :1 LllLLlj: ~ . i..-1...~' '("1
AN/Art>. '$f. .' . r- ~..... Q' ' ,
: ~lJr.1. ,: r-'i-'.-4~
I :>:: Frrr1{' :~ Li i j' ~:
-+ W.LU. .---1-"
,':. 1'1,"
E::-+ ) .-L l' L' j
f-..j r '. ,---J
J-.!
,
7a:J ~-t1 CrA~ 511e
ADJA'-&IT LAND ~r~ ~
H. 8.l. lN~erMMts :
r'
,-...,.\
~?T.
)
~
\
\
",....,
D
I I~
I .J
~
-,
,
I
/
,
~Xl?\lNtr
ONe1foP1
~'t1A~
o
o
70:) S? . GtifNA 5rre-
~ ~/N0'? Itt: t\A'5 LI MJ1f;y.:7 ~a::..
~ NATUrzN. ftANt MAr~ NvY.?
W~. MA...lol2. O\,fEJe toT ~Ntr
}!AS ~ !ZN€ 'DA~Ir.x:r rJ.+e
~L~O~5t~,
~~.nQJ Of A 6eMIf':f- ~kl~
Mt!'A ANt?' 11-*. Ca.J$~C17dJ OF
~ D-tpLfX ON T1-\E Lor To tHe
:5our+f . i~ IS ~ ~!kl'r
~n{e f16i ~ LU.JE.,~t
rt t-s off'11+e ~\rrE 1.6N~ p..et OF
VE4ETA-n.O\I M~~ -me ~~fiSfTo 1Th=~.
r,
~.
~
1"",
". 1""\
January 25, 1982
JtlN 2 5 1982
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER
KATHERINE HENDRICKS
(ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS ONLY)
GARfIELD & HECHT 0
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ,~
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILD! ~ '.
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
'~C"NI ::~~""I,.t'~M rn
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V. HECHT
HAND DELIVERED
Aspen City Council
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Extension of Development Allocation - 700 S. Galena
925 Durant
Dear Council Members:
On January 19, 1982 the Planning and Zoning Commission
continued the public hearing on the preliminary subdivision plat
. for the 700 S. Galena Street Project in order to obtain some
technical information relative to soils, hydrology, and similar
items. As a result of that action (or more appropriately inaction)
the applicant is unable to meet a deadline which the Planning
Office represents is essential to maintain the GMP ?llocation. In
view of the fact that this delay was.not anticipated the P & Z
recommended that you extend that deadline for thirty (30) days
beyond February l, 1982.
Ironically, the Planning Office has now determined that
it is also necessary to grant an extension for the 925 Durant
Project, which is the employee housing portion of the Project.
Although we disagree with the necessity for obtaining extensions,
we nevertheless support them as the most expeditious means to get
the projects completed without the necessity for further debate.
With respect to both projects the following are the
salient facts in chronological order:
A. 925 Durant Project
January 29, 1979 - Plans were submitted for a building
permit. February l, 1980 was the date originally claimed
to be the deadline for such submission.
February 12, 1980 - Building Department informs City
Council by memo that the plans submitted had to be
approved by Council since they varied from the GMP appli-
cation. The reason for the change was to accommodate an
R.B.O.
~.
~,
GARFIELD & HECHT.
March 10, 1980 - City Council formally approves changed
plans.
July 14, 1980 - City Council approves deferral of park
dedication fee.
September 25, 1980 - Application for subdivision
exception submitted.
October 2l, 198Q - P & Z grants subdivision exception and
conceptual and preliminary plat approval.
November lO ,& 24, 1980 - City Council requests, as a
condition to final plat approval, that applicant accept
a 50 year instead of a 5 year deed restriction. This
cannot be resolved and Council tables the matter.
August lO, 1981 - Applicant requests that City Council
accept a compromise solution to the 50 year deed
restriction. Matter was tabled.
August 28, 1981 - Applicant accepts 50 year deed
restriction. Council exempts project from moratorium and
grants final plat. approval for subdivision.
September 22, 1981 - P & Z grants exemptions from GNP for
Project conditioned upon ?O year deed restriction.
B. 700 S. Galena Project
November 2, 1981 - Applicant submits request for amend-
ment to GMP application and conceptual subdivision
approval.
November 9, 1981 - Planning Department gives applicant a
proposed timetable for processing application. [Note:
applicant has met each deadline}
December 8, 1981 - P & Z unanimously approves GMP amend-
ment and conceptual subdivision approval.
December 14, 1981 - City Council approves GNP amendment.
December 15, 1981 - Applicant submits preliminary plat
prior to this date which is deadline set by Planning
Department.
January 19, 1982 - P & Z public hearing on preliminary
plat. P & Z requests additional technical information on
_J^'> """,._,_".,.._.,_._.. ,"'w..... _;_'..."..."...~'~""."'_,..^.,,,....,,.,^."":~'""."
~
/""",
,-.
GARFIELD & HECHT
soils, hydrology, and engineering from professionals,
continues public hearing to give applicant an opportunity
to present the information and ,requests that City Council
extend deadline for 30 days from February 1, 1982.
C. Conclusion
Both the Planning Department and the applicant have been
under the impression until last week that the only requirement
necessary to maintain the GMP allocations for both portions of the
project ,,,as that plans sufficient to obtain a building permit be
submitted on or before February l, 1982. Until then the only
difference between the applicant's position and that of the
Planning Department was that the Planning Department maintained
that final subdivision plat approval must be obtained before plans
could be submitted. The applicant has maintained and emphatically
reiterates that this is not a requirement in the Code. Although a
building permit may not be issued prior to final plat approval
there is no legal constraint to prevent an applicant from
submitting plans sufficient to obtain a building pe'rmit. . Since
such plans have been submitted the issue should now be moot.
Nevertheless, assuming the Planning Departnent's position
is correct (a) with respect to the 925 Durant Project:
(1) How can'it even be suggested that the
allocation expired on February l, 1980 when City Council expressly
approved the plans on March lO, 1980i City Council and P & z
considered other specific issues on the project at seven subsequent
meetings, and the Planning Department has made specific
recommendations approving the project in several successive memos
since that date.
(2) Even if it were true that February 1, 1980 was
the deadline for submission of plans, the fact is that plans were
submitted on January 29, 1979 which were approved by Council on
March lO, 1980.
and (b) with respect to the 700 Galena Street Project:
(1) The applicant did not begin processing the
subdivision application for this project until after he received
final plat approval for the 925 Durant Project because he was under
the erroneous impression that the free market portion could not
begin the procedure until final plat approval had been given for
the employee housing portion.
(2) The applicant has worked closely with the
Planning Department and has taken every conceivable measure since
submiting the subdivision application to process it as
- ,,_. ,- ,.- .,,,-,-,--...-,",. .,...~'.-...._-".~..-'".".._~"'-,.,..._'.~-,_.--
-
I""
,.....,
GARFIELD & HECHT
expeditiously as possible. He has met every deC'.dline set by the
P1an~ing Department.
(3) The applicant did not and could not have
reasonably anticipated the requests for additional information from
the P & Z resulting in the delay and the delay is beyond his
control, because this type of information is not typically required
at subdivision review.
(4) This free market portion of the project is
essential for the employee housing portion which is needed by the
City and it would therefore be in the public interest to preserve
it.
(5) The applicant has spent considerably time,
effort, and money in developing and preparing the project and in
processing the applications therefor and it'would create a
substantial hardship and injustice if he were not pernitted to
proceed.
The applicant therefore respectfully requests that the
Council determine that it is not necessary for and that the project
may proceed without the necessity for any extensions or that an
extension for a reasonable period of time be granted to complete
the subdivision process.
Respectfully submitted,
Git" , 7 ..~
SFS/pp
cc: Sunny Vann
Hayne Chapman
Paul Taddune
,""
""
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE:
700 S. Galena Street/925 E. Durant -
Development Allocation Expiration
DATE: January 20, 1982
APPROVED AS
the
Applicant's
Request:
The applicant, HBC Investments, is requesting that the
City Council grant an extension to the expiration date
for the development allocation for both the 700 S.
Galena Street project and the 925 E. Durant project.
The applicant is requesting Council to extend the
expiration date to May 1, 1982. This request is made
pursuant to' Section 24-11.7(a) of the Code which gives
the City Council sole discretion in granting such an
extension on showing of good cause.
History:
As a result of a joint application, a 1978 Residential
GMP allocation was granted for 16 free-market units
and 1 employee unit at 700 S. Galena Street and 12
employee units at 925 E. Durant. At the time of the
development allecation, the City Code required that
all necessary approvals for building permits be ob-
tained for these 2 projects within a 2 year period.
Failure to obtain these approvals within the 2 year
period would cause the allotments to automatically
expire.
The two year period for these projects expired February
1, 1980. As far as the recerds show, no extension on
this two year period has been obtained. A request fer
an extension on the 925 E. Durant project was denied
on October 9, 1979. A request for an extension on the
700 S. Galena street free-market units was made on
October 22, 1979. The Council was in favor of extend-
ing the deadline for the free-market units, but had
no legal means to do so. Ceuncil directed the City
Attorney to draw up the necessary ordinance to allow
the Ceuncil to grant such extensions.
Ordinance 84, series of 1979, was adopted January 28,
1980. This ordinance not only gave Council the sole
discretion for granting extensions on development
allocation expirations, but also increased the time
period in which free-market units must obtain approvals
necessary for building permits from 2 to 4 years. Due
to the immediate need for employee housing, the time
period for employee units remained at two years.
Projects with a free market and employee unit mix must
also obtain the approvals necessary for a building
permit within a 2 year period. This ordinance evolved
out of a request for an extension of the February I,
1980 deadline for the 700 S. Galena Street project.
However, after the ordinance was adopted, there is no
known record of a request for an extension or the
granting of an extension. Therefore, unless further
information is found prior to the City Council meeting
on January 25, 1982, the HBC Investments must obtain
an extension on the February 1, 1980 deadline or the
development allocation for both projects will have
expired.
1""'\
,-,
700 S. Galena Street/925 E. Durant
Page Two
January 20, 1982
Planning &
Zoning
Commission
Action:
planning
Office
Review:
When the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the
preliminary plat for 700 S. Galena Street on January
19, 1982, the date of development allocation expira-
tion was thought to be February 1, 1982. P & Z
tabled the preliminary plat review in order to obtain
more detailed information on slope., geological and hy-
drological problems that may be potentially hazardous
to surrounding properties. This request was partially
based on Section 20-9 of the Code, SUitability of
Land for Subdivision, which states:
"(a) Based on findings by a qualified engineer or
engineering geologist or other professional, no
land shall be subdivided which is held by the
Planning commission to be unsuitable for subdivision
by reason of flooding, bad drainage, rock or soil
creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide,
steep topography or any other potential natural
hazard, feature or condition likely to be harmful
to the health, safety or welfare of the future
residents in the proposed subdivision or of the City."
P & Z requested certification from a qualified expert
that the slope, hydrological and geological problems
were being adequately mitigated through the applicant's
proposed measures. Since tabling the preliminary plat
would prevent the applicant from meeting the February 1,
1982 deadline, P & Z made a recommendation to Council
that the February 1, 1982 deadline be extended for a
period not to exceed 30 days (March 1, 1982).
After reviewing the records and Council minutes, the
Planning Office believes it was the intention of the
City Council to grant an extension in 1980 to the
16 free-market units in the 700 S. Galena Street pro-
ject. Also, it is believed that it was not Council's
~ntention to grant an extension to the 12 employee
units at 925 E. Durant, largely because Council wanted
these units to be constructed as early as possible.
The applicant has had four years to obtain the approvals
required by the City in securing a building permit.
925 E. Durant received the necessary subdivision
approvals in August, 1980, even though the final plat
has not yet been recorded. The 700 S. Galena Street
project is at the preliminary plat stage and will
require at least one additional month past the
February 1, 1982 deadline in order to allow time for
further preliminary plat review by P & Z and final plat
review by Council.
If Council believes an extension is warranted and
should be granted from either the February 1, 1980 or
February 1, 1982 deadlines, the Planning Office recom-
mends that the extension be granted until May 1, 1982
as opposed to the March 1, 1982 deadline recommended
by P & Z. This additional three months will allow
the Planning Office a more appropriate time frame for
dealing with the complex issues involved and will also
allow the applicant more time to adequately deal with
the slope, geological and hydrological problems that
P & Z has requested be addressed in detaiL
Tf!t~J!ii:::~~ML
..~~~~_.~!:- ." ~if!:etl c~~~~~._.:..;~~,~~;;::':-c_~ec~~~.~~~~~::=
II
I
,
"",,'
.-'
~OINT MEETING WITH COUNTY CONMISSIONERS
(
Commissioner Child called the.meetingto order at 4.:20 p.m. with Commissioners Kinslev,
Blake, Klanderud and Madsen and Councilrnembers Knecht.andMichael present. .
Conunissioner Child said he was pleased to hear of the city's support for the com:rnunitv
cente,r. The county has been asked to make appointments to the Community Center Board:
Commissioner Kins'ley asked if the Council wanted to be making the appointments with the
county or to have some of the members appointed by Council only. Councilwoman Michael
suggested that the county get with the rest of Council. Councilwoman Hichael said sbe
thought it would be a good idea if the city Council appointed some of the members.
1. Planning office contract. Sunny Vann, planning director, told the Boards the contr.,lct
is renewed annually at the time of the official adoption of the budgets. Thecontract
presented is essentially the same as last year except under accounting, reports and
audit provision. The planning office is no longer on a 50/50 split; they have gone to
di~ect billing and provides a mechanism to administer the billing concept. Councilman
Knecht asked why there way a contract for this particular departrnent. Vann answered
that given the wide range of concerns that the planning office addresses and the joint
programs, it waS felt appropriate to develop conditions for funding, outline responsibiliti
and outline how the department would function. Kinsley pointed out this contract
establishes some pOlitical independence from the two Boards. Vann said this provides a
non-jurisdictiona.l entity. Vann said the planningg office does not work directly under
the city or county managers but works directly for the Board and Council who establish
the priorities. Kinsley pointed out this contract should 'work no matter who the
personalities area. Kinsley s~id this contract is attractive to him to have an independent
objective planner saying what he'thinks regardless of the political implications. It
is the boards jOb to worry about political implications. City Manager Chapman said this
agreement between the city and county, which is normal procedure for any departments
that are joint, can be terminated by either party with 30 days notices. Commissioner
Madsen said he felt every department ought to have one boss and not report to both
Boards.
('
Commissioner Kinsley moved for approval of the contract; seconded by Commissioner Child.
All in favor, with the exception of Madsen. Motion carried.
Vann told the Boards his perso~al contract is essentially the same as last year. The
only change is the salary section; since Vann's anniversary date is the same as this
contract, the sectio~-does not include a merit raise.
Commissioner Child moved to approve Sunny vann's contract; seconded by Commissioner
Klanderud. All in favor,. motion carried. (These were not city motions as, there was not a
quorum)
COUNCIL MEETING
\ :
\
Mayor Edel called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilrnembers Knecht, Michael,
Parry and Collins present.
MINUTES
There were none.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Councilman Knecht moved to approve the accounts payable; seconded by Councilman Parry.
All in favor, motion carried.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
I.Gary Gidley told Council he had received a citation in a loading zone on a truck with
commercial plates. Gidley said he had wasted time with this ticket and he was in the
loading zone under .ten minutes. Gidley said he had six vehicles and needed permits for
all vehicles. Mayor Edel said one of the reasons for loadings zones is that there is
a t~affic problem; the loading zones :are for fast turn over and to keep people from double
parking. Mayor Edel said the staff _ should look at these, parking privileges to .see if
they are being abused. Councilman Knecht- suggested Councilman Collins get together with
staff and review the policies of the parking permits.
2. Mary Martin, All Citizen Action Committee read to the Council: "On this day,
Deoember 14, ,1981, at the regular city council meeting, The All Citizen Action Committee
hereby objects strenuously to the notice publication of a special election scheduled for
January 12, 1982, for the purpose of Obtaining permission by the city electors of
securing $5.2 million dollars in revenue bonds.
It is the opinion of the cornmdttee after ,thoroughly examining the city home rule charter
that, Article 2, Section 2.2 requires a 60 day notice to the public of an impending
election.
It is hereby requested that the city council postpones this election 30 days f'rom
January 12, 1982, to allow ample and reasonable study of the proposed resolutions.
Because of the..holiday season on such short ptJblic notice we feel there is not ample
time for a thorough study of thei'ssue for the electors to make an adequate judgmental
decision" .
~/-
r
.
.
r-.
~
Regu~_~_r..,.Meeting
Aspen City Council
,~~".,""'~. -
__!,<,cernber 1.!!..-}981.
'I
"
Ii
II
J
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I,
II
Ii
II
h
il
II
!I
II
"
ii
..~.~. -
II
Ms. Martin said the ACAC feels the electorate rnustbe given more time to study these .1
issues; the electorate needs more detailed information. City Attorney 'I'addune said the ii
section in the Charter requires council to pass a resolution calling a special election \i
60 days before the election; there is no requirement that calls 'for the resolution to bei(
published. The Colorado Municipal Election Code states the city clerk must give notice :!
10 days prior to the election only., The city has published notice of registration for i;
the election. Taddune said he and the bond counsel are comfortable with what has trans'" 11
pired. The question of during the holidays ,is a political question Council has to decide.~
Ms. Martin said the timing of the election is very inappropriate to prepare a rebuttal. II
Councilwoman Michael said business does go on and January seems like a good time to get !
people out to vote. City Manager Chapman said if this election were to be. postpone, the 1i
whole process would have to start over. Mayor Edel said the city has worked with PCPA ~
and the Open Space council 'on parcels of land. This election will give the city the rightli
to bond for open space, and the Council has been asked by citizens groups to do this. r
The citizens groups feel that in order to properly plan what acquisitions to get, they II
have to ha'/e the strength. of those funds. Mayor Edel said this process through the open I'
space master plan has been in place for sometime. " - I
Phoebe Ryerson said 88 percent of Pitkin County is already fixed open lans through nation~l
forest; that only leaves 12 per cent in private domain. Hal Clark, PCPA, invi,ted all l!
interested persons to a PCPA meeting Wednesday noon. Clark said he understood this is ii
a narrow issue of how to fund open space. The sixth penny generate $1,000,000 to 1,200,OOp
a year. The question with this issues is whethex the city wants to raise money at one :!
time to deal with a cash pasis with people for property rather than piece rnealover time :1
with sixth penny money. Clark said he sees this asa financing mechanism. Kay Reid told ~
Council that the citizens had put money out of their own pockets for Rubey park, which i;
was supposed to be a beautiful place. Look what has become of it; there are few flowers 1
and more buses. Ms. Reid said she felt this is the way the open space acquisition programi,
seems to be going. ~
Councilman Collins said he felt the pUblic has the right to be informed and respond. If ~
the election in January will jeopardize a positive vote, Council should look at reschedu- "ii'
ling. Councilwoman Michael said she is happy with the timing and the questions. ;
Councilman Parry said the citizens have come to Council and asked for these things,. The 1.1
Council tried to figure out when residents will be here to vote. The City has to have :1
this election in order to settle the Wheeler and get on with the construction. ,Chapman :!
agreed for every week the decision on the Wheeler is postponed will cost $6,000 per week
in fees to the construction manager. Mayor Edel said 'the decision to go for the $3.2
million dollar program for the Wheeler was an active citizen committee decision. The
appealed to the Council montns ago. Mayor Edel said he wanted to go with the election as
set. Chapman said the city is getting bids for the^ Wheeler on December 22 and these bids
are only good for 30 days. The city will have to,know how'much money is available so
they can let the contractors know. '
3. 'Cindy , a resident at Castle Ridge objected to the rent increases proposed
by Council. C~ndy saiq she felt the rents are on the high side of being affordable. The
project should be finished before the rents are raised. Mayor Edel said this is on the
agenda later and can be addressed then.
I
,
4. Fred Pierce, sign painter on Main street, told Council he was concerned ,with the ,
inconsistencies in the sign code. Pierce passed around a letter and some Polaroid picture~
of signs. These are of the plywood around construction with graffiti and advertisting on '
them. ~ayor Edel agreed the city had been iax in leeting this go by. Councilman Parry
said he hated to seethe spontaneity qo out o'f town. Councilman Parry said he thought
this painting was fund. It is the Council's choice 'to be ,a little lax and live with fund
r or to pass another ordinance. Mayor Edel said he objected to the conunercialism of these I
H signs. This is prime space and tpe signs have become a commercial venture.
Iii City Manager Chapman said someone called from the Visual Arts Center and asked if classes ~
,I and school kids could do streetscapes on the plywood around. the Tom Thumb building. )1
,I. Chapman said he felt something fund is a definite improvement over plywood. What happened:;
is this went passed the idea of art to the idea of advertising. This has evolved into ,!
something it was not meant to be. . Mayor Edel said he had no problem with art or school 11
kids doing their painting; he does have a problem with. the advertising aspect. council's:l
consensus was to not t'o allow commercialism and to have the advertising signs pain,ted over:)
by the school kid~. I
COUNCILMEl4BER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Knecht asked for a report from City Attorney Taddune about what is happen- I
inq with the construction mess on Third street. Taddunetold Council he held a meeting . ii
and requested Bill Martin to submit a resolution from WSIA, which he did. Taddune forwarded
that to Council with a discussion.of the laws. Taddune had an occasion to make an U
inspection of the city and concluded some of the equipment was not being used for the II
cons,truction. Taddune said he felt this was enough to say the area was being used as a II
storage yard. Taddune talked to Butch Clark about the situation, and Clark .assured fl
Taddune he would do as much.as he could to avoid the issue. Some of the heavy equipment i
was moved.. Taddune told Council the pr?blem bre'7ks dO';'ln ~o ~hether the material. and 1'1
equipment .~~ unrelated to the construct~on occur~ng. If~t ~s unrelated, there ~s nO
question that this is a'violation of the zoning ordinance. If the equipment is related, 1'1'
the question to Council is whether there should be a law to address this~
,
I
Mayor Edel s;;aid there is a law that if the equipment is not directly related to construc- :1
. . . , 1':1
tion, the equipment cannot be there. . M<:yor Edelsa,id in looking at what ~sthere, there .
are any. number of pieces that could not be related 'to ,the construction of one little
house. There is no need for another law and these vehicles have to be moved. Council~ II
woman Michael said she would like efforts 'to be made to clear as much of that equipment [I
as possible. In a town this ,si.ze,,:pe9fd.e.:in-i:::be consu.uction business should be good Iii
neighbors.
II
Ii
Ii
,:
"
"
.,;',
;
./
~
.
',-,
,-.
Regular Meeting
-2-
A~pen City Council
Oecemb~r 14, 1981
.
,"'"'
"
.'
John La Salle, representing Butch Clark, told Council his client had rented some property
because he thought he would be doing something good by keeping the equipment, dirt, etc.
off the streets for snow removal, traffic, etc. Clark is trying to be accommodating.
Clark says he will use every piece of equipment on this house. Councilman Knecht said
there is enough equipment to build a 12 story hotel and this equipment ought to be moved.
Councilman Collins agreed and said he had never seen so much equipment for a single family
residence. Councilrna~ Collins said he felt this was being used for storage and a staging
area. Council agreed equipment that was needed could be there but to keep the rest of
the equipment waS totally inappropriate.
2. Mayor Edelasked the city ,manager to report bn the parking lot at the Plum Tree. City
Manager Chapman told Council he had received complaints from people in the residential
areas about taxis being parked on the streets overnight. This is legal; the cannot leave
them in the downtown area. The taxi company asked if it was possible to park at the Plum
Tree to try to accommodate the problem and get the taxis off the streets in the residential
area. Chapman said it was the understanding that if the city wanted them out, they would
have to leave. Mayor Edel said he had a'problemwiththat area and using it as a parking
lot as it is an eye sore. This maybe a decision for Council to make more formally. The
lot is beconuning an unofficial parking lot and is akin to a junk yard and is bad for the
entrance to town. Councilman Knecht agreed.
City Engineer McArthur sUggested putting these cars in the old impound lot, which is
around the nack and adjacent to the building. Mayor Edel said he is concerned that the
other taxi company will also want to store their vehicles at the Plum Tree. Councilman
Collins said he had noticed semis parking in the West,End off ~~in street. There are an
increasing number of cars parking for long periods of time in the West End~ Chapman said
the police department needs a complaint about cars being, parked too long. They then go
out and validate it and enforce it. Chapman said the city cannot automatically know how
long cars are parked. Mayor Edel suggested staff and the pOlice department get together
and work out handling the situation.
City Attorney Taddune reported on the Boettcher building, which was brought to Council's
attention by Bill Martin. Taddune said it appears there might be art unintentional violation
of the zoning ordinance. The building has been leased and is being subleased. People have
leased spaced for commercial uses. The property is zoned SPA but ~here is no SFA plan
for the property. Mayor Edel said the property is zoned academic and it seems commercial
usage is inappropriate for that area. Taddune said the concern is that this be discontinued.
The people leasing the building have been notified this is a violation. Taddune said they
have been put on notice about this, but the city is, confused as to what the zoning laws
are with respect to that area. The city does not want to allow this to go into the future.
The leases expire before the summer 'Institute starts.
Councilman Collins stated he is concerned about the precedent in this case and allowing
the leases to continue whatev~r the good intentions. Councilman Collins said one of the
conditions with the Physics Institute was that the Meadows would not use that as a prepedent
to permit other subdivisions of the property. Subsequently when the Institute filed suit
against the city, they did take advantage of having used that Subdivision as one of the
arguments for further subdivision out there. Councilman Collins said there should be a
clear statement this will not jeopardize the city's position in regards to the final
disposition of the lands out there. Taddune suggested the Council instruct him to investi-
gate this further and report back to Council. The city has not put them on written
notice.
City Manager Chapman brought up the Chris,tmas tree lights on Main street. Monroe Summers
told Council the Christmas lights were bought and assembled by Stogie Maddalona of the
electric department; In the middle 70's a group complained to Council, supported by the
Mall Commission, that the lights were gaudy and a waste of electricity. The argument
went on and on and Maddalone sold the whole display. Summers told Council it would be
an expensive undertaking to redo these. Chapman said next year would be the soonest the
city could get the decorations together. Chapman said the staff needs direction before
this is purs'ued. It is not just a simple matter of stringing lights. CouncilmanKnecht
suggested talking to the PCPA about this. Councilwoman Michael said she would like to see
money spent on this endeavor. Mayor Edel agreed he would like investigation of this
matter; it cannot be done this year.
Councilman Knecht brought up the faceless voice on ~he.telephone and tole Council he had
used it and it was handled very, very well. Chapman reported that the communications
board felt the dispatcher and communications center should be isolated as much as possible
from the general public. The board looked at the economics of providing a receptionist,
which waS $42,000 a year as opposed to the telephone. This decision was largely economical.
Councilman Knecht said he.was not knocking the system; he tried it and thought it was
great. Councilman Collins said he would like to see something more personal besides the
telephone. Jim Fitzgerald, communications director, told Council the dispatchers are
primarily responsible to the radio. In the past there hasbe~n difficult with irate people
corning in .and.threatening the dispatchers. The' telephone .hasalleviated these situations.
Bil Dunaway suggested having a receptionist during business hours and the telephone at
'1 night'.. Mayor Edel suggested staff relooking at this ; if there is a choice, report back
to Council.
II
II
Ii
ii
~
Ii
,
PLANNING OFFICE CONTRACT
Councilwoman Michael reported there was not a Council quorum at the joint meeting. The
county voted 4 to 1 on the planning office contract and 5 to 0 for Vann's contract.
Councilman Knecht said he feels the department should be under the line of the city
manager and not three governmental entities. Mayor Edel agreed with this position.
councilwoman Michael said she would like to see the planning office come under the city
manager. Councilwoman Michael &aid she is prepared to have a joint department but to have
direct line from the manaqers. Mayor Edelsaid with direct billing, there ought to be
two separate departments. Sunny Vann said he had no problems with direct line from city
manager..
.
.....
--
.
^
Regular Meeting
,...,~..",.,..,..,.....",.".,.."",,,,,",~
Aspen city Council
December 14, 1981
---'-1
I,
!I
I
I
I
,I
II
I
J
I'
II
II
J
II
i'
!I
II
,I
"
ji
:i
Ii
'I
,
,
!
Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the planning office agreement between the oi ty, !'
county and planning office with the change under section b, it will be reflected that. the :i
city of Aspen, :the chief planner will answer directly to the city manager who will perform ji
his management function to Council; seconded by Councilman Parry. II
i~
Councilwoman Michael amended the motion to instruct the
priate changes and bring this back at,theDecember 28th
parry. All in favor, motion carried.
city attorney to make the appro-
meeting; seconded by Councilman
i
,
Alice Davis, planning office, told Council this is a request by HBC Investments to amend Il
the 1978' residential GMP application for 500 South Galena. This project is on 21,600 !!
square feet and is zoned L-2. The applicant is requesting approval for an amendment which II
falls under section 24-11.7(b) of the Code. This section says if an applicant who has
previously been"awarded a development allotment deviates from any essential element of his
proposal, faisl to satisfy any material condition imposed or fails to comply with the
development schedule, the P &Z must recommend tQCouncil whether all or any part of the
allotment should be rescinded. If Council approves the amendment, then they will 9ive .
conceptual subdivision review. Council must determine is there is a substantial deviation :!
from the 1978 appl~cation. If Council does determine this, they have to determine if this
deviation would change the development allotment and the applicant's position in relation~,
ship to the other applications. ~
Ms. Davis presented in memorandum form what th~ changes were. The number of units has Ii
not changed; 16 free market units and one employee unit. The size of the units has
increased some. Mark Danielsen, representing the applicant, told Council these are the
free market units which will subsidize the 925 Durant employee project. Inasmuch as the
925 project is finally approved, it is time to get into the approvals for this free
market portion. MS. Davis told Council there is only one employee unit at 500 Galena and
it will be in the low category.. As a result of the increase in size of the units', the
total floor area of the project has increased. The total square footage is 20,450 square
feet 'using 94 per cent of the space allowed under the FAR. .
AMENDING TO 1978 RESIDENTIAL GMP APPLICATION -500 South Galena
MS. Davis told Council one of the main changes in the project is the parking. Originally
there were 17 parking spaces with 10 of these underground; now there are ,26 underground
spaces. The planning office feels this is an improvement. There are 26 spaces, although
II there are only 17 units because the applicant plans to submit an REO application at a
it future date. The applicant included some additional energy features. The site design
11 has changed from an L to a straigh line 3-story configuration and an additional of an
ii swimming pool. The engineering- department comments this project encroaches and utility
i; easement, which will have to be dealt with. The parking facility must be designed to
Ii handle the difficult grades and the angle with the intersection. The engineering depart-
:: ment feels the 30 per cent ,slope in the southeast corner be mare clearly dealt with.
n
Ms. Davis told Council the planning office feels there has been a substantial deviation
from the original application; however, there are only'two areas that could be rescored.
In 1978 there was no area to score architecture or site design. The two' areas that could
be rescored are parking and energy. Council could show there has been an improvement or
no change in relation to the applicant's score. The planning office recommends Council
approve the application amendment, sUbject to the conditions 'listed in the planning office
memoranda of Decemb~r 9 and 11, 1981.
Councilman Collins asked how this fit in with the master plan. Danielsen told Council thi~i
has nothing to do with the hotel master plan~ Councilwoman Michael noted the only sub-
stanitive changes are the parking.and the third story. One is an improvement and one is
a greater visual impact. Ms. Davis said that this cannot be rescored because it was not
'1'1' scored in 1978. Ms. Davis showed Council the original drawing. Danielsen pointed out
this project is 700 South Galena rather than 500 because of an address change by the city.
11
"i
II
II
'I
Ii
"
"
"
!I
il
II
II
II
Ii
!i
II
"
"
ii
Ii
Councilman Parry moved to approve the request for approval of the amendments to the 1978
GMP application for 700 S.Galena as well as conceptual subdivision approval, both
subject to the following conditions: (1) the applicant must obtain necessary easements
from utility companies where project construction will encroach upon these easements.
The applicant must be responsible for any required rerouting of utilities resulting from
the use of the easements. (2The parking facility must be appropriately designed to handle
the difficult grades and the acute angle at the intersection with S. Galena street; (3)
the applicant must clearly indicate in the site design how the southeast corner of the
property which is in excess of a 30 per cent slope, will be graded and/or retained; (4)
an easily accessible trash area must be incorporated into the site design; (5) prior to :i
obtaining a certificate of occupancy, the applicant must fulfill all Obligations he committed
to in the complete, amended application including, but not liminted to the following; !i
a) parking plan including 26 underground parking spaces; b) drainage control facilities
including a series of dry wells, rentention wells, and a planted diversion berm, c) energy
features such as solar collectors for hot water heating, energy efficient fireplaces,
insulation exceeding regulated standards; d) social facilities including a child care
center; reCYCling facilities and an indoor/outdoor pool; e) site desing as shown in the "
amended application using a. three story straight line configurat-ion which will maximize ,'!
solar utilization; f) sidewalk~ along south Galena street; g) elevators and stairs, to serve:
the thre,e stories from the parking garage; h) site and building design to permit.unobstructed
movement for wheel chair confined or other handicapped person~; ~) the twelve employee units
at 925 Durant (part of this jointapplic.ation) must be deed restricted to low income,
housing and a certificate of occupancy issued prior to obtaining a certif~cate of occupancy
for ,500 (700) south Galena; j). all other obligations 'established in the complete. amended
application for 500 (700) soUth Galena; k} prior to issuance of a' building permit, the
plans shall be submitted to the planning office for confirmation of their consistency with
this amendedGMP application; (6) the applicant recognizes that approval of the GMP amend-
ment does not signify any acceptance, nor create any relaince, .upon a subsequent REO on
other applications. However, at the preliminary plat stage, the applicant shall submit
plans with a design anticipating RBO approval and one which works without, the REO, and (7)
,.-
,
~
)
\
1""'\
,1""'\
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Counci.l
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning OffIce
RE: 500 S. Galena Street Project - Amendment to 19]8 Residential GMP
Application - Public Hearing
DATE: December 11. 1981
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
P & Z Action:
The PlannIng and Zoning Commissjon re 0 ends the approyal of
the amendments to the 19]8 residentia MP appHcation for
500 S. Galena as well as conceptual subdiYision approyal of
this project, both subject to the first fiye conditions listed
in the Planning OffIce recommendation in the December 9, 1981
memorandum and the following two conditions:
6. The applicant recognizes that approyal of the GMP amend-
ment does not signify ary ac~eptance, nor create any
reliance, upon a subsequent RBO on other applications.
Howeyer, at the pre,liminary plat stage, the applicant
shall submi,tplans with a desIgn anticipating RBO
approyal and one Which works without the RaO.
7. llpp licant Is aware of P & Z I S intent to condition
approval 01'1 obtaining a building permit to require con-
struction to start as soon as soils allow and to agree
to a completion schedule which will be determined at
the preliminary plat stage based on the terms found in
the Uniform Building Code.
Counci.l Action: If the Council agrees with the Planning Office and the P & z
recommendations, the appropriate motion is as follows.
Ulmove to approye the request for approyal of the amendments
to the 1978 GMP application for 500 S. Galena Street as well
as conceptual subdivision approyal, both subject to the
following conditions. .
1. The applicant must obtain necessary easements from
uttl ity companies where proj-ect construction wi 11
encroach upon these easements. The applicant must be
responsible for any required rerouting of util ities
resulting from the use of the easements.
2. The parking facility must be appropriately designed to
handle the difficult grades and the acute angle at the
intersection with S. Galena Street. .
3. The applicant must clearly indicate in the site design
how the southeast corner of the property which is in
excess of a 30% slope, will be graded and/or retained.
4. An easily accessible trash area must be incorporated
into the site design.
5. Ptior to obtainIng a certificate of occupancy, the
applicant must fulfIll all obligations that he committed
to in the complete, amended application includIng, but
not 1 imited to the fo 11 owing: .
a) The parking plan includIng 26 underground parking
space.s;
b) Drainage contro 1 faci.l Hies including a series of
dry wells, retention wells, an,:! a planted diver-
sion berm;'
..
.
~
'.
r-" SPECIAL MEETING
December 11. 1981
1
,-.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen P 1ann i ng and Zon i ng Commi s s ion
FROM: Alice Davis. Planning Office
RE: ,5005. Galena Street Project ~ Amendment to 1978 Residential GMP
Appl i ca t ion - Pub li c Heari ng
DATE: December 10, 1981
I
I
,
1
,
t
\
~
Location:
Zoning:
Parcel Size:
Applicant's
Request:
City Attorney:
Lot 16 and Parcel B, Block 2, Anthony Acres Subdivision;
500 S. Galena Street
L-2
21,600 square feet
The applicant,H.B.C. Investments, is requesting approval of
amendments proposed to the approved 1978 Residential GMP
application for the 500 S. Galena Street Project. City
Council recently adopted, on your recommendation, revisions
to Section 24-11. 7{b) of the Code concerni ng amendments to
approved GMP projects. This new section requires that if an
applicant who has previously been' awarded a development
allotment deviates from any essential element of his proposal,
fails to satisfy any material condition imposed or fails to
comply' with the development schedule. the Planning and Zoning
Commission must recommend to Council whether all or any part
of the allotment should be rescinded. This application
represents the first project to invoke this new review
process. If the amended application does not change the
allotment, conceptual subdivision review should be considered
for the amended application at this time.
The City Attorney commented that the amendments to the GMP
application shall be reviewed through the standards of Section
24-11.7{b)' of the Code to determine if the changes are deemed
substantial. If the changes are substantial the amended applica-
tion should be reviewed to determine if the original score in
the 1918 GMP competition should be adjusted or if the develop-
ment allocation should or should not be partially or fully
rescinded.
Comparison of
Proposed Amend- ~'\
ments & Original
GMP Application: After a thorough review and comparison of the 500 S. Galena
Street 1978 ResidentialGMP application and the current amend-
ments to this application, the following items are given as the
major changes to the 1978 application. The Pl anni ng and Zoni ng
Commission should consider these items in determining if there
isa substantial change in theGMP application and whether or
not all 0.1' any part of the allotment given in 1978 (16 free
market units and 1 employee unit) should be rescinded.
Number/Size
of Units:
Total Square
footage:
1978 GMP
Appli cati on
1. 16 one-bedroom units at
1.000-1,200 sq. ft. and
1 studio employee unit at
600 sq. ft.
1981-82 Amended
Application
1. 13 one-bedroom .units at
't.31Q/sq,. ft.; 3 one-bedrooms
at r,140,sq. ft. and 1 two-
bedroom employee unit at
800 sq. ft.
.
2. 18,500 sq. ft.; 85% of the' 2.
allowed 21,600 sq. ft.
under F.A.R.
20.~50 sq. ft.; 94% of the
allowed 21,600 sq. ft. unoer
F.A.R.
~
~
,;-
~
Memo: 500 S. Galena Street Project
Page Two
December 10, 1981
Public
Services:
4. Parking: 17 parking spaces, 4.
10 of which are underground
,
parking:( 2,6 underground
spaces '
(
~.
.
v 5. Energy: Project design will
maximize solar utilization
and minimize heat loss;
insulation exceeding regula-
tory standards.
\
\
l______-~ ,
5. Energy: solar collectors
for domestic hot water heating
as well as electric energy;
project design will maximize
solar utilization and minimize
heat loss; insulation exceeding
regulatory standards; efficient
fireplace design including heat
return ducting.
. .
Site Design:
6. "L" shaped, 2 level stacked 6. Straight line, 3 story config-
configuration canted 30 uration.
degre~s.
"
Social
Facilities:
7. Child care center and
recycling facility.
7. Indoor/outdoor pool, child
care center and recycling
facH i ty
~
I
'.
I
,
I
I
, I
!
Engi neeri ng
Department:
The Engineering Department had the following comments regarding
the amendments to the 1978 GMP application:
1. The applicant must obtain necessary easements from utility
companies where the project' sconstruction encrouches upon
these easements. The applicant must be responsible for any
._ required rerouting of ' utilities resulting from the use of
the easements. .
2. The parking facil ity, a definite advantage to the amended
application, must be appropriately designed to handle
the difficult grades and the acute angle at the intersection
with S. Galena Street.
In addition to the above comments regarding the GMP amendment,
the Engineering Office made the following comments regarding
conceptual subdivision review of the amended application:
1. The conceptual plan's topographical map indicates an
area in excess of 30% slope in the southeast corner of the
parcel. The site design should clearly indicate how this
area will be graded and/or retained.
2. A multi-family project of this size should incorporate
an easily accessible trash area into the site design.
.'.
Planning Office
Review: The amended appltcation should be rel.,.iewed to determine if
there has been substantial change to the original 1978 applica-
tion. If P & Z finds that there is substantial change, then
the app1i.cation should be rescored in the areas affected by
the amendments. These areas have been identified by the
Planning Office to include 1) parkin9 design and 2) energy.
The other areas'of change, the site design, architecture,
indoor/outdoor pool and increase in floor area do not fall
within a 1918 scoring category.
The Planning Office feels that the proposed amendments to the
1978 GMP application provide a substantial deviation based on
the standards in Section 24-ll.7(b)-(Item 1). The major
changes include the addition of 9 parking spaces and an
underground parking garage to accommodate 26 instead of 10
yehicles. The additional parking spaces have been added to
service additional units the applicant eventually hopes to
.
,-,
1""'\
Memo: 500 S. Galena Street Project
Page Three
December 10, 1981
,
construct through an RBO submission. The buildable area has
been increased from 18,500 square feet to 20,450 square feet
as a result of the larger units proposed. The structure
is now a three story instead of a two story building. There
have been no proposed changes regarding the number of units,
water. sewer and storm drainage f,acilities, fire and ponce
protections. road and public transportation.
. All of the changes provide either an improvement or are of
a nature that they would not have affected the applicant's
score or position relative to other applicants. Attached
are the tally sheets with the scoring for all seven residential
GMP applications for 1978u(Item 2). The 1978 Planning Office
scoring recommend.ations, Planning and Zoning Commission scores
and the Council changes resulting from GMP appeals are all
given. Parking design received 2 points of a possible 3 from
the Planning Office, 2.8 points from P & Z and remained 2.8
after. Council appeals. Energy received 3 points from the
Planning Office. 2.8 points from P ! Z and was increased to
3 points by Counci.l.
The Planning Office recommends that parking be increased to
3 points due to the additional parking spaces and improved
underground parking facility. Energy should remain at 3. No
other scoring categories are affected by.the proposed amend~
ments. Therefore, since the amendments only result in an
increase in points, the applicant's development allocation
should remain and h.is position in relati,on to other appltcants
does not change.
It is important to note .that in 1978, a project had to receive
60% of the total points awarded (39 points) to qualify for a
development allocation. No project besides those awarded an
allocation (Top of Mill - 26 units, Park Central West - 10 units
and 500 S. Galena/925.S. Durant - 29 units) received 60% and
therefore .would not be eligible for an allocation. (Items 3
and 4, P & Z and Council Resolutions)
I
r
I
j;
I
f
1
I
!
,
A copy of all recorded application materials on the seven
projects in the 1978 GMP.competnion will be available at the
p & Z llleeting Frtday, December 11, 1981. Information on
these projects is given in Item.5, the P& Z.minutes on the
1978 GMP scoring.
p & Z gave conceptual approval to the 1978 application for
500 S. Galena. If P & Z approves the amendments to this
application, then the amended application should also be
. given conceptual subdivts ion approva 1.
Planning Office
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend to City COuncil the approval of the amend-
ments to the 1978 GMP application for 500 S. Galena Street as
stated in the application submitted November 2, 1981 as well as
conceptua 1 subdi vi si on approva 1, both subject to the fo 11 owi ng
conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain necessary easements from
utility companies where project construction will
encroach upon these easements. The applicant must be
responSible for any required rerouting of utilities
resulting from the use of the.easements.
2. The parking facility must be appropriately designed to
handle the difficult grades and the acute angle at the
intersection with S. Galena Street.
.
~.
,.....,.
.'
3. The applicant must clearly indicate in the ~ite.de7ign
how the southeast corner of the property WhlCh lS ln
excess of a 30% slope. will be graded and/or retained.
4. An easily accessible trash area must be incorporated
into the site design.
5. Prior to obtaining a'certificate of occupancy, the
applicant must fulfi.1l all obligations that he committed
to in the complete, amended application including, but
not li.mited to the following:
a} The parki.ng plan including 26 underground parking
spaces; . .
.
b} Drainage control facilities including a series of
dry wells, retention wells. and a planted diver-
S ion ber"!; ~
. c} Energy features such as solar collectors for hot
water heating, energy efficient fireplaces,
insulation exceeding regulated standards;
d} Social facilities including a child care center,
recycl ing facil i ties and an i ndoorjoutdoor pool;
e} Site design as shown in the amended application
using a three story straight line configuration
which will maximize solar utilization. .
f) Sidewalks along S. Galena Street;
g} Elevators and stair5 to serve the three stories
from the parking. garage;
h) Site and bui.lding design to permit unobstructed
movement for wheel chair confined or other handi-
capped persons;
i) The twelve employee units at 925 Durant (part of
this joint application) must be deed restricted
to low income housing and a certificate of
occupancy issued prior to obtaining' a certificate
of occupancy on the units at 500 S. Galena.
j) All other ob.ligations established in the complete
amended applicati,on for 500 S. Galena.
k} Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
plans shall be submi,tted to the Planning Offtce
for confi,rmation of their consistency with this
amended GMP application.
6. The applicant recognizes that approval of the GMP
amendment does not signify any acceptance, nor create
any reliance, upon a subsequent RBO on other applica-
tions. However, at the preliminary plat stage. the
applicant: shall submi.t plans with a design anticipating
RBO app,roval and one which works ,without the RBO.
7. App1ica~t. is awar~ o~ the intent to condi,tion approval
on obtalmng a bUlldlng permit to require construction
to star~ as soon as soils allow and to agree to a
completlon schedule which will be determined at the
preliminary plat stage based on the terms found in '
the Uniform Building Code."
~
I
t
t'.
I
,I
.
f""'..
:-'I
MEJ.10R,ANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Alice Davis, Planning Office /
Jay Hammond, Engineering OffiC~
November 27, 1981
500 South Galena Street, GMP Amendment and Exemption
Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
l. Should the applicant wish to record a condominium map
prior to construction, the map included with this application
should be revised to indicate proposed improvements. The
improvements of particular concern to this office include curb
and gutter, sidewalk, on-site parking, and trash access. In
any case, the applicant must record a full condominium plat to
accompany the declaration prior to sale.
2. The conceptual plan, which includes a surveyed topo,
indicates an area in excess of 30% slope in the southeast corner
of the parcel. The site design .should clearly indicate how this
area will be graded and/or retained.
3. The site plan seems to indicate terrace level construction
into existing utility easements. The applicant must be held
responsible for any required rerouting of utilities including
undergrounding of rerouted power, phone, gas, or TV. The
applicant should also be required to obtain permission from each
utility prior to any rerouting or intrusion into existing
easements. The utilities are not obligated to vacate their
easements to accomodate the development plan.
4. One advantage to this proposal is clearly its provision
of underground parking in the congested South Galena/Durant area.
While we endorse such facilities, we would appreciate a clarification
of the somewhat difficult grades and acute angle of intersection
with South Galena Street.
5. A multi-family project of this size should incorporate
an easily accessible trash area into the site design.
"""'""
,-, ,
tIe
-
PUBLIC NonCE
RE: 500 South Galena Street - Amendment to 19-78 Residential GMP Application
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, December 8, 1981 at a meeting
to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Counci.l Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by H.B.C. Investments requesting amendment
to the 500 South Galena Street application which was awarded an allotment for
16 free market residential units and one employee unit in the 1978 Residential
GMP competition. . For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S.
Galena, Aspen, 925-2020,ext. 227.
's/ Olof Hedstrom
Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on November 19, 1981
City of Aspen Account
.
~.
~
aspe
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
November 16, 1981
TO:
Alice Davis ~
<:-"'~\
Paul Taddune';:' ,
FROM:
RE:
500 South Galena Street project - Exemption to
Consider GMP Amendment
Alice,
With respect to amendments of residential GMP amend-
ments, Section 24-11.4(g) provides as follows:
"NO applicant shall, after submiss ion of his appli-
cation pursuant to Section 24-11.4(a), amend, modi-
fy or change his application except in insubstan-
tial part and for purposes of clarification or
technical correcton only."
As you have pointed out, the new ordinances add a sen-
tence to the provision quoted above: "The standards of
Section 24-11.7~~) shall determine whether or not a
change is deemed substantial." Thus, if there is ques-
tion in this respect, you should check the standards of
24-11.7(b). If you have any questions in this regard,
let's sit down and talk about it. I have not checked
the application against the requirements of 24-11.4(b)
or 24-11.7(b), as amended.
PJT:mc
.
1""'\
1""'\
.
H.B.C. Investments
450 S. Galena Street
Suite #202
Aspen, Colorado 81611
November 11, 1981
Ms. Alice Davis
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 500 South Galena Street Project
Dear Al ice:
This letter is written in response to your request for a summary
memo of the current subdivision application as compared to the
1978 G.M.P. application, for purposes of clarification and comparison
to the various agencies that are involved with reviewin9 subdivision
proposals.
On November 2, 1981, we submitted the subdivision application on the
500 South Galena Street Project for review and approval. The location
of the site is Lot 16 and Parcel B, Block 2, Anthony Acres Subdivision,
City of Aspen. This project was approved for the 1978 Residential G.M.P.
allocation as the companion project to the 925 East Durant Employee
Housing Project. The 925 East Durant Employee Housing Project has
received all the necessary approvals, the excavation permit has been
issued, and preliminary construction has begun. Consequently it is now
appropriate that subdivision reviews be made and all necessary approvals
be obtained on the 500 South Galena Project. This project was approved
for, and is now submitted as, sixteen (16) residential multi-family units
and one (1) on-site employee unit. It is also appropriate at this time
to seek G.M.P. exemption for the one (1) on-site employee unit. This
request is made in accordance with Sections 24-11.10 "Employee Housing"
and 24-11.2 (h) "Growth Management Quota System Exceptions". An exception
from the subdivision regulations of the City of Aspen is also requested
pursuant to Section 20-19 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
~
,,-..,
,,-..,
500 South Galena Street Project
In accordance with your request, the following is a comparison
between the 1978 G.M.P. Application upon which an allocation was
granted and the current proposal for the project.
We would like to reiterate that the changes have been necessitated
by changed economic and market conditions and we think you will agree
that the new project is substantially better than the previous one.
While maintaining all of the amenities, certain specific areas of
improvement are site design, underground parking, large indoor/outdoor
swiming pool, improved views for many of the units, and a more efficient
orientation for passive solar implementation. Those qualities enhance
the overall appeal and as a result the design is much more efficient.
The following summary comparison is made for your convenience in
reviewing the changes:
1. Site design: The 1978 G.M.P. Application had the units in an
"L" shaped confi gurati on. Each unit was to be canted 30 degrees.
The plan allowed for only 10 underground parking spaces, with 7 surface
parking spaces. The current site plan has been amended so that the units
set in a straight line configuration. This allows parking to be in-
creased to 26 spaces, all located in the underground parking garage.
The application under review now contains an indoor/outdoor swimming
pool, an amenity the earlier application did not have.
2. Unit design: The 1978 G.M.P. application used one elevator to
service all the units via a common hallway. The amended design uses
four elevators, each servicing only 3 to 5 units. Some of the units
are slightly larger than originally anticipated. Thirteen units have
1310 sq.ft., while three units have 1140 sq.ft.. The G.M.P. application
q
f"""'.
f"""'.
500 South Galena Street Project
, ,
'I
~
/
,
Paragraph 2 contd.
stated the units would be 1000 to 1200 sq.ft. each. The employee
unit is also larger than anticipated at that time, now having over
800 sq.ft., as opposed to the 600 sq.ft. previously stated. The number
and type of units are the same in both applications.
The effect of these design changes upon the review criteria contained
in the G.M.P. is as follows below:
Public Services
a.) Water System - Both applications are for the same number and
type of units. The 300 fixture unit count converting to 80 G.M.P.
remains the same. The project is thus still easily serviced by the
6" C. LP. water main located on Galena Street adjacent to the project
site. Improvements in the system since that time (i.e. additional water
storage tanks and Aspen Mountain interconnect system) assure the ability
of the system to provide for substantial additional development in the
area should it ever occur.
b.) Sewer System - The project site is still served by an existing
8" sewer line that extends up Galena Street and is also located adjacent
to the project site. New facilities have also been constructed since
the earlier application that would allow for some increased development
in this area.
c.) Storm Drainage - The drainage control system will still collect
and retain all site runoff with on-site drainage facilities. As in the
1978 application, the current project had a series of dry wells and
retention wells to sufficiently retain and disperse surface site and
roof water runoff.
.
~
t""',
500 South Galena Street Project
d. )
have
time
Fire Protection - As neither
relocated, the distance to all
remains the same.
the fire department nor the site
hydrants, fire station and response
e.) Parking Design - A major improvement over the 1978 application,
the current project allows for all parking to be located underground.
An increase in the number of parking spaces has also been provided,
to 26 spaces. The prior application called for only 17 spaces, of which
only 10 were underground.
f.) Roads - As the number of units, the type of units, and density
remain the same, so do the results of the transportation studies
included in the 1978 G.M.P. application.
g.) Energy - As mentioned earlier, the project will use solar collectors
for domestic hot water heating as well as electric energy. Exact placement
and quantity of roof-top collectors is to be determined. Efficient fire-
place design will use double damper control, exterior combustion air,
glazed fire opening and heat return duction.
Significantly exceeding regulatory thermal standards, exterior walls
will be insulated to R-26, roof composites toR-42, floor composite
to R-20, foundation perimeters to R.14. Exterior wall exposure is
further minimized over the 1978 G.M.P. by eliminating the "L" shape
and maximizing common wall area.
Social Facilities and Services
a.) Public Transportation - The project is still located 350 feet
from the Durant Avenue bus route and the Rubey Park Transit Station.
, ..
f"""'.
..-"
500 South Galena Street Project
Social facilities and services contd.
b.) Police Protection - The response time, location from City
Hall, are the same as in 1978, and do not require any additional
police personnel or equipment to provide normal protective services
to the project.
c.) Child Care Facility - As mentioned previously, a child care
facility will be provided on the terrace floor of the project.
d.) Bicycle/Pedestrian Paths - The project is located about 450 feet
from the Galena Street pedestrian mall. The project will also provide
sidewalks (and curb and gutters) along the South Galena Street perimeter
of the project.
e.) Recycling Facility - Such facility will be located by the south
entryway ramp to the parking area on the terrace floor.
f.) Handicapped Features - The site and building design of the
current project insures unobstructed movement from any location in the
parking garage to every condominium unit. This ,is accomplished by
means of a hydraulic elevator and path surfaces which will not exceed
a slope of 1:15.
g.) Proximity to Commercial Support Facilities - The project is
located 1/2 block from the CC Zone and about 450 feet from the Galena
Street Mall.
Respectfully submitted,
H.B.C. Investments
~#7~
Mark A. Danielsen
MAD ~l jb
qt
t'4~
I :)
--
-:f1
v '-
~~
~
,-.
..
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Fi le
FROM: Alice Davis, Planner
RE: Time Schedule for 500 S. Galena
DATE: November 9, 1981
As has bee~ discussed with Mark Danielson of HBC Investments, the following is
the proposed time table for the processing of the application for the 500 S.
Galena project. This schedule shows the greatest expedience possible by the
Planning Office in order to provide ,the utmost cooperation in allowing HBC
Investments to meet their February 1, 1982 deadline for obtaining a building
permit for the project. If this deadline is not met, the GMP allocation of
16 free. market units and 1 employee management unit will be forfeited by HBC
Investments unless further action by Council extends the deadline. It should
be noted that this is a very tight time schedule and can only be met if there
are no decisi.on delays by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council
or delays in necessary submissions by HaC Investments..
Nov. 9-Dec. ], 1981: Planning Office review to determine effects of amendments
to the 1978 GMP application.
Dec. 8, 1981:
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and public hearing.
The Commission will consider the amendments to the 1978
GMP application and will give conc_e-p_tua) review to the
amended application as part of the subdivision process.
The Commission must rescore the 1978 GMP application and
make reccmmendations to Council regarding (1) the 1978
,GMP allocation and (2} any new conditions resulting from
the review.
Dec. 14, 1981:
City Council meeting to review the P & Z recommendati ons
regarding the amendments to the 1978 GMP application..
Council will hold c'onceptual subdivision review on the
reYlsed application.
Dec. 15, 1981:
"
SubmissiOn of the prel i.minary plat must be made in order
to have the plat reviewed at the January 19th P & Z
meeting.
Dec. 15, 1981-
Jan. 18, 1982;
Planning Office review of preliminary plat; 30 day
period for referrals to necessary departments and 15 days
notfce for the January 25, 1982 public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commissi.on meeting and public hearing
for preliminary plat subdivision review.
Submission of the final plat must be made in order to have
the plat reviewed at the January 25th City Council
meet~ng.
Cityi Council meeting on final plat subdi.vision review-.
All necessary agreements should be completed at thi,s time.
Jan. 19, 19.82:
Jan. 20, 1982: .
Jan. 25, 1982:
..
,,,,,",",,
,-"
-.j,'/e
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Engineering Department
Fire Marshal/Building Department
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: 500 South Galena Street Project - Exemption to Consider GMP Amendment
DATE: November 5, 1981
Attached is an application submitted by H.B.C. Investments amending their 1978
Residential GMP project for 500 South Galena Street. Since this is an
amendment to a GMP application, there will be a Public Hearing to review
the changes at the conceptual stage before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, Tuesday, Dec. 8, 1981. Please review the plans and send comments
to the Planning Office by WednesdaY, November 25. Thank You!
Q4
\\,1 ~
e.xpllcrt ; O~ of
I
0\
(ufroV'\
--------
!
(',
;i'i,1
i
,'-"
."'.,-- !:
1978 GIMJTI! f~Ni/\fj[}lLNT HEe; WLNT lAL
TALL Y SI:EETS
Project Name:_--I2P. of Mill (26 _un-i!2J
.
A. Public Facilities
Planning
Office
P & Z
Council
1. Water Service
2. Sewer Service
1.:_ Storm Dra~iJ:!.i!.ge
4. Fire Protection
5. Parking Design
6. Roads
7 . Enersy
BONU S
3
.L____
3
1
8
3
3
3
..-----
1.2
3
2
3
3
3
2
B. Social Facilities and Services
1. Public
----Transportation
2. Police Protection
3. Chi ldcare
Facilities
4. Bicycle Paths
5. ReC'JI.cl ing" Facil itie.?
6. Handicapped Design
Features
7. Commercial Support
Proximi ty
2
1
1.6
1.4
1---;------
-t---i----
~. J -~.6-1----
:---t::+~
2
C.
BONUS 1
Housing
1. Middle 0 0
--
2. Modet'ate 4 4 --
3. LOvl 12 12 -
BONUS 1.2 ---
TOTAL POINTS WITHOUT BONUS 42 ._- 44.8 44,8 .. sa
-
TOTAL POINTS WITH BONUS 42 _.~ _____...!$_ _ 0
me
.
,
.,...,
~
197U GIW"iTII ~1ANN)Cf1ENT j([S lDENTIAL
TALLY SIIEETS
Project Name: Park Central West (10 units) .
,
. Planning P & Z Council
Office
Public Faci 1 ities
,]. Water Service 3 3
2. Sewer Serv i ce 3 3
3, Storm DI^B i nage . 3 3
4. Fire Protection 3 3
.
5. Parking Design ;J 2.8
3 -
6. ' Roads 2.8
3 ..
7 Ener9L. 2.8'
-- --
BONUS 2.2
Social Facilities and Services .
L Public
Transportation 2 1.8
P . , ~.
2. Police rotectlon 1 1.2
3. Childcare 1 0,8
Facilities .
4. Bicycle Paths 1 1.0
-"
5. Recycling Facil ities 0 1.4
..
6. 'Handicapped Design 1 2.0
Features
7. Commercial Support 2 2.0
Proximity
BONU S 0.8
Housing
1. Middle 0 0
2. Moderate 0 0
3. Low 6 9
. ..
BONUS Ij
TOTAL POINTS WITHOUT BONUS 35 39,.6 39,8
TOU,L POINTS WITH BONUS 35 42.6_1
A.
B.
C.
.
~
"""'
19/8 Gl<OWlil ~1i\il^GI}1LNT R[~IIlENTlAL
TA:"L Y SHEETS
Project Name:
A.
.
Public Facilities
500 S,..Galena/925 Durant (29 units)
Planning
Office
P & Z
Counci 1
~~.~er Service
2. Sewer Service
L..ltorm [)ra i~~
4. Fire Protection
., 5. Park i!l9 Des i gn
6. Roads
.;'7. Ener9.Y.
2
1
3
2
2
3
3
1.8 _
_2~EL-__ 3.0
2.2
2.4
2.8
2.8 l...La
B.
- ~- -- ._-
BONUS -~I~- 0.8
-----.
Soci a 1 Faci1 iti es and Services
'/' Public
Transpot:'tation 1 1 '--
2. Police Protection 1 1.2
. .
3. Chi1dcare 1 1.4 2.0
Faci1 iti es
. .--
4. Bicycle Paths 1 1.4
-
5. Recyc 1 i ng Facil ities 1 .1.6 2.0
6. :'landi capped Design 1 1.8 I 2.0
Features
7. Commercial Support 1 1.4
_ Pro0.imiJ:{ - -- ~
BONUS 0.6
Housing [-~
1. Middle 0 0
-
2. Modera te 0 0
3. Low 12 12
-----
BONUS 1
-
TOTAL POINTS WITHOUT BONUS 35 . 38.0 39.6 ,+0,
.-
TOTAL POINTS WITH P,ONUS 35 40.4
.-- ,
L
C.
.
. .
'.
,-"
.~
1 'Jjg GIW,illl r,l/INN>EHun RESIDLNT lAl
TALL Y SIIEtTS
Project Name: Ulrych (6 stu~iosL
A.
,
Planning P & Z Council
Gffi. ce .
Public Facilities
1. Hater Service . 3 3.0
-
2. Sewer Service 1 1.0 2.0
. -
3. Storm Dra i nage - 3 2.8 3.0
--
4. Fi re Protecti on 3 3.0
5. Parking Design . 2- 2.2
6. Roads 3 2.8 I 3.0
- --
7. Energy 3' 3.0
BONUS 1.2
Soci a 1 Facilities and Services .
1. Public
Transportation 2 1.8 .
2. Police Protection 1 l~
3. Childcare 1
Facil ities 1.0
j~Bicycle Paths ] 1.0 3
~Recycling Facilities 1 1.2
-
6. Handicapped Design ] 0.8 1.0
Features
-
7. Commercia] Support 1 1.6 2.0
Proximi ty --.--
BONUS 0.8
.
Housing
1. Middle 0 0
2. Nodera te . 10 10
3. Low 0 0
BONUS 0.4
TOTAL POINTS WITHOUT BONUS 36 36.8 38.8
TOTAL POINTS WITH BONUS 36 39.2 J
B.
C.
.
,...,
,-,
1978 GI((JHTII 11i\NN;etmn I,ESIIJUnlAL
TALLY SIIEETS
ProjE'ct N~me: Goodnough (9 uni!2.L
A.
Planning I p & Z Counci 1
Office
PubllC Facil ities (Not Available)
1. Hater Service 1.8
-
2. Sewer Service 1.6
-
3. Storm Drainage . 3.0
.- -
4. Fire Protection 2.6
-
5. ParkiflS! Desi~ . 2.4
r=
B.
6. Roads 2.2 2.5
L-I~. . Bo' 2.5
BONUS 0.8
----
Social Facilities and Services .
L Public
Transportation . 2.0
" -
2. Police Protection 1.0
3. Childcare 1.0
Facilities -
L..B.i cyc 1 e Paths 1.2 1.6
5. Rec:icl iJ29 Facil iti es 1.6 2.0
, ...
6. 'Handi capped Des i gn
Features
7. Commercial Support
Proximi ty
I
~
L
1.0
1.1}
C.
, --
BONUS 0:2
--- I--
Housing
1. Middle 0
2. Modera te 10
3. Low . 0
BONUS 0
TOTAL POINTS viITHOUT BONUS 35.4 37.2
TOTAL POINTS WITH BONUS 36.2
.
,:-"
"""
1978 CI((MlII t1/\N!\CL~1l:Nr I([S WENTI!\L
TALLY SIIEETS
Project Name:
Van Hi)rn.Jl.? units)
1. Water Service
2. Sewer Service
~Storm Drainage
4. Fire Protection
5. Parking Design
6. Roads
7. EnerjJL- j
BONU S
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2.4
1.4
1.6
1.6-
2.2 I
1.4 L
1+-_+_ .
O~______~
r Council
I 3.0
2_0
2.0
Plan~ing P & Z
Offi ce
A. Public Facilities
B. Social Facilities and Services
C.
L Public
TransQ.9rtati on 0 I 1.0
2. Police Protection 1 1.0
. --
3. Childcare 1 0.8 1.0
Faci 1 iti es
4. Bicycle Paths 0 1.2 2,0
Ll'~ec~ling Facllities 0 0.8 1. 0 '
6. Handicapped Design 1 0.8 I 1.0
Features
7. Commercial Support 1 1.0 I
ProximitL-
BONUS 0.2
Housing
1. r1iadl e 0 0
-.
2. Moderate 0 0
3. Low 12 12
BONUS 0
TOTAL POINTS WITHOUT BONUS 25 31.2 33
TOTAL POINTS WITH BONUS 25 32.3
.
(.,: .
:--
, '
,.-."
197e GRlJ\JTII 11fIN1IGU'lUn RLSlDUHIAL
TriLL Y SHEETS
Project NarrlC:
COOP(~Y' and Oriqinal (7 units)
A.
Planning f. P & Z Council
. Office ,
Public Facilities I
1. Water Service 1 I 1.4
2, Sewer Servi ce 1 1.2 2.0
3_ Stann Drainage . 2 2,2
_.
4. Fire Protection 1 1.0
5. Parking Design 3 2.8
-"
r Roads . 2 2.4
o.
7. E~ , 3 2.8' 3.0
BONUS i 1.0
Social Facil ities and Services
1- Public I
Transpol'tati on 2 . 1.8
2. Police Protection . 1 1.0
Childcare .
3. 1
Facil ities 0.8
4. Bicycle Paths 1 1.2
~ Recycling Faci 1 it'j es 0 1.0
V' , -
6. Handicapped Design 1
Features 1.2
7. Commercial Support 1 1.8 2.0
Proximity 1
BONUS 2.0
.
Housing
1. Middle 0 10 -2.0
2. Modera te 0 0
3. Low 0 . 0
BONUS 0
TOTAL POINTS WITHOUT BONUS 20 24.6 24.0
TOTAL POINTS WITH BONUS 25.2
.
B.
C.
"..
Item 5 - P +-1""\ III j n~f.ej
.,.-"
,""~
. ?"'-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
FOIIM \0 C. F. H~fr.~n B..B. Ii i.. <;'1.
Special l1eeting
Aspen Planning and Zoning'
March 14, 1978
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a special meeting on !larch 1-l,
1973, at 5:00 I'll in 'the City Council.Chan)bers. Members present were Chic
Collins, John Schuhmacher, Frank Baranko, Welton Anderson, Donald Ensign, and
Joan IGar. Also present were Bill I;ane, Karen Smith, John Stanford and Joe
Hells of the Planning Office; City Attorney, Dorothy Nuttall; Tom Jones of
the Engineering Office; Jim Harkalunas of the Water Department.
."
This is a public hearing for developers to make presenta-
tions on their applications in accordance with the Growth
Management Plan as adopted in Ordinance 48 of 1977. The
Planning Office has given their recommendations for scores
to be received by each application and the Planning and
Zoning Commission will score each application, compile
and average the scores and determine which applications
meet the requirer,lents and quotas of the ordinance. The
order of business will be a short presentation by Bill
Kane, each applicant will be given ten minutes to ,strength-
en and clarify their application, a 45 minute dinner break,
and the final scoring session.
!.-
,
Kane said they were considering n~ne applications under
two sections of the Growth Hanagement Plan. There are
provisions in the ordinance for 54 residential units and
3G lodging units ,,,ith certain exemptions for employee
housing. The final determination will result in a resolu-
tion from p&z to the City Council on their findings.
There are 7 residential applications for a total of 99 .,.
units. Kane asked that they be presented in alphabetical
order. Be shovledon,a map each application's location.
The seven applicatiq.t~p' in. order of presentation are:
.....:.:..,,:,:.,:... . . '. .
Andre Ulrych, Cooper and Or~g~nal, 500 S. Galena and
925 Durant, Goodnough, Park Central vlest, Top of Hill,
and Van Horn. Kane asked that they speak directly and
precisely toward the criteria in the ordinance as the
Board members have had ample tim~ to review the applica-
tions. There are two applications for lodging units
which are in order: Aspen Inn and the Hountain Chalet.
Kane submitted for the record one cfi1e.cfoL.each,applicant
with the original application, the Planning Office recom-
mendations, referral agencies' co~ments, and relevant
memos. If, the applicant has appeals, they are to be made
to the City Council.
. Andre Ulrych ,
This project is located on Hopkins Street. There are six
studio units proposed. He felt his small project is being
penalized for its location and size. Because of the
existing roads, it would be impossible for him to provide
a bike path. The Planning Office reconwendation gave him
one out of two possible points for commercial support, yet
it is located two blocks from City Harket and the downtovm
area. He cannot provide underground parking, child care
facilities, recycling and handicapped .faci1ities with ,this
small a project.
Klar asked if U1rych's employees would be using these units.
U1rych said that they would have'first choice. Stanford
clarified that the Planning. Office score was incriOlased one
point for handicapped facilities. 'rhis applies to all the
application.
Cooper & Original Jack J~nkins gave the presentation. He asked that their
score for water be raised because although f1arka1unas from
the Water Deparb~ent said there was a problem, it could be
resolved. This also applies to the sewer system. The
storm drainage will be a dry well.
",
.~ ,~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
ftll!M In C, r. 1lf!!'~Kfl. n. 8. It I.. e"l,
Special NeetJ.ng
Aspen Planning and Zoning
!<larch 14, 1"978
Van Horn
Russell Pielstick gave the presentation. He submitted a
document for the record. lie noted that there was som,-,
misunderstandinq with the original application. This is
a land subdivision. ' They will supply an 8" water line.
Markalunas supported this upgrade. There are manholes
on' site for the sewer system. l'he storm drainage will
be arranged with the City Engineer's approval. There
are hydrants existing for fire protection. He had no
comment on parking. The result of various meetings on
the road access is they are. to supply a 22' paved surface
and a 30' total easement. It has taken 3 years to obtain
the necessary easements. They have no plans for energy~
They are beyond the determined distance for points under
transportation. There is access from two sides for
police protection. They will not provide child care.
The bike path is near this property. Recycling will not
be provided. Handicapped facilities will be only what
is required in the UBC; They are within walking distance
to the commercial district. The applicant is asking for
an R-15 PUD. They have reduced their original application
from six lots to five lots. The Planning Office had
recommended that the access easement not be included in
the property to insure that the road remain a private
road. The applicant cannot list a price range of the
lots since the development costs have not yet been deter-
mined. They estimate they will be $70,000 plus. Each
lot will have a single family residence with a caretaker
unit within. The caretaker unit would be by written
agreement with the housing authority. He noted that his
application was at a disadvantage since it is a land
subdivision and they cannot achieve points in areas that
other applications can.
.....<
r'..'
Baranko asked if the recent amendment, Ordinance 4, 1978,
was adopted to address such applications. Kane said yes.
Schuhmacher asked if there are still c0I:1p1ications due
to zoning and subdivision regulations as noted in the
Planning Office memo of February 22, 1978. Stanford said
his problem with zoning was that the lot lines extended
to the center of the road. Ellis' note is that if the
road remains private, .this is possible. Schuhmacher asked
if there were subdivision requirements that have not been
met. Jones said the engineering concerns with access were
on Riverside Avenue. Stanford said another concern was
that trail easements were not shown on the plat. Stanford
said they do intend to dedicate this and that it appears
on a separate map.
Aspen Inn
The next two applications are lodge applications.
Andy Hecht made the presentation. He noted that the
Planning Office concern that a water storage facility
be built will soon be a reality. He said the existing
sewer facilities 'viII be utilized. He noted an amendment
from the Planning Office showing that they have complied
on storm drainage facilities. He feels they qualify for
three points on fire protection; They have eliminated
all concerns from the Planning Office on roads. They
qualify for six points on public transportation :based
on the calculations. He deferred to the Chief of Police
on police protection. They are close to the commercial
district but do not improve the existing level of service.
He deferred to Joe Hells on architectural design. They
have obstructed no views, the materials are similar to
'.
,.....,
.,-,
Speci'al Meeting
!-larch 14, 1978
.;,'
, ,
Mountain Chalet
Scoring
.
Andre U1rych
Aspen Planning and Zoning
surrounding structures, the building mass is reduced by the
use of wings, and the building is setback. The have satis-
fied the requirements of the Planning Office on site design
by acquiring the lands adjacent to the site. They are pro-
viding 7500 sq.ft. more than the required open space in the
form of a courtyard. The utilities and parking are under-
ground. ;rhere is a .ski-in traiL He noted that they are
25-30% above the code requirements for fuel conservatibn.
He disagreed with the Planning Office co~~ent that the
amenities will prevent ski and pedestrian access. They
intend .to dedicate a ski-in trail amounting to one city
lot of land to the City. People may use this trail as
easier access to Lift I-A. He feels they should attain the
maximum points for amenities for providing usable public
open space. They have not disturbed any public views under
visual impact. There is 14;000 sq.ft on the main floor
devoted to public use. There is a restaurant, lobby, health
facilities, lounge, separate conference facilitywhich.would
be available for non-profit public use at cost. The health
facility has sauna, steam, massage, whirlpool, and locker-
rooms. There is a landscaped courtyard with outdoor activi-
ties, dining and swimming. They have reduced the tourist
rental space. They supply over 75% of the employees with
housing on site. They comply with auto disincentive to the
maximqm. He noted that under factors that were controllable
they have achieved the maximum n~ber of points.
K1ar asked if the easements had been acquired for the cir-
culation improvements. Wells said they have been acquired.
There was no representative from the Mountain Chalet, there
was no presentation given.
Collins asked for final comments from the various referral
agencies.
Markalunas clarified that the one million gallon storage
tank on the Aspen Inn application is not yet a reality.
He noted that the contract has been awarded and there may
be some problems during construction but that they foresee
no problems.
Jones noted that on the Cooper and Original project, their
problem with storm drainage is not the dry wells, but the
fact that the site is lower than the street, making the
sizing and placement of the drywel1s difficult.
The Board recessed for a45 minute dinner break.
The Board reconvened at 8:00 PM for the scoring session.
Donald Ensign stepped down for the scoring because of a
conflict of interest.
The Board scored one application at a time in the order of
presentation. The scores were as follows:
Chic Collins; 39 total, 2 bonus, 42 with bonus
Frank Baranko; 35 total, 5 bonus, 40 with bonus
Welton Anderson; 35 total, 1 bonus, 36 with bonus
John Schuhmacher; 35 total, no bonus, 35 with bonus
Joan K1ar; 40 total, 3 bonus, 43 with bonus
Average total; 36.8 without bonus, 39.2 with bonus.
""
"
"
nR"II'.~ C. F. HI>relfn. B. B. It l. C~.
,~ ,..-,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leave.s
Special Ueeting
Aspen Planning and Zoning
!-larch 1-1, 1978
Cooper & Original Collins; 22 total, 1 bonus, 23 with bonus
Baranko; 32 total, 1 bonus, 33 with bonus
'Anderson; 24 total, 1 bonus, 25 with bonus
Schuhmacher; 22 total, no bonus, 22 with bonus
Klar; 23 total, no bonus, 23 with bonus
500 S. Galena
925 Durant
i
.'.-
Goodnough
Apartments
Park Central
West
Top of Mill
Van Horn
Average total; 24.6 without bonus, 25.2 with bonus.
Collins; 39 total, 4 bonus, ~3 with bonus
Baranko; 29 total, no bonus, 29 with bonus
Anderson; 43 total, 6 bonus, 49 with bonus
Schuhmacher; 39 total, no bonus, 39 with bonus
K1ar; 40 total, 1 bonus, 41 with bonus
Average total; 38.0 without bonus, 40.4 with bonus.
Collins; 35 total, no bonus, 35 with bonus
Baranko; 34 total, 2 bonus, 36 with bonus
Anderson; 38 total, 1 bonus, 39 with bonus
Schuhmacher; 35 total 1 bonus, 36 with bonus
K1ar; 34 total, 1 bonus, 35 with bonus
Average total; 35.4 without bonus, 36.2 with bonus.
COllins; 39 total, 5 bonus, 44 with bonus
Baranko; 37 total, 4 bonus, 41 with bonus
Anderson; 40 total, 2 bonus, 42 with bonus
Schuhmacher; 42 total, 2 bonus, 44 with bonus
K1ar; 40 total, 2 bonus, 42 with bonus
Average total; 39.6 without bonus, 42.6 with bonus.
Collins; 43 total, 5 bonus, 48 with bonus
Baranko; 42 total, 4 bonus, 46 with bonus
Anderson; 48 total, 6 bonus, 54 with bonus
Schuhmacher; 43 total, 4 bonus, 47 with bonus
K1ar; 48 total, 2 bonus, 50 with bonus
Average total; 44.8 without bonus, 49.0 with bonus.
y~
,
Collins; 35 total, 0 bonus, 35 with bonus
Baranko; 32 total, 2 bonus, 34 with bonus
Anderson; 33 total, 4 bonus, 37 with bonus
Schuhmacher; 30 total, 0 bonus, 30 with bonus
K1ar; 26 total, 0 bonus, 26 with bonus
Average total; 31.2 without bonus, 32.2 with bonus.
,
~'....
"
/-,'--''''''''-'-
/""""
.~
Special Neeting
Harch 14, 1973
"..'
500 S. Galena,
925 Durant
Aspen Planning and Zoning
They received two out of a possible three points for roads
but noted that the traffic on Cooper is City Market, etc,
traffic, not that generated from this project as they have
pro~ided more than adequate off-street parking. He ques-
tioned their score on police protection because of their
proximity to the police station and downtown district,
complete lighting surrounding the building, accessability
,from the alley and streets, etc. Be questioned the need
for child care facilities. He questioned their score of
one out of two points on bike paths when they are located
on a bike path. He misinterpreted the recycling facilities
to mean where they were from their location. He noted that
three of the seven units are at ground level for handicap-
ped facilities. He noted that they are within two blocks
to almost all necessary facilities and questioned their
score of one out of two commercial suppport points. They
cannot provide any employee housing. '
Chuck Brandt felt there are alot of inequities when they
have to compare their project with other dissimilar appli-
cations. He felt it unfair for applicants in the L-2 zone
to compete with applicants in the residential zone. He
also felt it unfair for'an applicant to have separate sites
for their project. He noted that they would be willing
to sell two or three units at fair market rates, the re-
maining units to be rented at employee housing standards
for four or five years. He gave his notes for the record.
Larry Yaw gave the presentation. He submitted a memo for
the record. The project is a total of 29 units; 16 at
500 S. Galena, free market units and one employee manager
unit, and the 12 remaining units as low income studio units
at 925 Durant. At 500 S. Galena, they have maximized the
open space. They have used only 85% of the possible FAR,
925 Durant uses only 60%. The Galena Street project is
served by a six inch water line with two adjacent hydrants.
Markalunas foresees no deficiencies. The sewer line is
eight inches and Markalunas foresees no problems there.
As far as fire protection, there is access on three sides,
it is a completely sprinklered structure, and they are
providing another hydrant., The majority of parking is
underground with the rest landscaped with berms. They are
300 feet from the Rubey Park station. Police protection;
there is access from three sides and they are less than
one minute response away from the station. They will also
provide a private security service. Child care is pro-
vided. They are near the city bike routes. Recyclingis
provided.' They are providing ramps, etc, so there is
wheelchair access to every unit from every parking space.
They are 1/2 block from the commercial core for com~er-
cia1 support.
;'
At 925 Durant, the architectural prototype is the Cooper
Street Lodge, which has just been given national recogni-
tion for its architecture. They will be targeted toward
the Low Income Employee ($4000-$7000/yr.). It would house
24 employees. The units are 425 sq.ft. and the occupants
would pay approximately $100/mo.if they share the units.
They intend to construct these units before they build the
units at 500 S. Galena. The water is served by a 6" main,
the sewer from an 8" main, both adjacent to the project.
Marka1unas sees no deficiencies in either'. Storage drain-
age is handled on-site. Pqrking is provided with access
from the alley. Fire protection; there is access from two
sides and two adjacent hydrants. The structure is complete
ly sprink1ered. RoadancLbike path access is good. Studio
units generatEl.less peop1e;-~n,ergy conservation WaS maxi-
mized through south facingruni~S, insulation, flat rooves
minimal e(C'ferior walls, e1ec~i'.ic heat and timed reostats.
\~-J
.,,- . ~,.~.,.,
"1
'.
".L~
~OIlM. '.~ c.. r. Hl)rtJ(fl. II. II. IIr l. C'l.
^ ,-"
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Special Heeting
Marcil 14, 1:l/P;- ~
.
\-,
Goodnough
Apartments
Aspen Plannlng anu Zonlng
They are 350 feet from the bus stop, 1 1/2 minute walk.
Child care is provided. 'l'hey are linked to the sidewalk
system and'650 feet from the Ute Avenue Trail and 450 feet
from Glory Hole Park. Recycling is provided. Six of the ,/
twelve units are at ground level for handicapped facilities
They are 1 1/2 blocks from City ~1arket; lie asked that the
Board consider bonus points for this project.
Collins asked ho~' they would provide child care. Ya", said
they provided the state required space for child care.
Baranko asked why they combined these two locations. Yaw
said it was primarily to provide employee housing.
Schuhmacher asked ,how they would provide recycling facili-
ties. Yaw said there would be four bins on the premises
one for glass, tin, aluminum and paper, which would be
picked up by truck on a regular basis.
Lenny Oates made the presentation. He felt they should
have more points on water service. He noted that there
is an eight inch line for sewer service and felt they
should have more points there also. He said that there
was no mention in the original application that the park-
ing lot will be paved. They feel they should receive more
points for the roads. They are close to the bus system
and feel they should have more points awarded there. He
noted that he does not understand the Chief of police's
comments on Police Protection. He noted a report to the
Planning Office that said that there would be no impact
on the community and no nee~ for additional child care.
The bike path is 'close in proximity and they feel they
are entitled to an increase there. They will build to
Uniform Building Code specifications and feel that addi-"
tional handicapped facilities are not necessary. There
are three ground level units accessible by the parking lot.
They 1 1/2 blocks from City Market and 4 1/2 blocks from
the Mall. They feel they should have more points for
commercial support. They will sell the top three units
at market value under a covenant requiring the owner to
lease with the six month minimum lease restriction and
two week exception. The lower units will be used for
Moderate housing. They feel they are entitled to four
points for that section. 'He encouraged the Board to util-
ize their ability to grant 20% over the quota for employee
housing. They asked that bonus points be granted. He
noted that one unit would be used for a managers unit. .
He questioned the validity of applications that have
separate sites. He also had a problem with L-2 housing
competing with ~lF housing. He questioned whether they
could apply the 6 month restriction to L-2 units. He
felt that they should receive credit for tte two existing
units that would be removed. He asked that bonus points
be awarded for the manager's unit. He noted that their
passive solar' system received no points.
Klar asked what their passive solar system is. Miller said
they have off-set the houses to receive south facing sun.
,
Park Central West Al NichOlson, developer for Park Central West, made the
presentation. lIe noted that they would provide recycling
bins which was not noted on their original application.
He noted that the UBC does not require handicapped facili-
ties be provided in this project. It applies to 3-story
or office space provide such facilities. Three units
will be on ground level and accessible. He feels they
'"
/
~
~
Special Meeting
ASpen Planning and Zoning
March 14, 19-
should receive more points for this. There is a total of
10 units; 7 market units and 3 low cost employee housing
units and 2700 feet of office space. It is located at the
corner of Aspen and Hyman. The structure will be setback
and'low to retain the viewplane. There will be solar
heating for the domestic water but not for space heating.
The materials will be briCk, shingle roof and cedar siding,
He noted that there will be no potential for additional
buildout. He noted that they are providing recycyling
facilities.
Baranko asked about the UBC requirements on handicapped
facilities. Nuttall said that there are standards one
must meet to obtain a building permit. They may be ex-
ceeded but only the base requirements are necessary.
Nicholson said he is providing handicapped access to two
levels and three living units.
,"
Chuck Brandt asked the status of bonus points. Kane said
the original recommendation was to drop bonus points all
together but P&Z had decided to retain them and have
strict guidelines on their application.
Top of Hill
Larry Yaw gave the presentation. They are proposing 26
units; 10 free market units ,and 16 low income employee
units. They are using 63% of their possible FAR. They
have maximized the solar properties, privacy, etc, while
minimizing the visual impact. The structure is two levels
using wood, stone, and expose~ beams. He noted that they
will be connecting ~lill and' Monarch St. which ",ill improve
the access in the area. There is a new 8" water line be-
tween Mill and Monarch Street which upgrades the pressure
and dependability of the lines. The sewer is an 8" line,
the storm drainage is handled on site. The fire system
has been upgraded with the new water line .and a new hy-
drant. There is access on two sides and the structure
is completely sprinklered. The parking is completely
underground. There will be snowmelt used at the entrance.
They are connecting Mill and Monarch Street which will
upgrade the Bus system access in the area. Theyhave
added a bus stop on the corner. Police protection; they
have access on two. sides and the loop will improve such
access. Child care is provided. Bike paths are inproved
with this extension. Recycling is provided. Handicapped
facilities are provided by ramps and elevators such that
there is wheelchair access to all units. They are 3 1/2
blocks from the CC Zone. ,The employee housing is geared
toward the low income employee {$4,000 - $7,000/yr.).
The studios are 360 sq.ft. There is parking, laundry
facilities, storage, and individual balconies with solar
Orientation. This project could feasibly house 24 em~~
p10yees at a rent of $175/mo. They intend to build the
employee units before they build the free market units.
He asked the Board to consider bonus points for this proj-
ect. He also asked that P&Z recommend to Council that all
projects that have low income employee housing be approved
this year.
.
Baranko asked if they intend to submit to rent controls
and if so, how. Yaw said they are far below rent controls
and they would be willing to offer this project to the
City to manage through the housing authority. 'Kane asked
if they intend to construct the road connection. Yaw said
they will provide the ROWand construct the utilities.
They will comply with the subdivision requirements on this.
"
"
)
"
!
.
r-...
r-...
Special Meeting
March 14, 1978
Aspen Inn
Mountain Chalet
'*!
.
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Collins; 52 total, 4 bonus, 56 with bonus
Baranko; 44 total, 0 bonus, 44 with bonus
Anderson; 50 total, 0 bonus, 50 with bonus
Schuhmacher; 47 total, 0 bonus, 47 with bonus
Klar; 50 total, 6 bonus, 56 with bonus
Average total; 48.6 without bonus, 50.6 with bonus.
Collins; 44 total, 2 bonus, 46 with bonus
Baranko; 43 total, 0 bonus, 43 with bonus
Anderson; 34 total, 0 bonus, 34 with bonus
Schuhmacher; 43 total, 0 bonus, 43 with bonus
Klar; 39 total, 0 bonus, 39 with bonus
Average total; 40.6 without bonus, 41 with bonus.
A file with the individual member's scores on each appli-
cation is available to the public in the City Clerk's'
office.
Kane read the order of apprQval for residential as follows
Top .of Mill
Park Central West
500 S. Galena, 925 Durant
Andre U;Lrych
Goodnough
Van Horn
Cooper & Original
The order of approval for the lodge application was:
Aspen Inn
~lountain Chalet
Kane noted six problems that the Planning Office has seen
with this first implementation of the Growth Management
Plan. He suggested discussion at another meeting. They
are as follows. An application must have 60% of the total
points to be approved. Under that regulation, only two
projects would be approved at this time. There is a pro-
vision in the ordinance for a 20% boost in thecquota for
residential units. A question was raised in the calcula-
tion of possible units, what should be done with existing
units that would be removed. He also addressed the prob-
lem of applications with split sites. There is a 33%
bonus in the lodging quota. There is also a question of
exemption in the lodging units containing employee units.
Kane noted that he was not suggesting that the application,
be rescored but that specific problems be resolved.
Collins asked that the Planning Office submit a memo con-
cerning these issues at the next regular meeting along
with a tabulation and summary of the figures.
Bill Dunaway of the Aspen Times asked
total 58 points in the lodging quota.
60% of 58 to be 35 points. With that
applications pass.
what was 60% of the
Wells calculated'
calculation, bo~h
Baranko moved to adjourn, Anderson seconded. All in favor,
motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 11:50 PM.,
. '''-;
&~~/~-7u;~~
Shery,j, .Sinm\en',..Deputy. City.Clerk
'.
;.,
,
.
"DAM"l C. f.. ~on;j(n. B. ~. It L. (;.1.
~
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Regular Meeting
!Iarch 21, 1978
Aspen Planning and Zoning
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on March 21,'
1978, at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Chic
Collins, Frank Baranko, Welton Anderson, and Donald Ensign. Also present were
Karen Smith, Bill Kane and Joe Wells of the Planning Office.
Approval of Minutes
,\<7edum/Pardee
Subdivision
Exemptj,on
.
-,'
Hunter Square B1dg,
Commercial Condo-
miniumization,
Conceptual Review
Ensign moved to approve the minutes of February 2~ and
February 23, as amended, Anderson seconded. All in
favor, motion approved.
This subdivision application is for the purpose of
condominiumizing a recently built duplex in Oklahoma
Flats. The Planning Office has no problem with the
exemption from a zoning standpoint. Mark Danielson,
housing authority, has no problem with its compliance
with Ordinance 53. He found it never has constituted
Low and Moderate Housing, thus, it will not reduce the
supply. The City Engineer recalled that when this was
going through full subdivision procedures, the final
plat was never approved and the contingencies for ap-
proval were never accomplished, namely dedication of
street right-of-way and utilities easements. Ellis
would like a dedication to fill out the Gibson Avenue
right-of-way, a 40' dedication for Spring Street and
the utility easement. The applicant feels such dedi-
cation would affect their future ability to subdivide
into three parcels. This would require PUD exemption
and subdivision procedure. Ellis will reconsider the
dedication of Spring Street but will not reconsider
Gibson Avenue. The Planning Office recommends approval
contingent upon dedication of the appropriate right-of-
way or granting of easements to the City Engineer's
satisfaction and contingent upon "cleaning up" the
errors on the survey. She noted that this would have
to come through an amended Pu~later.
Lee Pardee said he did not mind giving this land for
right-of-way but needed to use the land for calculation
of density for a third unit. Ensign asked the total
square footage. Pardee said 63,000 sq.ft. Smith said
they need 15,000 sq.ft. per unit but the dedications
combined might put them below the necessary 45,000 sq.ft
She clarified that they were not considering aPUD
amendment at this point.
Ensign moved to exempt the Wedum/Pardee duplex on Gibson
Avenue from subdivision procedures, contingent upon
dedication of the Gibson Avenue right-of-way, utility
easement, either an easement or dedication of right-of-
way on Spring Street, Gorrection of survey, resolution
of engineering department problems, 90 day right of
first refusal to existing tenants, 6 month minimum lease
restriction, because it does not reduce the Low and
Moderate Income Housing supply, and the intents and
purposes of the subdivision regulations have been met,
Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved.
Smith introduced the application. The'building is ,at
the corner of Hunter and ~lain Street. I,t is a commer-
cial and residehtial building. She noted that one of
the units is actually three residential rental units
and they will be retained and. rented by the owners.
Ordinance 53 of 1977 does not apply here since they
are not converting the residential units. It is a
commercial condominiumizationquestion. The Planning
Office does not have any problem with this from a
"
r-,
.-,
Regular Heeting
March 21, 1978
,';'.;-t
Growth Management
Plan, Lodge and
Residential
Allocations
.
Aspen Planning and Zoning
zoning standpoint. Ellis, City Engineer, recommends
approval of conceptual review, assuming there have
been no changes in the form of ownership, nor encum-
brances on the property since the title policy was
issued in November of 1973.
Baranko asked why this is going through full subdivi-
sion procedures. Smith said this is required by Ellis
when there is a multi-family building. Collins asked
if there are 10 units, with one containing three resi-
dential units. Ashley Anderson, representing the
applicant, said yes. He said the three rental unitS.
and one commercial are on the top level. The remain-
ing two floors are commercial.
Baranko moved conceptual approval of the Hunter Square
condominiumization, with the condition that the con-
cerns regarding title in Dave Ellis' memo of March 17,
1978, be resolved, Anderson seconded. All in 'favor,
motion approved.
Kane noted that the Mountain Chalet was not notified
about the GMP Review meeting on !-larch 14, 1978, thus
their application was not represented. The Planning
Office feels there are six questions that need reso-
lution. The first problem is that an application must
receive at least 60% of the total points without bonus.
points. Under that regulation, only two projects
would be approved. He felt that the 60% was implemen-
ted without any practical experience and it may be too
strict. The third project which did not achieve 60%
contains 12 very needed employee units. He asked the
Board to consider an or9inance change.
Collins concurred that 60% is too high, especially in
applications such as the Van Horn subdivision where "
the applicant cannot be rated fairly. Kane said he
felt the 60% was implemented with the understanding
that 100% was possible. They now see that with the
social service category'set up as it is, it is vir-
tually impossible to achieve 100%. This poses an un-
realistic restraint. Ensign clarified that Collins
was proposing an ordinance change addressing the
problem of subdivision applications. Baranko felt the
60% should include the bonus points.
Bill Dunaway noted that Council originally recommended
that the applications must receive 75% of their points
from employee housing. P&Z's decision was to make it
30%. He noted that if more applications had proposed
more employee housing, more applications would have
passed. He also noted that Sandra Stuller, County
Attorney, intended that the 60% be achieved without
bonus points. ,
The second problem is the bonus quota provided in the
ordinance that they may exceed the 60% by 20% for
residential, 25% for commercial and 33% for lodge.
With the bonus quota, the first'three applications
could be approved. Baranko asked if these units would
be deducted from next year's quota. Kane said"yes.
Kane said the third problem is with existing units
that would be removed and their affect on the quota.
This' issue is not pressing since the 'existing units
were on applications that were not approved.
The fourth problem is'with applications that have
separate sites.
"
'~
r-, ,-",
'Ol'IM',o C."HOrCKElll.&.lltl.CO.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Regular Meeting
Aspen Planning and Zoning
r1arch 21, 1978
\.~
The fifth problem is the 33~ bonus on the quota for
10dg~ units. This would allow for a total of 48 units
this year. The two projects together propose 44 units.
With that bonus, both applications could be approved.
The six problem is exemption of employee units in the
Lodge District. Both lodge applications have indi-
cated that they would like to construct employee units.
These are exempted as a matter of ordinance and p&Z
should address this in their resolution to City Council.
Dunaway asked if the Council gives the bonus to the
quota. ~ane said yes and P&Z should give such a iec~
commendation. Collins asked what the minimum for lodge
applications would be. Wells calculated 60% of 58 to
be 34.8. Ensign noted that if the 60% was implemented
to encourage employee housing and it doesn't, they
should change it. Collins noted that 60% of 65 for
residentia1,units is 39 points and 50% of 65 is 32.5.
The Board discussed the procedure for passing an amend-
ment to the ordinance. Ensign asked if they could pass
an amendment approving the applications that received
the necessary 60% and address the bonus quota in an-
other aIllendment so that those projects could get starteC:'
Kane said this was possible.
Collins asked the number of Low and Moderate Income
units in each application. Kane said there are 16 in
Top of !fl.i11, three in Park Central '~est, 13 in 500 s.
Galena, 925 Durant, 6 in Andre Ulrych, 3 in Goodnough,
6 in Van Horn, and Cooper and Original made no state-
ment on this issue. Kane noted that bonus points had
no affect on the order of approval but if rated on
bonus points alone, the order would change.
Collins addressed the problem of existing units that
would be removed; He felt.', the quota should be increased
for each unit removed. Baranko felt the applicant
should be credited for the units. Collins said there
was no provision for this in the ordinance.
Collins addressed the problem of split sites. Baranko
noted that this would give an advantage to larger
projects that could provide separate facilities in
the various sites. Ensign noted that this encourages
employee housing. Baranko noted that applicants could'
possibly have three or more sites. Anderson noted that
the 500 S. Galena, 925 Durant project would not be pos-
sible if it did not have a split site. He also noted
that the different Board members used different methods
of grading this project. Ensign suggested they limit
it to two separate sites.
Kane noted that most of the ,problems would need a
public hearing to amend the ordinance: Collins asked
the Planning Office to. draft one resolution to City
Council addressing the items discussed at this meeting
and one approving the applicati0nsthat passed under
the ordinance.
Kane noted another problem that was nob noted in the
memo. He said that there were many complaints that
land SUbdivisions had no chance when evaluated against
other applications.
"
"
r",
.~
Regular Meeting
!larch 21, 1978
.,
....'
i
.)
Andre U1rych
Gideon Kaufman
.'i
Aspen Planning and Zoning.
ICane questioned the validity of this. Anderson felt
that this was true since land subdivisions could not
address the criteria such as solar heating, child care,
etc. Kane disagreed. Baranko asked if the Planning.
Office could create a hypothetical situation of a land
subdivision and score it on points that they could
add~ess so that they could see how a land subdivision
could possibly do under the ordinance. Anderson also
felt that smaller applications were handicapped since
they could not provide as much as the larger projects.
Baranko noted that all the employee units proposed have
been studios. He suggested that they consider the rati,
of square feet instead of units. Kane supported this.
Collins noted an inequity in scoring where certain
projects received more points in areas such as sewer
service when other projects received less for the same
service. He suggested a fixed score in items such as
sewer and water that could be recommended by the variou,
referral services. Kane supported this. Stanford
noted that Markalunas of the Water Department was pre-
paring a map of the city showing water service. This
map could be used to fix scores of 1, 2, or 3 based on
the service,provided. Kane supported this.
Baranko asked the disposition of residential allocation
in the lodging zone. Kane said that the lodging dis-
tricts allow for condominiumization. The question in
developing the ordinance was if someone was condomini-
umizing, would they come under the lodging or residen-
tial provision. They decided the residential provision.
was appropriate.
Collins asked for Kane's recommendation on the minimum
point requirement problem. Kane said he would like to
see them drop the 60% and bonus points and have the
applications score on their merits. He feels there are
some good safeguards in the ordinances and to eliminate
the 60% requirement would make them rely on the spirit
of competition among the applicants to supply employee
housing. Dunaway felt thiswouid make it easier for
applicants to have applications score high on other
items and not address employee housing at all.
U1rych felt it unlikely that the applicants would form
a conspiracy against employee housing. Dunaway said
he was not implying a conspiracy but it would make it
easier to not provide employee housing.
Anderson asked Kane if there is another vehicle they
could use to require employee housing. Kane said they
could require a certain number of points under employee
housing and be silent on the total percentage.
Kaufman said with this requirement, they would have
to distinguish between small and large projects since
the smaller projects would be handicapped. Kane said
if they had three units with one employee unit, they
would have 33% under employee housing and score high.
Collins felt they should leave the 60% as is and rec-
ommend to Council that they use their right to add the
bonus quota of 20% ,in residential and 33% in lodge.
Ile felt they should address the problem of existing
units at a later date. He also felt they should ad-
dress the problem of split sites at a later date.
Anderson felt they should set a method of point
"
FO"""~ C, 1". Hnfl;l(fl H. H. &C CQ.
1"""\
.-,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Regular Heeting
Harch LJ. ,J.~' 1'0
.
~., l
Floor Area Ratio -
Residential District
Gideon Kaufman
Aspen Plannlng and Zonlng
assignment under this type of application. As far as
exemption of ~mp10yee units, Collins said they support
the language of the ordinance. He asked that they
discuss the other problems introduced at a later date.
.He felt their resolution to Council should include:
1) exceptance of the lodging and residential section
results as presented to them by the Planning Office,
2) recommending the 20% increase in allotment for the
residential section and 3.3% in the lodge, 3) a state-
ment supporting the exemption of employee units in the
lodge district. Ensign so moved this resolution,
Baranko seconded. All in favor, motion approved.
The other items for discussion are to be discussed at
a later meeting.
Smith noted that under R-15, if you have a 15,000 sq.ft.
lot that was subdivided as of the effective date of
the zoning code, you can build a duplex with 2,475 sqft.
per unit or 4,950 per duplex. Under new subdivisions,
the duplexes would be 6600 sq. ft. or 3,330 sq.ft./unit.
She noted a letter from Ann Schwinn of the West End,
Improvement Association that refers to Gideon Kaufman's
letter of Harch 10, 1978, which describes the Board of
Realtor'q proposal for FAR. Schwinn's letter responde~
only to the R-6 district. She supports the recommended
.5 FAR in this district and recommended reviewing the
proposal for exc1~sion of basements in FAR calculations.
The code says in calculating external FAR in the resi-
dential district, subgrade and parking areas are ex-
cluded. The Board of Realtors proposal is that base-
ments would only be included if there is three feet of
basement above ground and windows. Meyring, the city
Building Inspector, has used the fnterpretation that
if there is sufficient headroom in the basement, it is
included in the FAR calculation. Smith asked the Board
to consider the question of inclusion of balconies and
roof overhangs in FAR calculations.
Kaufman was asked by the Board to come in with his
recommendations for FAR. He is representing the Aspen
Board 'of Realtors. They do not necessarily endorse
having an FAR but if it is necessary, they have their
recommendations on what it should be. They feel a
special review process is not necessary except in cases
where the FAR will be abused. Their proposals are:
R-6, .5 (3,000 sq.ft. house, 2,250/unit for a duplex),
R-15, .33 (3,500 sq.ft. house, 2,500/unit for a duplex).,
R-30, .13 for single family, .17 for duplex. As far
as basements, they feel if a basement is above ground
with windows and suitable for living, it should be in~
c1uded in the calculations.
Ensign asked the West End Improvement Association's
opinion on the R-15 and R-30districts. Kaufman said
they addressed themselves to'only theR-6 district.
Anderson said his main objection to the FAR was that
it was based on square footage instead of volume. He
noted that the problem with. the examples they had for
abuses of the FAR was in bulk not FAR. lIe noted that
you can comply with the FAR and still build a huge
structure by building a 25' ceiling. lIe also noted
that by enacting a volume ratio type of FAR, they could
solve the problem of basements by calculating the ratio
'~
. .
,
/"""'I
,.-.
Regular !1eet'ing
Aspen Planning and Zoning
!1arch 21, 1978
from the ground up. Kaufman noted that there are
height restrictions. A volume ratio would tend to
create an architectural 'control. Anderson proposed
that a special review process be set up where the
applicant would have to show elevations of the adjacent
houses and the proposed house. Smith said that volume
ratiqs would be.difficult to calculate. Collins noted
that the FAR for Eagle and Pitkin were similar to-the
recommendations for the Aspen residential PAR proposal.
Collins noted that they don't have the small lots in
the County that they have in Aspen. Smith 'noted, that
in R-15 in Pitkin County, the FAR is .16, which would
allow for a 2400 sq.ft. unit.
Baranko moved to table action on this item, Ensign
seconded. All in favor', motion approved.
Baranko moved to adjourn, Anderson seconded. All in
favor, motion approved. Meeting ,adjourned at 7:40 PM.
.'
"
~~~/v>\o~
Sfi ry1 . en, Deputy City Clerk
....
....
;;.~'\-.
f"', ,,-.,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Le,wes
,~_;t.~,~~~~i:~-l;,;J:..b-~_,_--=.:=-...::..._._-=--::'"_,,-"_~ --'-'-".;;';".:-'-_.-:=':'":.'=:"-..;:::;;.'__ _ -__:- _________-=:~..:..--==
.
1977/78 or 11 units along with 22 units which were built
on previously subdivided lots in 1977 but not heretofore
accounted shall be offset by a reduction in the allotments
Over the next three years as follows:
a. The allotment for 1979 shall be reduced by
.'
12 or reduced from 39 to 27.
,
b. ,The allotment for 1980 shall be reduced by 12
or reduced from 39 to 27.
c. The allotment for 1981 shall be reduced 'by 9
or reduced from 39 to 30.
Lodging Section
1. Council hereby authorizes construction in excess of
the 36 lodge unit allotment for 1977 and 1978 in accordance
with Section 24-10.3(a) which authorizes an increase in
the lodge development allotment by as much as 33%, or up
to 47 units.
2. Lodge development allotments are her,eby awarded to th,~
Aspen Inn (36 units) and the Mountain Chalet (8 units) for
a total of 44 units.
3. That the 32 employee units (Aspen Inn = 24; :lountain.
Chalet = 8) proposed as a matter of FAR bonus in the
lodging districts be exempted from the Growth Management
Plan as is provided "for in Ordinance No. 48.
4. Given the 8 lodge unit excess and,32 employee unit bonus,
Council hereby reduces the 18 unit allotment available in
1979 to zero, and the 1980 18 unit allotment to zero, and
,
redupes the 1981 allotment to 14.
5. That the Aspen Inn project and Mountain Chalet shall
be phaseq as represented in their ~pp1ication an~ that
the first phase of both projects may apply" for any further
approvals needed by the City t:o secure bllildin'J pcrmits.
-3-
-.H-
, r'\
I+em 1, - Or~'{)' - ,c.e..
~"
,'-"
,'" I
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
.. . 'f.... !>
llJO Leaves
"OIilIIIy c. '.MO~CKtL It... It L. co.
j
square footage of the employee housing,projects as the
basis of a speica1 review to increase the FAR for the
commercial site to the maximum commercial square footage
allowable by the ~ode ,in that zone district.
,Section 2
That Section 24-11.7(b) of the Municipal Code of the Gity of
, I
Aspen entitled "Rescinded and Expired Permits" be and the same is
hereby repealed and reenacted as follows:
(b) Should an applicant previously awarded a development
allo~<<ent deviate from any essential element of his
proposal, or fail to satisfy any material condition
imposed on the allotment received, or fail to comply
with the development schedule submitted with his appli-
cation, the planning office shall notify the planning
and zoning commission, Which may, after hearing, recom-
mend to ,city council that all or any part of the allot-
ment be rescinded. The criteria for determination of
when an application has deviated substantially from the
originalGMP proposal shall include the _following:
- Any change which would potentially alter-the points
originally awarded during the GMP scoring;
- Any change from the approved architecture and site
design of the project;
Any change in the number, size and type of employee
uni ts; and
- Any modification to the type and ;evel of physical
services and facilities o~the project.
Should a change in an approved application fall within
any of these criteria, the planning and zoning commis-
sion shall hold a public hearing to determine the appro-
priateness of the amendment to the original plan. The
planning and zoning commission shall rescore the origi-
nal application in order to determine whether,
the applicant would no 10nSler meet -the minimum thresh-
hold he must achieve in each category or for all cate-
gories .to receive an allocation; pr '
- the applicant's position relative to the other appli-
cant's during the competition would have changed.
i$
Should e'ither of the above two conditions be met, the
commiss ion shall make a recOlcUllendation to the city coun-
cil as to whether the applicant's allocation shoulQ.l:le
rescinded. $hould the above conditions not be met, the
co~lssion shall make a reco~nendation to the city coun-
cil as to the appropriateness of the amendments to the
original proposal and any further conditions of approval
which the applicant shall meet.
7
:r::~ 2.. - icl~ ~hee-f5
,r-,
1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT RESIDENTIAL
TALL Y SHEETS
Project Name:_..--lQP. of Mill (26 units)
A.
..
Planning P & Z Council
Office .
Public Facilities
1. Water Service 3 3
Sewer Service .
2. 1 1.2
3. Storm Drainaqe 3 3
4. Fire Protecti on 1 2
5. Parking Design 8 3
6. Roads 3 3
7. Energy 3 3
BONUS . 2
Social Facil ities and Services
1. Public
TransDortatidn 2 1.6
2. Police Protection . 1 . 1.4
3. Childcare 2 2
Faciliti es
4. Bicvcle Paths 1 1
5. Recyclino Facilities 1 1.6
6. Handicapped Design 1 1.6
Features
7. Commercial Support 1 1.2
Proximi ty
BONUS 1 .
Housing
1. Middle 0 0
2. Moderate 4 4 .
.
.
3. Low 12 12
. BONUS 1.2
TOTAL POINTS WITHOUT BONUS 42 I 44.8 44.8
- sa
TOTAL POINTS WITH BONUS 42 49.0
B.
C.
me
A
,1""'\
1""'\
1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT RESIDENTIAL
TALLY SHEETS
Project Name: Park Central West (10 units) ,
. r
Planning P & Z CounciJ
Public Office
FacilitieS
.J. Water Service 3 3
2. Sewer Service 3 3 .
3. StormDra i naqe 3 3
4. Fire Protection 3 3
5. Parkina Desiqn , il 2.8
6. Roads 3 2.8
7 Energy . 3 2.8 .
BONU S 2.2
Social Facilities and Services .
1. Public
Transoortation 2 1.8
2. POl ice Protection 1 1.2
3. Childcare 1 0.8
FaciJ ities
4. Bicvcle Paths 1 1.0
5. Recvclina Facilities 0 1.4
6. . Handicapped Design 1 2.0
Features
7. Commercial Support .. .
Proximitv 2 2.0
. BONUS , 0.8
Housing
1. Middle 0 0
2. Moderate ... o ..
0
3. Low 7" 9
6 .
BONUS 0
TOTAL POINTS WITHOUT BONUS 35 . 39.6 39.8
TOTAL POINTS WITH B.ONUS 35 42.6
A.
B.
C.
r'\
1""'\
1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT RESIDENTIAL
TAl.LY SHEETS
Project Name: 500 S. Galena/925 Durant (29 units)
A.
Planning P & Z Counci 1
Office
Public facilities
1. Water Service 2 1 R
2. Sewer Service 1 1,4
.
3. Storm Drainaae 3 ? R ~ n
. .
4. Fire Protecti on 2 2 2
5. Parking Design 2 2.4
.
6. Roads 3 2.8
7. Enf:!rqy 3 2.8 3.0
BONU S . 0.8
Soci al Facil ities and Services
1- Pub 11 c
Transportation 1 1
.
2. Police Protection 1 1.2
3. Childcare 1 1.4 2.0
Facil ities
4. Bicvcle Paths 1 1.4
5. RecJ(clinq Facilities 1 1.6 2.0
6. ~andicapped Design 1 I 1.8 2.0
Features . ,.
7. Commerci a 1 Support .
Proximity 1 . 1.4
BONUS 0.6
Housing
1- Miadle 0 0
2. Moderate 0 0
3. Low 12 12
BONUS 1
TOTAL POINTS WITHOUT BONUS 35 38.0 39.6
TOTAL POINTS WITH BONUS 35 40.4
B.
C.
,..., .
,...,
1978 GROWTH MANAGIMENTRESIDENTIAL
TALLY SHEETS
Project Name: Ulrych (6 studios)
C.
,
Planning P & Z Council
Office .
Pub 1i c Facilities
h-Hater Service 3 3.0
2. Sewer Service 1 1.0 2.0
3. Storm Drainage 3 2.8 . 3.0
4. Fire Protection 3 3.0
5. Park inn Desinn ~ 2.2
6. Roads 3 2.8 3.0
7. Energy 3 3.0
BONUS ,. . 1.2
Social Facilities and Services
1- Pub 1 i c
TransDortation 2 1.8
2. Police Protection 1 1.6
Chi ldcare .
3. 1 1.0
. Facil ities .
4. Bicycle Paths 1 1.0
5. Recvcl inn faciJ ities 1 1.2
6. Handicapped Design 1 0.8 1.0
Features .
7. Commercial Support 1 1.6 2.0
Proximi tv .
BONUS 0.8
.
Housing
1. Middle 0 0
2. Moderate . 10 ... 10
3. Low 0 0
BONUS 0.4
TOTAL POINTS HITHOUT BONUS 36 36.8 . 38.8
TOTAL POINTS WITH BONUS 36 39.2 '
A.
B.
,-,
t-'
1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT RESIDENTIAL
TALLY SHEETS
Project Name: Goodnough (g,units)
A.
Planning P & Z Council
Office
PubHc Facil ities (Not Avail ab 1 e)
1- Water Service 1.8
2. Sewer Se rv i ce 1.6
3. Storm Drainaqe 3.0
4. Fire Protection 2.6
5. Parkinq Desiqn . 2.4
6. Roads 2.2 2.5
7, En e rqy . 2.0 2.5
BONUS 0.8
Social Facil ities and Services .
1- Public
Transporta ti on . . 2.0
2. Police Protection 1.0 .
3. Chi ldcare 1.0
Faci li ties .
4. Bicvcle Paths . 1.2 1.6
5. Recyc.ling Facilities 1.6 2.0
6. "Handicapped Design I 1.0
Features
7. Commercial Support 1.11 2.0
Proximi ty
BONUS 0:2 .
. .
Housing
1. Middle 0
2. Moderate . 10
3. Low 0
BONUS 0
. TOTAL POINTS.WITHOUT BONUS . 35.4 37.2
TOTAL POINTS WITH BONUS 36.2
.
B.
C.
,-.".
,-."
1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT RESIDENTIAL
TALLY SHEETS
Project Name: Van Horn 02 units)
Planning P & Z Counci 1
Office
Public Facilities
1. Water Service 1 2.4 3.0
2. Sewer Service 1 1.4 2.0
3. Storm Drainage 1 1.6
4. Fire Protection 1 I 1.6- 2.0
..
5. Parking Design 2 2.2 .
6. Roads . .. 1 1.4
7. EnerGY 2 . 1.8
BONUS ., . 0.0
Social Facilities and Services
1. Public
Transportation o . 1.0
- .
2. Police Protection . 1 1.0
3. Childcare 1 0.8 1.0
Faci 1 ities
4. Bicvcle Paths 0 1.2 2.0
5. RecyclinG Facilities 0 0.8 1.0
.
6. . Handi capped Des i gn -
1 0.8 1.0
Features .
7. Commercial Support 1 1.0
Proximitv
BONUS . . . 0.2
Housing
1. MiiJdJe 0 0
2. Moderate 0 0
3. Low ., 12 12
.
BONUS 0
TOTAL POINTS WITHOUT BONUS 25 31.2 33
TOTAL POINTS WITH BONUS 25 32.3
.
A.
B.
C.
. .
t""".
,~
1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT RESIDENTIAL
TALL Y SHEETS
Project Name:
Cooper and Oriqinal (7 units)
A.
Planning f. P & Z CouncIl
Ofnce
Public Faci.l i ti es
1. Water Service 1 1.4
2, Sewer Service 1 1.2 2.0
3. Storm Dra i naqe 2 2.2
4. Fire Protecti on 1 1.0
5. ParkInq Desiqn 3 2.8
6. Roads 2 2.4 .
7. Energy 3 . 2.8" 3.0
BONUS . 1.0
.
Soci.a 1 FacilitIes and Services .
.
.
1. Publ Ic
Transoortation 2 .. 1.8
2. Police Protection . ..1 1.0
3. ChIldcare .
1
FacilIties .. . 0.8
4. BIcycle Paths .. 1 .. 1.2
t; Recvclinq facilities 0 . 1.0
~.
6. Handicapped Design . . ., .
1 1.2
Features
7. Commerci. a 1 s.upport :. ... 1.8 2.0
ProxImity .
BONUS 2.0
.
Housing
1. Mi ddl e 0 10 -2.0
2. Moderate 0 . ,.".. . 0 .
3. Low 0 0
BONUS. . 0 .
TOTAL POINTS WITHOUT BONUS. 20 24.6 .
24.0
TOTAL POINTS WITH BONUS ' , 25.2
B.
C.
"