HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Gordon.1984
t
,
ArTI..rican Lal'd T .tJ~ Association commitme~ ,led 10/73
.~
,-.;
, , _""'~...,..r- ~ ~., ~., ":_~ ~ <:.A..." ~.. 'IJ-."'f~ C'-"'-"' ~~ ,,_~, ~.~., '~., ~ ~., "~ ~.; ~., ~:, ~ ~",,"," ~ ~'" ':~ "........., ~
. ,~_..\i/r"'l _ _,<c _.......:.._ ",~__..... """-,, _. .;.
.)"~ ..,-,-
".......:~~~-.---~'"
. - ...:..-~
- -'i?~
- ,
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
ISSUED BY
r;
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, A Texas Corporation, herein called the Company, for
valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in
Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee ofthe estate
or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the
premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions
and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount
of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company,
either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to 1;he issuance of such pQlicy or policies of title insurance and all
liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and term!f'late six months after the effective date hereof
or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the
failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be
valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized Officer or agent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to
become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance
w;th its By. Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date."
STEWART TITLE
~~ '"h-c~_
Chairman of the Board
GUARANTY COMPAN1"
et~I$~
1I/1fIlIIIl~H"
~\\l\tl~\:}S.el.J",
~~..... .... "'~..
I...: <,\,)RPO.t.., ..
><~:~ -*-~:
I;;.~. 1908 it::l~
.;..... .1t. ...~ .~~
'fi";:;;'~ 111l'
'/NHIII/IIPf/l
President
t:
S,m<'lif)' (~l COIIII'ClO
t 1
"1
,,_ Serial No. C.1601'12256
165 25M 5-83
" :"<
',' :,~
(. l'~
I ~~
,~
. ."';
,
.
'.
t
~
.','
^
'~
~
'.
.
.
'0
.,~
E
,t
':
,
'1
RW / r,am
1""<
.~
,
SCHEDULE A
Order Number: 12463 C 2
Commitment Number:
" Eflectivedate. May 16, 1984 At 8: 00 A.M.
2. Policy or Policies to be issued:
A. ALTA'Owner's Policy
Proposed Insured:
To Be Determined
Amount of Insurance
Premium
$2,902.0
$ 1,600,000.00
B. ALT A Loan Policy
Proposed Insured:
Tax Cert.
$
$
5.0
c,
$
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this commitment and covered herein is fee simple and title thereto is at the effective date
hereof vested in:
R.S.G. Development, Inc.
4. The land referred to in this commitment is described as follows:
Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Callahan Subdivision, according
to and as more particularly described on the recorded plats
thereof.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
Authorized Countersignature
Page 2
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
1852 (2~,,12/83)
"
~
..-....
,
SCHEDULE B - Section 1
Order Number. 12463 C 2
Commitment Number.
Requirements
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or Interest
to be Insured,
Item (b) Proper Instrument(s) creating the estate or Interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record,
to wit:
1. Partial Release of Deed of Trust dated February 8, 1982,
executed by Robert S. Go1dsamt, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin
County, to secure an indebtedness of $500,000.00, in favor ~f
The Bank of Aspen, recorded February 11, 1982 in Book 421 at
Page 805 as Reception No. 239134.
NOTE: Agreement extending the date of payment of above Deed of
Trust to February 4, 1983, recorded August 30, 1982 in Book 431
at Page 839 as Reception No. 243782.
NOTE: Agreement extending the date of payment of above Deed of
Trust to September 2, 1983, recorded AprilS, 1983 in Book 442
at Page 917 as Reception No. 249161.
2. Partial Release of Deed of Trust dated September 2, 1983,
executed by Robert S. Go1dsamt, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin
County, to secure an indebtedness of $349,069.00, in favor of
The Bank of Aspen, recorded September 15, 1983 in Book 451 at
Page 968 as Reception No. 253167.
3. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company,
furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of
Aspen, that the real estate transfer tax pursuant to City
Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979), has b&en paid or that
conveyance is exempt from said tax.
4. Deed from vested owner, vesting fee simple title in
purchaser(s).
1853 (2OM-12183)
PIlge 3
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
1""'....
~,
SCHEDULE B. Section 2
Exceptions
Order Number:
12463 C2
Commitment Number:
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions tethe following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction
of the Company:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the pUblic records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and onyfacts which a correct survey
and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not
shown by the public records,
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records
or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record
for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
6. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed
tax sales.
7. The effect of inclusion in any general or specific water
conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district
or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area.
8. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in Patent recorded
June 17, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 246 as Reception No. 96480
which recites the following: First: That the grant hereby made
is restricted in its exterior limits to the boundaries of the
said mining premises and to any veins or lodes of quartz or
other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin,
copper, or other valuable deposits, which may have been
discovered within said limits subsequent to and which were not
known to exist on the twenty-third day of March A.D. one
thousand eight hundred and eighty-five. Second: That should
any vein or lode or other rock in place bearing gold, silver,
cinnabar, lead, tin, copper, or other valuable deposits be
claimed or known to exist within the above described premises
at said late-named date, the same is expressly excepted and
excluded from these presents. Third: That the premises hereby
conveyed may be entered by the proprietor of any vein or lode
of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, silver,
cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposits, for the
purpose of extracting and removing his ore from such vein or
lode, should the same, or any part thereof, be found to
penetrate, intersect, pass through, or dip into the mining
ground or premises hereby granted. Fourth: That the premises
hereby conveyed shall be held subject to any vested and accrued
water rights for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other
purposes, and rights to ditches and reservoirs, used in
connection with such water rights as may be recognized and
acknowledged by local laws, customs and decisions of courts.
Fifth: That in the absence of necessary by Congress, the
legislation of Colorado may provide rules for working the
mining claim or premises granted involving easements, drainage
and other necessary means to the complete development thereof.
Exceptions numbered
are hereby omitted.
Page 4
STEWART TI'rLE
1854 (20M '-84)
GUARANTY COMPANY
r--......
.-...,
CONTINUATION SHEET
SCHEDULE
B-Section 2
Order Number:
12463 C2
Commitment Number:
9. Easements and restrictions as shown on Plats of Callahan
Subdivision recorded May 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7 as
Reception No. 183889, and as amended by Plat recorded August
17, 1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 16 as Reception No. 196746.
10. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions as set forth 1n
Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement recorded May
19, 1976 in Book 312 at Page 110 as Reception No. 183890.
11. Easements as set forth in Reciprocal Easement Grant recorded
May 19, 1976 in Book 312 at Page 196 as Reception No. 183919.
12. A right of way 10 feet in width for pipeline flume, ditch or
waterway as set forth in instrument recorded in Book 93 at Page
527.
13. Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Agreement
between Patricia E. Madda10ne and Robert S. Go1dsamt recorded
May 19, 1976 in Book 312 at Page 169 as Reception No. 183912.
14. Terms, conditions, obligations and covenants as set forth in
Easement Agreement between Fredric A. Benedict, et aI, and
Robert S. Goldsamt, recorded May 19, 1976 in Book 312 at Page
200 as Reception No. 183920.
15. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions of Grant of
Easement as set forth in instrument recorded September 23, 1976
in Book 316 at Page 961 as Reception No. 187218, and as amended
by Agreement recorded August 29, 1978 in Book 353 at Page 527
as Reception No. 206863.
16. Easements for ingress, egress and underground utilities as set
forth in Grant of Easement recorded September 23, 1976 in Book
316 at Page 961 as Reception No. 187248.
17. Reservation. and restriction, in regard to roads within Callahan
Subdivision, as set forth in Easement Grant recorded August 17,
1977 in Book 333 at Page 727 as Reception No. 196750.
Page _
0055 (50M 6-83)
S'I'EWAR'I' 'I'I'1'LE
GUARANTY COMPANY
-
, ''\
i-..,
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1. The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or
other security instrument.
2. If the proposed I nsured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien,
encumbrance, adverse claim or OHler matter affecting the estate or interest or
mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in
Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in
writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage
resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced
by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed I nsured shall disclose such
knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual
knowledge of any such defect, lien, enc1Jmbrance, adverse claim or other matter,
the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment
accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability
previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations.
3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named
proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the
form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in
reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements
hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or
create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In
no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy
or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and
the Conditions and Stipulations and the exclusions from coverage of the form of
policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby
incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as
expressly modified herein.
4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises
out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the insured
mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to
the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment.
STE'VART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Page 5
~. '-.'......"....
.,.....
<.
M E M 0 RAN DUM
"
~
TO:
Richard Grice, Planning Office ~
J. Lucas Adamski, Housing Dir~~'
Gordon Conceptual Subdivision
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
October 27, 1984
HOUSING AUTHORITY REVIEW:
The applicant proposes to amend their 1984 Residential GNP
Submission which was granted in 1983-84 residential competition.
At that time, they represented that they \qould build three (3)
free market units that included three (3), one (1) bedroom low
income deed-restricted employee housing units and that they would
purchase off-site (at Hunter Creek) three (3) two (2) bedroom
units and deed restrict them to the low income employee housing
guidelines.
The applicant now represents that he has purchased six (6)
adjoining lots and is requesting that he be allowed to build six
(6) three (3) bedroom free market units including six (6) one (1)
bedroom low income deed restricted. Since the applicant is
providing, 50% of his obligation which meets the requirements of
Section 24-11.4 (b)(4). The Housing Authority recommends that if
this application is approved it should be conditioned on the
fOllowing:
1) The owner hereby covenants with the City that six (6)
one (1) bedr oom uni ts as descr i bed in the "Gor don
Conceptual Subdivision" application, shall be each
restricted in terms of their use and occupancy to
rental and occupancy guidelines established by the City
Council for low income employee housing. The owner of
the unit shall have the right to lease the unit to a
qualified employee of its selection. Such individual
may be an employee of the owner employed as a resident
caretaker, provided such person fulfills the definition
of "qualified employee" set forth herein, "Qualified
employee" as used herein shall mean any person currently
residing and employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin
County an average of (30) hours per week, nine months
out of an twelve month period who shall meet the 10lq
income and occupancy requirements generally established
and applied by the City in respect of employee housing.
Verification of employment of those persons living in
the employee unit shall be competed and filed with the
1
<9, _ ^__'..
r"
,.-"
,
Ci ty Council or its designee by the owner of the un~ 1:
commencing on the date of recording hereof, in the
Pitkin County real property records and annually
thereafter. If the owner does not rent the employee
unit to a qualified employee, the employee unit shall
be made available in accordance with the Housing
Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall have the
right to approve any prospective tenants, which approval
shall not unreasonably be withheld. The owner may sell
the unit to qualified low income employee of its
selection at the Housing Authority low income sales
price guidelines. Such sales of low income units shall
be reviewed and approved by the Housing Authority prior
to sales. These covenants shall be deemed to r un wi th
the land as a burden thereto for the benefit of and
shall be specifically enforceable by the Ci ty or its
designee by any appropriate legal action including
inj unction, abatement, or eviction of noncomplying
tenancy, during the period of life of the last surviving
member of the presently existing City Council of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or
for a period of fifty years from the date of recording
hereof in the Pitkin county real property records,
which ever period shall be less.
2
~
~
A
MEMORANDUM
~
TO:
Richard Grice, PI~
Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer
FROM:
DATE: October 25, 1984
RE: Gordon Conceptual Subdivision
(1) Does the 1)806 acre figure for Lot 14 include the area under water.
Section 24-2.6 says it cannot include area under water for development rights.
Should the Riverside ditch easement also be excluded from development rights?
(2) How did two separate units evolve on Lot 14?
(3) Book 440, Page 444, February 11, 1983, indicates to me that the westerly
portion of Lot 14 has already been conveyed by a bargain and sale deed. A copy
is enclosed. How was this done?
~)
Lots
from
Again, should the Riverside ditch easement and the access easement between
8 & 7 of Calahan Subdivision to Lot 2 of Gordon Subdivision be deducted
development rights?
(5) On Lot 10 is currently being built a duplex structure using the maximum
F.A.R. and 25' height limit allowable in the R-15 zone.
(6) Item 9, Page 10, of the Callahan Subdivision agreement, indicates that a
park dedication fee of $90,000 would be paid to the City upon recording final
plat. Has this been paid? Does this preclude a park dedication fee on new resi-
dences. Lot 10 has recently paid a park dedication fee for their current
construction. What is the status of park dedication fees on the Gordon
Subdivision? Attached is a copy of the Callahan agreement.
cc: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Attachments
BD/ar
""""
^
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Jay Hammond, City Engineer
Jim Adamski, Housing Director
Jim Marka1unas, Aspen Water Dept.
Heiko Kuhn, Sanitation District
Steve Crockett, Fire Chief
Bill Drueding, Building Dept.
Richard Grice
FROM:
RE:
Gordon Conceptual Subdivision
October 5, 1984
DATE:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached is an application submitted with respect to the Gordon
Subdivision and the Aspen Club Subdivision. The application proposes
a variety of changes to the Gordon Subdivision which was granted a
Growth Management allocation during the 1983-84 residential competition.
The Applicant proposes to amend that allocation by combining it with
approvals granted several years ago for the development of the Callahan
Subdivision also known as the Aspen Club. Further the applicant
proposes several changes to the Callahan Subdivision Plat including a
rezoning of Lot 14 and a lot split. Please also note that the applicant
proposes an RBO rezoning on the Gordon Property to accomp11sh the
proposed density, as represented by duplexes, each of which is half
free market and half employee.
We will be bringing this entire package before the Planning and Zoning
Commission on November 6th. Due to the complexity of this proposal,
your comments would be appreciated in a timely fashion no later than
October 25, 1984. Should you have any questions regarding this
application, please feel free to call me or Alan Richman at any time.
Thank you.
~,
\
~,
GARfKJE1D Be HECHT, P.C.
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V, HECHT
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
September 27, 1984
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-1936
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-3008
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
WILLIAM K, GUEST, P,C,
JEREMY M, BERNSTEIN
HAND DELIVERED
D [g@[g D\Yl[g1 ~
SEP 2 7 1984 I
I,
Alan Richman
Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Alan:
This letter shall represent authorization for Sheldon
Gordon to Jo~n in an application with R.S.G. Development, Inc.
submitted September 20, 1984 for certain PUD amendments which
affect R.S.G. Development's land. This authority is granted
pursuant to an Option Agreement between Sheldon Gordon and R.S.~.
Development, Inc. for the acquisition of that portion of the
Callahan Subdivision which is affected by the application. All
approvals would be conditioned upon Mr. Gordon's closing on the
purchase of that property.
Sincerely,
~-~=--~
R.S.G. Development, Inc.
By: Andrew V. Hecht as its
attorney and secretary
AVH/mlc
~ ".'
(",.. ,', " , ., .< ~
;)! l\i"~ i\/if\
, ,~"
i ~)
""""
c
^
RESIDENTIAL BONUS OVERLAY DISTRICT
as applied to the amended
GORDON GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION
September 27, 1984
.
,I"'"-,
,I"'"-"
RESIDENTIAL BONUS OVERLAY DISTRICT
as applied to the amended
GORDON GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION
The existing Growth Management Allotment must provide 3 on-site,
one-bedroom, low-income employee housing units; and 3 off-site,
two-bedroom, low-income employee housing units. In the amended
Application the 3 off-site, two-bedroom units are provided on-
site as 6 one-bedroom units. Each of the one-bedroom units iS~~~J
attached to a single family residence (all'owed by right on lots 4 ~
through 9). This creates 6 duplexes, each with a low-income, (It',
one-bedroom employee housing unit. The area of each of the lots \,~
4 through 9 is less than the required 20,000 s.f. for duplex uses ~~
in the R-15 zone. Therefore, under Sec. 10.3(c) the Residential
Bonus Overlay District (R.B.O.) cannot be applied because no lot
is greater than the prescribed one acre minimum size. However,
one part of this amended application is the accumulation of the
land area of lots 4 through 9 with the area land of lot 2 of the
Gordon Subdivision, creating an aggregate land area of 3.99
acres. Deducting land area under water and applying slope area
reduction factors, a net land area of 3. 7~ ~s.!:~~ is available
for developm~t.
The newly created Gordon Property now meets the requirements of
Article X (R.B.O.) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
The amended application fits the purpose of Sec. 24-10.1:
The purpose of this article is to provide for present and
future housing needs of the community by authorizing the
development of bona fide low, moderate and middle income
housing free from speculative investment influence and for
primary residential use by local residents. It is the
intent of this article to promote such housing by allowing
an increased residential density, and therefore a lowered
per unit land cost, for selected development. (Ord. No. 16-
1980, paragraph 6)
and:
Sec. 24-10.2 Residential Bonus Overlay District created.
There is hereby created a Residential Bonus Overlay District
which, subject to the standards set forth in this article,
may be used as permitted in sections 24-10.3 and 24-10.4.
(Ord. No. 16-1980, paragraph 6)
The proposed amendment meets the requirement of Sec. 10.3(c)
applicability:
(c) The Residential Bonus Overlay District shall only be
applied within the R-6, R-15, R-15A, R-30, R-40, RMF, CC,
1
.
1"""\
~.
SCI, NC, C-l, L-l, L-2, CL, Public and 0 zone districts. In
the R-6, R-15, R-15A, R-30 and R-40 zone districts the
Residential Bonus Overlay District shall only be applied to
vacant sites of one acre or more in size. In the RMF, CC,
SCI, NE, C-l, L-l, L-2, CL, Public and 0 zone districts, the
Residential Bonus Overlay District shall only be applied to
sites which meet the minimum lot size of the district,
whether developed or vacant. (Ord. No. 16-1980, para. 6)
The proposed amendment meets the requirements of Sec. 24-l0.4(b),
permi tted Uses.
The following uses are permitted in the Residential Bonus Overlay
District when the district is superimposed over a site within the
R-15, R-15A, R-30 and R-40 zone districts:
1. Single-family dwelling;
2. Duplex;
3. Multifamily; and
4. Townhouses.
provided that one-half or more of the dwelling units constructed
on the site are deed restricted within (7) the terms of sec. 24-
11.4(b)(3).
Finally, the proposed amendment meets the area and bulk require-
ments of Sec. 24-l0.5(a) and Sec. 24-l0.5(b)(2):
(a) Mindmum lot area. Sites or areas included
within a Residential Bonus Overlay District shall have
the same minimum lot area requirement created by sec-
tion 24-3.4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen
which was applicable within the zone district which was
in existence for the site prior to the time of the
overlay designation.
(b) Required minimum lot area per dwelling unit.
Sites or areas included within a Residential Bonus
Overlay District shall have the following required
minimum lot area per dwelling unit:
(2) For sites or areas located in theR-15 or R-
l5A zone the minimum lot area per dwelling unit
shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet, pro-
vided that a duplex is permitted on a minimum lot
of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet sub-
divided as of the effective date of section 24-
3.4. If one-half or more of the dwelling units
constructed on said site or area are deed re-
stricted within the terms of section 24-l1.4(b)(3)
then the minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall
be seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square
feet.
The 3 duplexes allocated
under the original Gordon Growth
2
r-.
^
Management Application are allotted 20,000 s.f. of land area for
each duplex. This has not changed in the amended proposal, and
meets the area and bulk requirements of the R-15 zone district.
3
/
,....,
,.-.,
"'
- <.~.
This is an application submitted this 20th day of
September, 1984, by R.S.G. Development, Inc. and Sheldon Gordon
under the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for (i) an
Amendment of the PUD plan for the Callahan Subdivision (the
"Subdivision") pursuant to Section 24-8.26; (ii) a rezoning of
Lot 14 of the Subdivision from RR to R-15; (iii) a lot split of
Lot 14 of the Subdivision pursuant to Section 20-19(a) (1) (2) and
(3); and (iv) an amendment to the Growth Management Plan for the
Gordon Property pursuant to Section 24-11.7(b).
With respect to the PUD amendment, the applicants state
that such amendments are required by changes in conditions that
have occurred since the final plan was approved. Such changes
arise from the contractural arrangement between the owner of the
Subdivision and an adjacent property owner, Sheldon Gordon, for
the acquisition by Sheldon Gordon of a portion of the Subdivision
integrating of the two properties for the purpose of clustering
the residential development which is now marked by more
inflexible residential subdivision to achieve a more creative
flexible land development tailored to the physical
characteristics of the property and the surrounding development.
The requirement for demonstration of changed conditions must be
dynamic in order to accommodate opportunities such as this one.
We are not seeking an amendment to a Planned Unit Development
which has already been fully constructed. The applicants are
simply offering a better more flexible innovative approach to the
development of the Subdivision which is the purpose of the PUD
ordinance.
/
~.
,-,
Concerning (ii) above, the applicants request to rezone
Lot 14 of the Subdivision to conform to the zoned use therefor is
compatible with surrounding zone districts and land use in the
vicinity of the site. In fact, the commercial classification for
this Lot was a result of a rezoning from R-15 at the time of the
original approval of the PUD in order to accommodate what was
then perceived by the developer to be the need for a large self
contained club house and restaurant facility. All other
development adjacent to this site is residential in character.
The rezoning from the currently approved commercial
zone to residential use will reduce the potential traffio
generation and. will have the effect of reducing the potential
impact on utility service in the vicinity of the site. Such
rezoning could only have a beneficial impact on the air and water
quality in the vicinity from the current zoning. The rezoning
would finally lay to rest the uncertainty of the relationship of
a commercial use in such a residential setting. Further this
change in rezoning would be compatible with the Aspen Area
General Plan of 1966 as amended. In general the proposed
rezoning would promote the health and general welfare of the
residents and visitors to the City of Aspen by further conforming
the uses in this area to the Aspen General Plan. The acreage for
Lot 14 of the Subdivision is 1.806 acres.
With respect to (iii) above, the applicants state that
there now exists two (2) separate units on Lot 14 of the
Subdivision. The applicants request a lot split of Lot 14 to
create one (1) additional single family site excepted from Growth
r"
,~
Management Plan pursuant to Section 24-11.2(d) and subdivision
regulations of the Code. The applicants if necessary as a
condition of such lot split, would eliminate the kitchen in the
existing residences and physically join them to each other.
Concerning (iv) above, Sheldon Gordon submits Exhibit
"A" hereto in support of such an amendment.
The applicants in further support of their application
submit the following graphic representations of the proposed
development:
1. Plat for Callahan Subdivision showing Gordon
property.
2. Existing conditions of Lots 4 through 9 Callahan
Subdivision and Lot 2 Gordon Subdivision.
3. Proposed site plan for Lots 4 through 9 Callahan
Subdivision and Lot 2 Gordon Subdivision.
4. Existing zoning, transportation and trails.
5. Proposed water and sewer system.
6. Currently approved site plans for Lots 4 through 9
Callahan Subdivision and Lot 2 Gordon Subdivision.
7. Lot split plat for Lot 14.
Respectfully submitted,
R.S.G. DEVELOPMENT, INC.
B~ --- ~~
Garfield & Hecht, P.C., its
attorney, by And ew V. Hecht
/
~
/""""
AMENDMENT TO
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION AND APPROVAL
FOR
THE GORDON PROPERTY
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND
On December 1, 1983, a Growth Management Application
was submitted seeking an allotment of three (3), three (3)
bedroom free market units that included three (3), one (1)
bedroom low income deed-restricted employee housing units
resulting in three (3) 3,500 square feet duplexes on the 2.187
acre Gordon Property (see Map #6). Three (2), two (2) bedroom
low income deed restricted employee housing units would be
provided off site at the Hunter Creek Condominium Project. This
project scored above the other submissions in the Growth
Management competition and received its requested allotment in
March of 1984.
II. CHANGE IN CONDITION
According to Section 24-11.7(b) of the Aspen Municipal
Code, if an approved application falls within any of the
following criteria of change;
(1) Any change which would potentially alter the
points originally awarded during the GMP scoring;
(2) Any change from the approved architecture and
site design of the project;
(3) Any c~ange in the number, size and type of
employee units; and
'-",
.,-,
(4) Any modification to the type and level of
physical services and facilities of the project,
then the planning and zoning commission shall rescore
the original application in order to determine whether:
(1) The applicant would no longer meet the
minimum threshold he must achieve in each category or
for all categories to receive an allocation; or
(2) The applicant's position relative to the
other applicant's during the competition would have
changed.
Should either of the above two (2) condit1ons be
met, the commission shall make a recommendation to the
city council as to whether the applicant's allocation
should be rescinded. Should the above conditions not
be met, the commission shall make a recommendation to
the city council as to the appropriateness of the
amendments to the original proposal and any further
conditions of approval which 'the applicant shall meet.
(Ord. No. 48-1977, Section 1; Ord. No. 84-1979, Section
1; Ord. No. 16-1980, Section 5; Ord. No. 48-1981,
Section 2).
Mr. GordOn has negotiated an option to purchase Lots 4
through 10 of the Callahan Subdivision (see Map. #1). There are
two (2) courses that the development of these Lots can take.
The first requires no further approvals for
development. Mr. Gordon can simply build six (6) sing~.e family
residences on Lots 4 through 9 and a duplex on Lot 10 and after
- 2 -
/-\
.~
completing the subdivision requirements and approvals, build the
three (3) duplexes on his original parcel (see Map #6).
The second course of development clusters the
structures along the Roaring Fork River with one (1) structure on
Lots 4 and 5 and a duplex on Lot 10 (see Map #3). The cluster of
structures along the river and on Lot 10 will have the
architectural character, scale and detail of the existing Aspen
Club Condominiums.
In order to maximize the open space, address the unique
topography of the site and emulate the architectural character of
the existing Aspen Club Condominium Units it will be necessary to
increase the height limit of the new structures to match the
existing Aspen Club Condominium units. This limit would be 34'
to the top of a flat roof and would apply to Units A, B, C, D, E,
F, G, H and Lot 10. The increased height will not impact the
neighbors as the elevation of the site is lower than surrounding
sites, therefor views to Aspen Mountain will not be obstructed.
The height of unit I will meet existing zoning limits (see Map
#3) .
This second course of development is the one Mr. Gordon
wishes to pursue. It will enhance the entire neighborhood by
providing a consistent development, more open space, more
landscaping and additional parking for the Aspen Club.
The following discussion will show that:
1. The application still meets or exceeds the minimum
threshold in each or all categories to receive an allocation.
- 3 -
~
.-.
2. The applicant's position relative to the other
applicant's during the competition has not changed.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDED DEVELOPMENT
A. The new site is 174,092 square feet or 3.99 acres
zoned R-15 P.U.D. located off Crystal Lake Road, bordered by the
Roaring Fork River on the west and by private properties zoned
R-15 on the north and east (see Map #1 and Map #4). The site has
some slopes in excess of 20% therefore a slope area reduction
calculation is required to determine allowable area for
development. This calculation by Alpine Surveys is shown
graphically on Map #2. The resulting area available is 165,322
square feet not including the land under the water of the Roaring
Fork River. The minimum lot area for a duplex in the R-15 P.U.D.
zone is 20,000 square feet; however, if Section 24-10.5(2)
(R.B.O.) is applied, the minimum lot area per duplex with
employee housing unit is 15,000 square feet. The three (3)
previously approved Gordon duplexes, A, B & C, are assigned lot
areas of 20,000 square feet each consistent with the allotment
received. The balance of the land area (105,332 square feet)
will allow six (6), D, E, F, G, H and I, duplexes under Section
24-10.5(2). Each duplex having one (1) free market unit and one
(1) low income employee housing unit.
Units A, Band C are consistent with the original
application in size and features. Units D, E, F, G, H and I are
proposed to be f~ur (4) bedroom units of approximately 3,300
square feet with a 600 square foot one (1) bedroom low income
deed restricted employee housing unit for a total duplex size of
- 4 -
1"'"'.
.~
3,900 square feet not including the garage or basement area
without light and ventilat-ion. Thi,s-floor-areais 'at least 500
square feet less than that allowed for a single family structure
that could be built on any of the Lots 4 through 9. The duplex
on Lot 10 will meet all current F.A.R. requirements for the zone
district.
The site is proposed to be subdivided into ten (10)
parcels, one (1) parcel for each duplex and the remaining parcel
to be common area for the nine (9) duplex parcels and restricted
against further development.
All units except that on Lot 10 will have passtve solar
heating and active solar domestic hot water devices.
B. The project is served by the City of Aspen Water
Department. A new cast iron water main will be designed and
constructed according to City of Aspen Engineering and Water
Department standards (see Map. 2).
This water main will connec't'the 8" cast iron pipe
(C.I.P.) water main located in the Aspen Club parking lot with
the 6" C.'I.P. located at the upper end of Riverside Avenue. The
result of this connection will be a loop water main system (see
Map liS). Each duplex will be provided with a 3/4" service line
connection. The estimated demand, is 200 gallons per duplex per
day resulting in a total estimated demand of 400 gallons per day
per duplex.
In addition to providing a loop water system, the
applicant's share of the Riverside Irrigation Ditch
(approximately 1/7) will be transferred to the City of Aspen.
- 5 -
,,-.,.
,,,-.,.,
The applicant reserves the right to alter the course of the ditch
and the width to form ponds in the landscape of the project.
C. The project is served by the Aspen Metropolitan
Sanitation District from an 8" sanitary sewer main located in the
right-of-way on the site (see Map #5). Each duplex will be
provided with a 4" service line connection. The total estimated
demand is 400 gallons per day per duplex.
D. Electricity is provided by Holy Cross Electrical
Association. Electrical service into the site will be
underground to each duplex. Each free market Unit will have a
200 amp service and each employee unit will have 100 amp;service.
Heat in the duplexes will be electric forced air interconnected
with passive solar collection.
E. The project will provide on-site retainage for
surface and run-off water in excess of pre-development rates.
Surface and run-off in excess of pre-development rate will be
ponded and released at the historical rate into the Riverside
Irrigation Ditch or the Roaring Fork River. At this time there
is no evidence of surface water to deal with (see Map 3).
F. The project will provide two (2) new fire hydrants
on the site. The nearest existing fire hydrants is in the Aspen
Club parking lot (see Map #5). T?e greatest distance from the
proposed fire hydrants to a proposed residence is 120 feet. The
distance to the fire station is 20 blocks; travel time from the
station to the site is less than 8 minutes.
G. The total site area including the area under the
Roaring Fork River is 3.99 acres. There is no requirement for
- 6 -
-.
,~.
open space in this zone, however the project, including paved
areas such as roads and parking, covers only .80 acres or twenty
one percent (21%) of the 3.99 acre site. This equates to 3.19
acres of open space or seventy nine percent (79%) of the site.
H. The distance to the Lower Elementary School is
approximately 1.5 miles; to the Middle and High Schools 3 miles.
School buses run on Highway 82, within six hundred (600) feet
from the site. There is easy pedestrian access to Highway 82 via
Crystal Lake Road or Riverside Drive.
I. Zoning Code requires off street parking for one (1)
car per bedroom, therefore, a total of thirty two (32) parking
spaces are required on site 'not including Lot 10 which provides
off street parking on Lot 10. Thirty seven (37) spaces will be
provided by eighteen (18) covered spaces and nineteen (19)
outside spaces, this number provides five (5) guest parking
spaces. Extensive landscaping will minimize the impact of
outside parking spaces to the site and surrounds.
J. The developer will dedicate a public trail and
fisherman's easement to the City of Aspen. The easement will be
below the developed area of the site, adjacent to the Roaring
Fork River. Further the developer will provide a bridge across
the river, connecting directly with the Ute Children's park and
existing paths.
K. The Aspen Valley Hospital is approximately three
(3) miles away and within ten (10) minutes driving time from the
site. The police department is twenty (20) blocks away with the
response time less than eight (8) minutes. Retail and service
- 7 -
r-'"
,'-"
activities are approximately sixteen (16) blocks from the site.
This development will create no noticeable demands on any of the
above mentioned services.
L. The effects of the proposed development on the
vicinity would be highly beneficial and far reaching. The causes
of such will be: new and upgraded utilities lines, space and
energy efficient housing units with quality aesthetics, passive
solar heating, active solar domestic hot water, extensive
landscaping, sufficient parking and roads, new trial and
fisherman's easement with a bridge link. The project will
provide new low-income employee housing units both on si~ and
closer to community service centers. In addition the project
will be developed at the allowed density resulting in a great
deal of open space, allowing the project to be more compatible
with existing development.
M. If approved, construction of the development will
commence in the spring of 1985 and be completed in the spring of
1987.
IV.
CO~~ARISON OF DEVELOPMENT AGAINST GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN SCORING SYSTEM
A. Availability of Public Facilities and Services:
1. Water: Two (2) points should be awarded since the
project will 1) allow a branch line to become a circuit line,
thus improving service to the area, and 2) increase the City of
Aspen's ownership of water rights within the City limits.
- 8 -
I""
."""
2. Sewer: One (1) point should be awarded since the
project may be handled by existing level of service and service
improvement by the applicant will benefit the project only.
3. Storm Drainage: Two (2) points should be awarded
since the project will provide on-site retainage for surface and
run-off water in excess of pre-development rates. Also ponding
will allow desirable landscape aesthetics and controlled release
of water.
4. Fire Protection: Two (2) points should be awarded
since the project will provide two (2) new fire hydrants,
improving existing conditions for the project and the netghbors.
The internal roads will meet requirements for width and turning
radius.
5. Parking Design: Two (2) points should be awarded
since the project will provide thirty two (32) required parking
spaces on site. Additionally five (5) extra guest spaces will be
provided on site. All nineteen (19) outside spaces will be
screened by landscaping.
6. Roads: Two (2) points should be awarded since the
project will provide easy in and out access with the minimum
amount of road possible. Also, the road will be paved to avoid
rutting and dust, minimizing impact on the residents and
neighbors. By clustering the development and providing a single
collection street, Crystal Lake Road becomes safer than before
with the potential of six (6) separate driveways.
- 9 -
1"'"'.
,-,
B. Quality of Design:
1. Neighborhood Compatibility: The existing
neighborhood consists of one and two story single family
residences of 2,000-2,400 square feet on lots that range in size
from 10,055 square feet to 17,812 square feet (see Map #2). The
amended development on the Gordon Property consists of nine (9)
two and three story 3,600 to 3,900 square feet duplexes on 3.99
total acres or one (1) duplex per .443 acres of 19,311 square
feet of land.
Taking the slope area reduction for density
calculations into account there is 18,369 square feet pe~ duplex.
These numbers indicate that the proposed development is
in the same density range as the rest of the neighborhood. This
is not only compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, but
improves the quality of the neighborhood. Together with the
extensive site work and trail easements being given, three (3)
points should be awarded for this section.
2. Site Design: Three (3) points should be awarded
since the project will provide a high quality of landscaping, to
include ponding, and extensive open spaces, all benefiting the
surrounding sites, and public trail users as well as this
project.
3. Energy: Three (3) points should be awarded since
the project will incorporate: insulation values of R-24 in the
walls and R-45 at the roof, orientation within 150 of south,
extensive passive solar heating, and active solar domestic hot
water devices.
- 10 -
r-.
r-.
4. Trails: Three (3) points should be provided since
the project will dedicate a trail and fishermen's easement, and
provide a bridge link, thus furthering progress of the City's
Trails Master Plan.
5. Green Space: Three (3) points should be provided
since: the project will provide seventy nine percent (79%) of
the site as green space. The majority of the green space will be
adjacent to the trial, benefiting residents and public alike.
C. Proximity to Support Services:
1. Public Transportation (from the Gordon site): Two
(2) points should be awarded since the project is less than six
(6) blocks walking distance of a City bus stop.
2. Community Commercial Facilities (from the Gordon
Property): One (1) point should be awarded since the project is
farther than six (6) blocks walking distance from the commercial
facilities in town.
D. provision for Low Income Housing:
Twenty (20) points should be awarded since the
development will be fifty percent (50%) low income occupancy.
The project will provide a total of nine (9) employee bedrooms in
a total of nine (9) separate one (1) bedroom employee housing
units. These units will house a total of 15.75 people according
to the Pitkin County Housing Office average of 1.75 people per
one (1) bedroom units. The original submission housed only
twelve (12) people therefore the new proposal houses three (3)
additional people.
- 11 -
~
~,
E. Provision for Unique Financing.
No applicable.
F. Bonus Points:
This project makes a substantial contribution to
Aspen's pedestrian trial system by the construction of a foot
bridge across the Roaring Fork River and the dedication of land
for the continuation of the Ute Trial along the Roaring Fork
River.
- 12 -
r-.
'-',
ADDENDUM TO SECTION I
Traffic and Parking
Motor vehicles will reach this site by turning off State
Highway 82 onto Crystal Lake Road, a paved street, then onto a
private 2-lane paved driveway that serves the site. At the point
where the site driveway intersects Crystal Lake Road the road is
a one way street bordering the parking for the Aspen Club.
Crystal Lake Road serves The Aspen Club and The Aspen Club
Condominiums at the present time.
good,
cars.
bumps
The condition of the Crystal Lake Road at this time is
the type of vehicle that uses the road is primarily family
The street's posted speed limit is 10-15 mph with speed
to help induce slow vehicular movement.
The traffic generated by The Aspen Club is constant
throughout the day with a peak occuring after 5:00 p.m. in the
summer and after 4:00 p.m. in the winter as people arrive from
work or skiing to use the facilities.
The traffic generated by The Aspen Club Condominiums is
similar to other housing areas with traffic generated in the
morning and late afternoon. The volume of traffic varies
seasonally as many of the owners are absentee.
The traffic generated on the proposed site will also be
similar to most residential neighborhoods. The hours of use
being primarily in the morning hours, going to work (8:00 to 9:00
a.m.), and in the evening, returning from work (4:00 to 6:00
p.m.).
The estimated traffic count for the employee units should
be 4 to 5 total round trips per day. The estimated traffic count
for the 3 free market units should be 7 to 8 total round trips
per day. These numbers represent the worst possible case without
consideration of the use of alternate means of transportation.
The Crystal Lake Road is capable of handling this increase in
traffic without causing a detrimental effect on the surrounding
neighborhood or road conditions. .