Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20080603AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, June 3, 2008 4:30 p.m. -Public Hearing SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners Commendation of Dylan Johns B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. 934 S. Mill Street, Greenline Review, Resolution No. B. 800 Alps Road, Greenline Review, Resolution No. /4 C. 201 S. 7`h Street, Map Amendment, Resolution No. ZO VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Direct FROM: Jason Lasser, Special Projects Planner ~~, RE: Parcel 5, Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD APlanned Community, 8040 Greenline Review, and Residential Design Standards Variances -- Resolution No. 18, Series of 2008 -Public Hearing HEARING DATE: June 3, 2008 APPLICANT /OWNER: Ian and Isabelle Loring REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, LLC LOCATION: Parce15, Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD -commonly known as 934 S. Mill St. CURRENT ZONING: L (PUD), Lodge, Planned Unit Development SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting approvals for 8040 Greenline review and for Variances from two Residential Design Standards Photo: Parcel 5, Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requests for 8040 Greenline Review and for Variances from the Residential Design Standards. SUMMARY: Ian and Isabelle Loring, represented by Vann Associates, LLC., have applied fora 8040 Greenline Review, and have also applied for variances from the Residential Design Standards for the Building Orientation requirement, and the Build-to lines requirement to construct a new single family home and accessory dwelling unit on Parcel 5 of the Top of Mill Subdivision, commonly known as 934 South Mill Street. The proposed application is attached as Exhibit "C". REVIEW PROCEDURE: The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an 8040 Greenline Review. Ordinance No. 7, Series 2002, approved the Top of Mill Subdivision and set forth that all of the single-family residences to be constructed within the subdivision shall be required to obtain 8040 Greenline Review approval prior to applying for a building permit. The above referenced ordinance granted approval of the subdivision's compliance with nine of the eleven 8040 Greenline requirements (standards 1, 2, 4-6, 8-11). The remaining two requirements, standards 3 and 7, must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for compliance for each individual residence design. In addition, The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny any variance requests from the Residential Design Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020(D), Variances. STAFF COMMENTS: The parcel of land that is subject to this application is an abnormal shaped lot located at the top of Mill Street. At the top of the street, it becomes a curvilinear private street serving as a turn-around loop. The street facing lot line is comprised of a curve of approximately thirty (30) feet and a straight line of twenty-two (22) feet to the northwest corner. As a result the street-facing building envelope line is approximately forty (40) feet wide. The northeast corner of the parcel is pinched to allow for an access easement for Parcel 4. The lot is 10,806 square feet. SO4O GREENLINE: The property, as set forth Ordinance No. 7, Series 2002, must obtain 8040 Greenline Review approval prior to applying for a building permit. The ordinance granted approval of the subdivision's compliance with nine of the eleven 8040 Greenline requirements. The remaining two requirements - 3: Air Quality Impacts; and 7: Mountain Character - must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for compliance. Air Ouality Impacts The purpose of the air quality requirement is to ensure that the proposed development does not have significant adverse effect on the air quality in the city. The driveway will be poured in place, minimizing the air quality impacts. Additionally, the utility infrastructure is currently in place and will not be altered or added to by this project. The project will be subject to a construction management plan that will govern pm10 mitigation, off-site mud transport, etc. Mountain Character The purpose of the mountain character requirement is to ensure that the building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. The allowable square footage and height were approved as part of the original Top of Mill PUD to ensure all structures would fit with the mountain character. The provided square footage is equal to the allowable level and the height is below the allowable level. The roof forms are pitched and blend into the mountain 2 backdrop. Staff believes the applicant satisfies the review standards for these requirements. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS: Buildine Orientation On curvilinear streets the building orientation Residential Design Standard requires the front fapade be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. (L.U.C. Section 26.410.040(A)) Staff believes that because of the lots abnormal shape it is difficult to meet the requirement. Staff believes that the proposed variance satisfies the review standards for granting a variance from the Residential Design Standards because strict adherence to this standard would likely create constraints that would trigger other deviations from the Residential Design Standards. Also, the distance from the street to the buildable site is significant in length so that the purpose of this particular review standard becomes almost inapplicable. The front of the house does generally face the driveway, leading to the street. Staff recommends approval of the variance from the building orientation standard. Build-to lines Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 (A.2) requires parcels less than 15,000 square feet have at least 60% of the front fagade must be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. Due to the unique shape of the lot, it does not lend itself to a traditional front yard setback. While the rear lot line is a straight 92 feet, the front line is approximately 40 feet, which zigzags across the front to connect side lot lines. The structure will be built within five (5) feet of the side and rear yard setbacks. Staff finds that the proposed variance satisfies the review standards for granting a variance from the Residential Design Standards because the lot's shape creates difficulty in strict adherence to this standard. The structure will be built within five (5) feet of the side and rear yard setbacks. Staff finds that the proposed variance satisfies the review standards for granting a variance from the residential design standards because the lot shape prohibits strict adherence to this standard. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this application meets the applicable review standards for allowing development above the 8040 Greenline and that recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request. Additionally, staff believes this application meets the applicable review standards for granting a variance from the building orientation, build-to lines Residential Design Standards and recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the variance request. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. 18, Series of 2008, approving an "8040 Greenline Review," and approving variances to the Residential Design Standards for building orientation, and build-to lines. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- 8040 Greenline Review and Staff Findings Exhibit C -- Application Exhibit D - DRC Comments 3 RESOLUTION No.#18 (Series of 2008) RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCES FOR PARCEL 5, TOP OF MILL SUBDIVISION/PUD, A PLANNED COMMUNITY, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 934 SOUTH MILL STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL N0.2737-182-02205 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Ian and Isabelle Loring, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates LLC, for variances to the Residential Design Standards for building orientation, and build-to lines; and an "8040 Greenline Review;" and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Lodge with a Planned Unit Development Overlay (L/PUD) in the Top of Mill Subdivision (Aspen Mountain Subdivision) PUD; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standazds, the Community Development Department recommended approval, of the land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 3, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 18, Series of 2008, by a to _ L-~ vote, approving vaziances to the Residential Design Standards for building orientation, and build-to lines; and approving an "8040 Greenline Review."; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1• Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves variances to the Residential Design Standards for building orientation, build-to lines; and an "8040 Greenline Review" on Parcel 5, Top of Mill Subdivision/PUD, APlanned Community, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: Building Permit Aaalication The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final P&Z Resolution. b. A Construction Management Plan c. Engineered drawings for the deflection wall (as shown on PUD plat) Section3: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 3rd day of June, 2008 APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: LJ Erspamer, Chair Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk EXHIBIT A: Survey, Proposed Site Plau { ~,'; ~~„ rve R hm: h' 1 `\ Y •.ii I n~,~ ry1 /+ ~ ~~ y~ a R 1~ I C' /1 ~ f ~ I PARCEC ,j'S I iaeoa m m aaee)) ~ ~ 9i3 1 7 syeX I ~ lAn' /nr I S cl ~1 ~ L_.e .. ,o , ~ ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ g ~_ 'ter ~ ~'- ,. 1 ~~ ~mw 1 ~~ i ` ' an ~~ n .swr~~im' "-rte"' ~'"}r "'-"~"~ x sic ~ - . 511e %en.M furor ,r, ~a ': 4~:F~~~ a°Qa'*'. EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA a4[ STAFF FINDINGS The Planning and Zoning Commission may grant variances from the Residential Design Standards if the proposed application meets the following: a) Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the deve/opment is proposed and purpose of the particular standard In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. The following are Staffs findings in regards to the variances being requested by the Applicant. Variance Requested Building orientation. (26.410.040 A1) The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. ~ Yes. No. i Yes. I I I I I I ~ ~ji -~ a) Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, Staff Findin¢: On curvilinear streets the building orientation residential design standard requires the front facade be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street (L.U.C. Section 26.410.040(A)). Staff believes that because of the abnormal shape of the lot, it is difficult to meet the requirement. Staff believes that the proposed variance satisfies the review standards for granting a variance from the residential design standards because strict adherence to this standard would likely create constraints that would trigger other deviations from the residential design standards. Also, the distance from the street to the parallel orientation location site is minimal in length that the purpose of this particular review standard becomes almost inapplicable. The front of the house does generally face the driveway, leading to the street. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4 b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specifu constraints. Staff Finding: Staff agrees with the application that the lot is unusually shaped and that requiring a parallel street facing fapade is problematic given the site's constraints. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Variance Requested Build-to lines. (26.410.040 A2) On parcels or lots of less than 15,000 square,feet, at least 60% of the front fafade shall be within 5 feet of the minimum,front yard setback line. a) Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the Yes. i ho. I Yes. f ~~ w~I i ~~ I ~ development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, Staff Finding: Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 (A2) requires parcels less than 15,000 square feet have at least 60% of the front fagade must be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. Due to the unique shape of the lot, it does not lend itself to a traditional front yard setback. While the rear lot line is a straight 92 feet, the front line is approximately 40 feet, which zigzags across the front to connect side lot lines. The structure will be built within five (5) feet of the side and rear yard setbacks. Staff finds that the proposed variance satisfies the review standards for granting a variance from the residential design standards because the lot's shape creates difficulty in strict adherence to this standard. Staff believes that the proposed build-line respects and fits into the context of the neighborhood setting. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specifu constraints. Staff Finding: The front entry faces the street, and the proposed front fagade is within 5 feet of the side and rear yard setbacks. Staff agrees with the application in that the lot is unusually shaped and that requiring the front fagade be within 5 feet of the traditional front yard setback is problematic given the site's constraints. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW: EXHIBIT B According to Section 26.435.030 of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set below. The property is located in the Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD. Ordinance No. 7, Series 2002, approved the Top of Mill Subdivision and set forth that all of the single-family residences to be constructed within the subdivision shall be required to obtain 8040 Greenline Review approval prior to applying for a building permit. The above ordinance granted approval of the subdivision's compliance with nine of the eleven 8040 Greenline requirements. The remaining two requirements, items 3 and 7, must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for compliance for each individual residence design. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution: STAFF COMMENT: Standards 1 and 2 were approved as part of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. STAFF COMMENT: This development will not have a significant air quality impact, as the utility infrastructure is currently in place and will not be altered or added to for this project. Additionally, the Top of Mill Subdivision specifically addresses the removal of contaminated soils, dust suppression, landscaping, restoration following construction, and the project will be subject to all requirements of the Environmental Health Department, and to a construction management plan which will govern PM-10 mitigation, off-site mud transport, etc. Staff believes this project meets this standard and should be approved. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. 6 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. STAFF COMMENT: Standards 4, 5, and 6 were approved as part of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. STAFF COMMENT: The allowable building height and square footage were approved as part of the original PUD to ensure the structures would blend into the open character of the mountain. Development on Parcel 5 is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of 5,200 square feet, which shall include the ADU. The proposed residence will contain approximately 5,163 square feet inclusive of the proposed ADU. The building height limit for the parcel is 28 feet. The proposed height (25 feet) is lower than the allowable height, and the square footage is equal to the allowable level, helping it blend in with the existing mountain character. Staff believes this project meets this standard and should be approved. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. 11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical STAFF COMMENT: Standards 8, 9, 10, and 11 were approved as part of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD. 7 EXHIBIT D Zoning DRC Comments -Lot 5 T.O. Mill Subdivision 1. Applicant is required to confirm grade: The site plan appeared to be using an interpolation of grade or a finished grade. It did not appear to reflect the grade in the Top of Mill Subdivision / PUD sheet C4. Sheet C3, 1975 Topography, noted as a reference for natural grade, was not found in the packet. Please clarify the grade on the Site Plan page. Height will be taken from the most restricted grade. 2. Plan set will require a roof plan over topographic map with all pertinent roof heights marked and listed in corresponding key. The spots on this key and page should relate to same locations on elevation pages. 3. Applicant will be required to submit a Residential Design Standard page with the permit drawing set. Engineering DRC Comments -Lot 5 T.O. Mill Subdivision 1. The Engineering Department has reviewed the application and concluded that the deflection wall as shown is compliant with the PUD approval and will need to be designed by a Colorado P.E. GN /.~ 1 {. t, l~~ Ill- 11,V 1` „:. I - C`t;'` ~,r\~l\ C;~ ~`~-_ ;, /r~ jYp ,.. ;~ . ~ - ~ ' ~ b ' CEL ,~a ^4 sP. ~E ,~ `fNll1 E80µ' 'smc cewE 1 £~ $ „ ~ t' '' r':w; .. ~ ~ NOiC ti CFF.F.CIVM N4..5. FNE 9E MPLL`- A~ 6 cOxilRUttW~ CON NEENI~UaCNU i~MC CWF1R1iC1(ON IWEVO 6 MgVTiJM ?FRIfA.S. f) CONSIRUC1pN JEI.NL fCR DERECiICN wN15 w.'s: 5f SUBM11E0 .wOR 17 BLM1L>w4 PERMR A4RlOV4. ~ ~~ ~ .~ ~t ` ~~ f ¢` a + f PAR ~4 ./~ld~'T/.r4. 1~j /~ YfIZC IWW~ ~:, µ. ~N ,.:[ °"~""• °"` `~ GRA tEYER TOP OF HILL ' rsu ~:nr s RAr R(SIWOSSYY/ ys lI xo N DR `~ ) ' rppt ~`-`~'~ ~ ~. ~; SUBDIVISION /PUD - s MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: THRU: DATE OF MEMO: MEETING DATE: RE: APPLICANT /OWNER: Gerald Grayson REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson Associates Inc. Planning and Zoning Commission Errin Evans, Current Planner Jennifer Phelau, Deputy Community Development Directo~ Apri130, 2008 June 3, 2008 800 S. Aspen Alps Road - 8040 Greenline Review LOCATION: Civic Address - 800 S. Aspen Alps Road; Legal Description -Moses Split Lot 1; Parcel Identification Number - 2737- 182-56-003 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Moderate Density Residential zone district with an overlay Planned Unit Development (R-15 / PUD) containing a single family home. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to develop a new single family residential dwelling. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the 8040 Greenline Review Application with the recommended conditions. SUMMARY: The Applicant would like to replace the existing single family dwelling with the construction of a new single family dwelling. The applicants are requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review. Photo of the Revised 5/29/2008 Page 1 of I1 Figure 1: Zoning Map Revised 5/29/2008 Page 2 of 11 Figure 2: Vicinity Map BACKGROUND: The applicant intends to redevelop the lot located at 800 S. Aspen Alps Road. There is currently a single family dwelling located on the lot and the applicant would like to replace it with a new single family dwelling. The lowest part of the parcel is located at 8,056 feet which is above the 8,040 contour line. As a result, the new construction is considered to be located within an environmentally sensitive azea. Development in this azea is subject to review of the impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, air pollution, potential for avalanches, and transitions to forest and agricultural lands. Other matters considered include suitability for development, compatible design, minimizing disturbance to vegetation and natural land features. The City Council approved the Moses Lot Split in 1987. This resulted in establishing Lot 1 and 2 and a voluntary prohibition of development on the remaining property, approximately three acres of open space. This approval capped the allowable floor azea for Lot 1 at a maximum of 3,800 squaze feet. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This will require review as pursuant to the Aspen Land Use Code 26.435.030; all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level in the City of Aspen and all development within 150 feet below as measured horizontally, shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please see Exhibit A for staff findings on review standards and criteria. The applicant is also required to meet the Residential Design Standazds in Chapter 26.410 of the Land Use Code. This section applies to any residential development in the City of Aspen requiring a building permit, unless the property is located within the R-15B zone district. Under Section 26.410 (B) (2), parcels located within the Aspen Infill Area are required to comply with all the Standazds, though parcels with no street frontage shall be exempt from the following requirements: Section 26.410.040(A)(1)avd Section 26.410.040(D). This lot is subject to the requirements of Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992 that was created during the Moses Lot Split that resulted in creating Lot 1. Ordinance No. 31 states that the maximum allowable floor area for Lot 1 shall be 3,800 squaze feet. KEY ISSUES: There are several concerns with this application that need to be resolved before the building permit stage. One issue is how height is determined relative to the existing and natural grade. The applicant is permitted to use historic grades to measure the maximum height for structure levels that do not line up with walls that extend to the ground. The applicant has provided an interpolation of historic grades at two feet intervals to determine the maximum allowable height. The applicant has indicated that the new design will not increase the visual impacts from this lot from the house design that is currently on the site. The new structure has been designed to mimic the natural slope of the site. During the 8040 Greenline Review minimum impacts to the view planes should be encouraged. When reviewing a development under 8040 Greenline Review, the Planning and Zoning Revised 5/29/2008 Page 3 of 11 Commission shall consider whether the applicant has made an effort to ensure design is compatible with the terrain and that minimum disturbances have been made to vegetation and natural land features. A cut is proposed into the bank and the applicant proposes to fill some azeas to the south of the proposed structure. The existing house is sitting on a bench that was artificially excavated to accommodate the development that exists on S. Aspen Alps Road. No other excavation is proposed. The proposed structure meets the requirements of the Residential Design Standazds. There aze large trees along the front of the lot that assist in shielding the impacts from the view perspectives from the town and surrounding properties. The proposed structure has a larger mass than the existing one. This lot is capped at a maximum of 3,800 squaze feet of floor area, designated by the PUD. The City Engineer has indicated that the lot is located in a designated avalanche and mud flow azea. The City Engineer is also requesting more information regarding impacts on runoff and the natural watershed. The applicant is required to show plans that mitigate any safety hazards to the residence, inhabitants and surrounding properties, in the form of a Grading, Drainage and Erosion Mitigation Plan. The applicant is also required to submit an engineer's assessment of the capacity of construction traffic on S. Aspen Alps Road. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: (Development Review Committee Minutes -Exhibit C) Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District The below grade development may require the installation of a pumping system. (Exhibit D) Water Department The property currently uses a pump. As a result the water is pressurized. Pazks Department The Pazks Department indicated that they were concerned about the cut into the bank and the visual impacts. They requested a landscape plan that was ecologically connected to the site and provided information on the native vegetation replacement plan. The Pazks Department has forwarded a list of requests regarding tree permits, tree and native vegetation protection, erosion control fencing and a landscape plan. (Exhibit E) City En ig Weer The Engineering Department requires an erosion, grading and drainage mitigation plan to provide more information regazding the effects on water quality. This site is located in a designated mudflow zone. As a result, an avalanche hazard and mudflow analysis will also be required. Any windows that are located below grade will require safety mitigation plans. Also an Engineer's Assessment will be required to outline the capacity of the road during the construction process. (Exhibit F) Fire Department The Fire Departrnent will require a detailed drawing of the fire truck turn azound on the site with the necessary dimensions. Also a wildfire mitigation plan will be required for the building Revised 5/29/2008 Page 4 of 11 permit. The Fire Marshall noted that the water lines should be sized for sprinkling systems and that a minimum of 16 feet of the access easement needs to be maintained for emergency ingress. He also asked the applicant to indicate the location of the nearest fire hydrant. Community Development -Zoning Officer The Zoning Officer pointed out that grading appeazed to be the biggest issue. The existing grade is lower than the natural grade. Using the natural grade will result in a higher permitted height. The code requires that the more restrictive measurement is used for calculating height. He requested that the applicant supply a map of natural grade of the original topography. One copy was supplied with the application. He suggested that the applicant take the contours from the historical maps and have the surveyor document the sections in between. The applicant will be required to attend a meeting with staff to resolve the grading issue. A meeting will be arranged prior to the June 3`d meeting. He pointed out that it appeazed that there was some screening proposed and that hedgerows are not permitted. The FAR is set at 3800 square feet according to the PUD. There aze no calculations provided for the demolition credits, the gazage may be able to increase the exempted area to 375 square feet depending on the demolition measurements. There will be fees calculated for GMQS, parks, school district and TDM. The details for exposed below grade walls will be required. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS TO APPROVAL: If the Planning and Zoning Commission decides to approve the application, it is recommended to do so with the following conditions: 1. All pazking will be required on the site. Parking on S. Aspen Alps Road is not permitted. 2. An approved detailed landscaping plan, tree permit, tree and native vegetation protection plan and erosion control fences will be required before application of a building permit. 3. The applicant is required to provide a drainage, erosion and grading mitigation plan to the Engineering Department. 4. The applicant is required to submit an engineering assessment of S. Aspen Alps Road in regard to the capacity of the road during construction that must be approved by the City Engineer. 5. The applicant is required to submit a Wildfire Mitigation Plan to the Fire Department. 6. The applicant will not be permitted to apply for a building permit until all conditions have been met and approved. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Staff recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the 8040 Greenline Review. PROPOSED MOTION: Community Development Staff recommends that if the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the 8040 Greenline Review to use this motion. "I move to approve Resolution No. 00X, Series of 2008, to approve, with conditions, the application for 8040 Greenline Review at 800 S. Alps Road, also known as Moses Split Lot 1." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Staff Findings Exhibit B -Application Revised 5/29/2008 Page 5 of 11 Exhibit C -Minutes from Development Review Committee Meeting Exhibit D -Referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Exhibit E -Referral comments from the City Parks Department Exhibit F -Referral comments from the City Engineer Revised 5/29/2008 Page 6 of 11 RESOLUTION N0. OXX (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR ASINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE ON LOT 1, MOSES LOT SPLIT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 800 SOUTH ASPEN ALPS ROAD. Parcel No. 2737-182-56-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Gerald Grayson, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review to construct a new single-family residence on Lot 1, Moses Lot Split; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 0.6 acre and is located in the R- 15 (PUD) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is located at an elevation of approximately 8,056 - 8,130 feet above sea level and is subject to 8040 Greenline Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.020, Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development at, or above, or within 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline in conformance with the review criteria established in Land Use Code Section 26.435.030(C), 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the proposal and recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve with conditions the 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 3, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions, by a _ - _ vote, the Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section I Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review to construct a new single-family residence on Lot 1, Moses Lot Split, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The allowable floor area of the new single family home shall be no greater than 3,800 squaze feet. The maximum height shall be 25 feet. 2. No further development shall occur on Lot 1, Moses Lot Split outside of the building envelope approved by Resolution No. OXX, Series of 2008. 3. All the required pazking shall be provided on-site. There shall be no parking on Aspen Alps Road. 4. An approved tree permit from the Parks Department will be required before any demolition or significant property changes take place. The tree permit must be approved prior to submission of the building permit. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or adjacent to the site. Any excavation under the drip line permit will need to be approved along with the tree permit. 5. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall submit an engineering assessment of S. Alps Road, specifically regazding the load-bearing capability of the road in relation to the use of heavy construction equipment and emergency response apparatus, to be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer. 6. The building permit application shall include the following: a) A copy of the final Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c) An Excavation Stabilization Plan that will show the extent of the excavation, the location of constriction fences azound the excavation, erosion control measures, spot elevations at the top and bottom of cuts, and site-specific construction drawings of the excavation and stabilization measures. The Excavation Stabilization Plan must be stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. For all excavation, the Contractor must comply with neighbor notification requirements stated in Section 3307 of the 2003 International Building Code. d) A Site Grading Plan stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer, to ensure that the grading plan agrees with the drainage plan. Plans must demonstrate positive drainage away from structures as required by the Building Code (IRC - R401.3 and IBC -1805.3.4). e) A Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. On-site drainage is to be designed in accordance with the City of Aspen Engineering Design and Construction Standards. IBC Section 3307.1 requires that provisions be made to control erosion. The City requires a plan that shows the location of erosion control measures, drainage patterns, and details of erosion control structures. The plan must include notes that describe how erosion control measures will be regularly maintained. The erosion control plan must show the location of mud racks, the location of water for washing tires and the retention of the wash water. f) A soils and foundation report, shall be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer with the Building Permit. g) A detailed landscaping plan for approval by the City of Aspen Parks Department. The landscaping plan shall include but not be limited to, the following: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along the back of the property. Vertical excavation will be required and over digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. A vegetation fence shall be installed along the edge of disturbance on the hillside. This protection fence must be maintained at all times; storage of materials, project access, construction Foot traffic is prohibited beyond this fence. Restoration of the area along the fence line will be of native quality and approved by the Parks Department. Supplemental planting in the native area is prohibited unless first approved. Utility connections shall be designed on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. h) The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal will be installed. Afire alarm system meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal may also need to be installed at the discretion of the Aspen Fire Marshal. i) A wildfire mitigation plan shall be submitted. This plan shall be accepted by the Fire Marshall. j) A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. k) A construction management plan that details the proposed method and means by which the site will be accessed with excavation and grading equipment during construction. This plan shall also detail the proposed construction parking, which shall demonstrate that except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks aze to be parked in the area around the site. I) A letter from the primary contractor to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. m) The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, Monday through Saturday. The applicant shall comply with all applicable city regulations addressing wood burning devices in the new residential unit. 8. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standazds and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 9. All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, as may be amended from time to time. Section 2: The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this resolution, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the Following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lot 1, Moses Lot Split, by Resolution No. OXX, Series of 2008, of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. Section 3• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4• This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 16th day of May, 2006. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jim True, Assistant City Attorney PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: LJ Erspamer, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Section 26.435.030 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications that are located at elevations greater than 8040 feet are subject to a review for impacts on environmentally sensitive features including the watershed, avalanche hazazds, unstable slopes, mudslides, air pollution and transitions to forests and agricultural lands. A. 8040 Greenline Review Standards. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Staff Finding This lot is located on an east facing slope on the north side of Aspen Mountain. The City Engineer has indicated that more information is needed regarding avalanche hazards, and mud~low analysis. This property is located in a designated mud~low area. Mitigation plans are required to ensure that development can occur safely on this site. The Parks Department is also requesting a tree permit, tree and native vegetation protection plan and an erosion fence plan. Staff will find this standard met with the submission of the appropriate plans. 2. The proposed development does not have significant adverse effects on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion, or have consequent effects on water pollution. Staff Finding The City Engineer has indicated that a drainage, erosion, grading mitigation plan will be required to ensure that development can occur without negatively affecting the watershed and natural runoff Staff will find this condition met with approval from the City Engineer. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on air quality in the City. Staff Finding The City Engineer has indicated that there is not a significant effect on air quality in the City. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff Finding Revised 5/29/2008 Page7of11 The only proposed development is the replacement of the single family dwelling. It appears that the design of the building attempts to mimic the general slope of the mountain; however the new structure proposes to remove a portion of the slope in the rear of the lot. The proposed structure is also substantially larger than the existing one; however, the height of the structure will appear visually smaller than the existing structure. The trees along South Aspen Alps Road help to screen the structure from lower elevations. Stafffands this criterion met. 5. Any grading will minimize to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation, and natural land features. Staff Finding The applicant proposes to cut into the existing bank and to f ll a small area to the south of the proposed structure to attempt to return a portion of the site back to historic grade. Staff will find this criterion met with approval from the City Engineer. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff Finding There is only one structure proposed for this site. The driveway and the access will not be changed for the new development. The trees along the road may screen some of the new development. The applicant has proposed a structure that mimics the existing slope to reduce the visual impacts on the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion met. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Staff Finding The building height is not minimized. The applicant has designed the structure to the maximum permitted height under the Land Use Code. The majority of the mass of the home will be located below grade. Stafffands this criterion to be met. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Finding The Water Department and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District have confirmed that sufficient utilities service the site. Stafffrnds this criterion to be met. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff Finding South Aspen Alps road is currently the main access to the lot via an easement through the adjacent lot to the north. The applicant will be required to provide an engineer's assessment to verify that the road will have the capacity to withstand the increase traffic and impacts Revised 5/29/2008 Page 8 of I 1 from the new construction. The report has been submitted. Staff will ftnd this criterion met with City Engineer Approval. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff Finding The Fire Department has requested that the applicant provide a site plan that shows an adequate area for emergency access. The applicant must ensure that there is at least 16 feet of road width cleared at all dimes for emergency access. Staff will find this criterion met with approval from the Fire Department. 11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: ParksBecreation/1'rails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. Staff Finding There are no changes proposed that are addressed by the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff finds this criterion met. Revised 5/29/2008 Page 9 of 11 Exhibit A (continued) RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Section 26.410.040 of the City Land Use Code ensures that structures are built to standazds with regard to site design, building form, pazking, building elements and context. A. Site Design. 1. Building orientation. Sta(ffindinQ -this section does not apply. 2. Build to lines. On parcels or lots of then than 15,000 square feet, at least 60% of the front fagade shall be within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the 60% standard. Sta(ffindinQ -This lot is just over 26, 000 square feet. This standard does not apply. 3. Fences. Stafffnding-Fences are not shown on the site plan. B. Building Form 1. Secondary Mass. All new single family and duplex structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or is linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Staff~nding -The garage serves as the connecting element on this site plan and meets the criteria. C. Parking, Garages and Carports 1. For all residential uses that have access only from an alley or private road, the following standards shall apply: a. Parking shall be accessed from an alley or private road. b. If the garage doors are visible from a street or alley, then they shall be single stall doors, or double stall doors designed to appear -ike single stall doors. c. If the garage doors are not visible from a street or alley, the garage doors may be either single stall or normal double stall garage doors. Staff finding -This property accesses a private road via an access easement. The garage doors are both single stall doors and meet this requirement. Revised 5/29/2008 Page 10 of 11 2. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street, the following standards shall be met: Staff Finding -This property does not have access from a public street. D. Building Elements Staff Finding -This section does not apply. E. Context 1. Materials a. The quality of the exterior materials and details and their applications shall be consistent on all sides of the building. b. Materials should be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. c. Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as exterior materials. Staff Finding -The building elevations submitted meet this requirement. 2. Inflection -The following must be met for parcels which are 6,000 square feet or larger. a. If a one storey building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one story in the height along their common lot line. If there are one story buildings on both sides of the subject site, the applicant may choose which side to inflect. StaffFinding-There are no single story buildings adjacent to this property. Revised 5/29/2008 Page 11 of 11 ~X-Nt ~ I T L Minutes for the DRC Meeting TO: Development Review Committee FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner MEETING DATE: May 7, 2008 RE: 800 Alps Road - 8040 Greenline Review - Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District -Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system - Water Department -John - cun•ent waterline uses a pump so it is pressurized - Parks Department -Steve o This appears to be a large cut into the bank. The scope and extent are extremely visible from many locations o The cut is lateral and into the slope o Parks appreciates that there is terracing and an attempt to fit into the landscape o Will require information on the native vegetation replacement plan o Need to see an ecologically connected landscape plan o Appears to be a propensity for erosion and sediment o Applicant responded ^ The backyard is benched ^ Not expanding into the existing vegetation ^ Area is graveled ^ Existing cut -where the garage will be located • Will be providing more vegetation between the properties, the lower left will be visible from the street o What will the vegetation be below the slope ^ Evergreens and Aspen o Pazks will ensure that the applicant gets the information regarding the relevant permits that will be required for the building permits - Engineering Department -Trish Aragon o Engineering will require more information regarding effects on water quality in the form of a erosion, grading and drainage mitigation plan (a full drainage report) o This is a difficult site, it is located in the mudflow zone o Engineering will also require an avalanche hazard and mud flow analysis o The information for this is outlined in the engineering criteria o Point out any windows that will be located more than 3 feet below grade and the mitigation plans for them Revised 5/23/2008 Page 1 of 2 ~XHttSIT ~ ACSD Requirements -Lot 1 Moses Lot Split DRC 5-7-08 The existing sanitary sewer services for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split connect to the Alps private sewer collection system, which in turn then connects to the district's main sanitary sewer system lower in the Aspen Alps road. A shared service line agreement between the owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split and the Aspen Alps shall be required. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. ~t gtZ' '~ DRC May 12, 2008 City Parks Department Requirements Property: 8040 Green Line Review Aspen Alps 1. An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. Please contact the City Forester at 920-5120. Mitieation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site. 2. Tree Protection and Native Vegetation Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their r~resented drin lines. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg_permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. 3. Protective fence shall be installed at the edge of the construction impacts. There will be no storage of construction materials, backfill, tools or construction traffic outside of the protective fence. Erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. There is no excavation or disturbance of the native area outside of the protective fence. 4. A landscape plan should be submitted for review and approval by the parks department. The plan should include a detailed landscape design, which helps to decrease the impacts from the slope excavations. Design should include a legend of plantings which will blend with the native characteristics of the hillside. Errin Evans Subject: FW: 800 Aspen Alps Road From: Tricia Aragon Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:33 PM To: Trisha Nelson Cc: Errin Evans Subject: 800 Aspen Alps Road Trisha, I did go to the meeting but forgot to forward my comments to Errin. Beiow are my comments Requirement: The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. Response: Parcel does not meet this requirement. Parcel is located in a potential geologic hazard area according to figure ES-5, and a mudtlow hazard area according to figure 11 as outlined in the Surface Drainage Master Plan dated 2001 additionally. Requirement: The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Response: Unable to determine compliance with requirement, application does not include a drainage report or an erosion and sediment control plan. Requirement: Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Response: Unable to determine compliance with requirement, application does not include information on the stability of Aspen Alps Road. In particular the during the construction of the proposed development. Trish Aragon, P.E. City Engineer City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 429-2785 Fax: (970) 920-5081 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen -Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: Apri118, 2008 MEETING DATE: June 3, 2008 RE: 201 S. 7'" Street -Map Amendment APPLICANT /OWNER: Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Sheri Sanzone, Bluegreen LOCATION: Address - 201 S. 7th Street; Legal Description - Lot 3, Adams Subdivision; Parcel Identification Number-2735- 123-15-003 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Moderate Density Residential (R-15) zone district, within Pitkin County containing a single family home. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting a Map Amendment, to zone the property with a City of Aspen zone district zone designation Moderate Density Residential (R-15), as a part of their request to annex the subject property into the City of Aspen municipal boundaries. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this Map Amendment application to the City Council. SUMMARY: The applicant has petitioned for annexation and applied for a zoning'designation. Currently the lot contains a single family dwelling. Photo of the subject property Revised 5/29/2008 Page 1 of 12 201 S. 7th Street ': Map Amendment Application ~' ~=`rt- 0011.2008.ASLU ~v. r :, __ , _ ~'-r.._ 201 S. 7th Street ~,' ~~ .' O Figure 1: Vicinity Map BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to annex the property at 201 S. 7`h Street which currently consists of a lot with a single family dwelling into the City of Aspen's city boundary. At this time the applicant has not indicated what the future plans are for this lot (Exhibit C -The Application). Annexation procedures aze governed by the standazd steps outlined in the Colorado Revised Statutes. State Statutes require certain procedural steps to be followed in an annexation and criteria for whether a property can be annexed. A resolution of substantial compliance was approved by Council at a public hearing on Monday, April 28~', 2008, as required by State Statute (Exhibit B). Originally the home was built in 1985, though the address was 312 S. 7`s Street at that time. It is located on a street that is not within the City limits. This particulaz azea of Pitkin County is Revised 5/29/2008 Page 2 of 12 isolated from other properties in Pitkin County because of topographical constraints including Castle Creek and Shadow Mountain. This azea is also located within the designated Urban Growth Boundary for the City of Aspen. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting recommendation for approval for a zone district designation of Moderate Density Residential (R-15). The zoning application will be reviewed under the requirements in Code Chapter 26310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map. In Pitkin County, the pazcel is zoned R-15 (Moderate Density Residential -15,000 square feet lot). The applicant is proposing that the parcel be designated Moderate Density Residential (R-15) if it is annexed into the City boundary. STAFF COMMENTS Surroundin¢ Uses Currently the lot is surrounded by residential uses in the Moderate Density (R-15), Low Density Residential (R-30), Residential Multi-Family (RMF), and Affordable Housing (AH) zone districts. Some of these zones have PUD overlays. Neazby on Main Street there is a Mixed Use (MU) zone district. The property is currently compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. If the property was annexed and zoned R-15 under the City's regulations, the maximum development on the lot would consist of two detached residential dwellings. This maximum development would also be considered compatible in this area. Within the City boundary, the nearby uses include several different land uses. North and adjacent to the property is a duplex. Across the street are multi-family affordable housing units. In the next block, on Main Street there aze mixed commercial and multi-family units. The R-30 noted on the map to the west of the property is the Mazolt open space. Revised 5/29/2008 Page3of12 Figure 2: Surrounding zone districts. (See Exhibit E for color map) Development Rights The differences in the dimensional requirements and permitted uses between the zoning district in the County and the City are outlined in the following table: Table 1: Co~arison of Existing Pitkin County vs. Future City of Aspen Dimensional Requirements. Dimensional ` Existing conditions Pitkin County Cify-af Aspen Land R+equiremeut Tequirements `Use Code Requirements Minimum Lot Gross lot size is - 15,000 square feet 15,000 Size 33,945 Lot size used for Lot size used for calculations in the calculations in the Cit Revised 5/29/2008 Page 4 of 12 d _ ndiho City ~ ~~ -. lie attf~ ~~: . :_ r. r, .~. _..: (*See note 1) County is 26,085 sq is 31,005 (*See note 2) fr Minimum Lot Approx 179.97 ft 75 feet 75 feet Width Minimum Lot 15,000 square feet Detached residential Area/Dwelling dwelling - 15,000 Unit Duplex - 7,500 square feet Minimum 35 feet 30 feet Principle Building - 25 Front Yard feet Setback Minimum Side 45 feet 10 Feet 10 feet Yard Setback Minimum Rear 71 feet 10 Feet 10 feet Yard Setback Maximum 28 feet 25 feet Height Accessory Buildings (See note 3) - 20 feet Floor Area 0.16 of the permitted Not calculated by ratio. Ratio (FAR) net lot area. Floor Area Existing Floor Area Permitted - 4173.6 Single Family - 4470 square feet square feet Dwelling - 6090.30 (measured by (*See note 4) Two detached County dwellings or one requirements) duplex - 6485.10 (*See note 5) Permitted Uses Single Family Duplex dwelling Detached residential Dwelling, (Permitted unit, Detached single dwelling, Duplex, Two uses are restricted by family dwelling, detached residential dimensional Group home (Special dwellings, Home requirements of each Review), Retirement occupations, Accessory zone district) home (Special buildings, Accessory Review), Daycare dwelling units Revised 5/29/2008 Page 5 of 12 (Special Review), Conditional Uses Institute (Special (*See note 8) Review), Park, Accessory and Temporary Uses (*See note 7) Notes: 1. The County nor the City permits area gained from a lot line adjustment to be used for floor area calculations. A County representative indicated that a lot line adjustment approved by resolution in 2000 that resulted in a gain of 4,380 total square feet. 2. 2940 square feet of the lot along the 7`h Street frontage is subject to a warranty deed, created to provide for improvements to 7`h Street. Building height in the County is measured to the mid-point of the roof from existing or finished grade, whichever is lower. The ridge line must be no more than 5 feet higher than the midpoint. In the City, building height measurements depend on the pitch of the roof. In this case the height would be measured from the mid-point of the roof from natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. 4. The applicant did not subtract the right-of--way from the original calculations. Also reductions were not included for a lot line adjustment. In the County, 4000 square feet of sub grade of floor and 750 square feet for the garage may be added to the permitted floor area. 5. These numbers differ from the calculations of the applicant. 26,625 square feet of lot size was used. The applicant requests that the area subject to the warranty deed be included for floor area calculations. 6. These numbers could change depending on changes to the right-of--way as per the Parks Department and the Engineering Department. 7. Allowable accessory and temporary uses include: Agricultural stand, arts and craft studio, bus stop, day care home, home occupation, satellite reception device, solar energy collector, temporary commercial use, and trails. Accessory and temporary uses permitted with special review approval include: Building mounted cellular telephone antennae, caretaker dwelling unit, club house or recreational building, employee dwelling unit, water crossing or diversion. 8. Conditional uses under the R-15 City zone district include: arts, cultural and civic uses, academic uses, agricultural uses, recreational uses, group home, child care center, and bed and breakfasts and boarding houses on historic properties. Revised 5/29/2008 Page 6 of 12 The most significant difference between the two jurisdictions is the permitted uses. The City designation permits two detached residential dwellings on a lot and the County does not in the R- 15 zone district. The applicant has been asked by the City's Zoning Officer to submit an analysis of how the parcel meets the requirements of the R-15 zone district including floor azea estimates under City jurisdiction. Under the County Land Use Code, the applicant is not permitted to use the square footage gained from the lot line adjustment towards floor area calculations. It is up to the City to decide whether or not to allow the inclusion of the squaze footage towazds floor azea calculations. The property may be eligible to apply for subdivision under City regulations depending on site constraints. Using raw data figures, excluding the driveway easement and the ditch, the property could potentially be subdivided into two lots, subject to Growth Management allocations. Each lot could potentially be developed with a duplex. The property would still be eligible for the construction of two detached single family dwellings using the gross azea, and subtracting the right-of--way that is subject to the warranty deed. The annexation process does not restrict what the City can add as a condition of approval of annexation. ZONING: In Pitkin County, this lot is located in the R-15 (Moderate Density Residential - 15,000 squaze feet lot) zone district. The zone that the applicant proposes once it is located within City boundary is similaz to the existing zone in the County. This zone is compatible with the adjacent uses in the City limits. The applicant is not securing any development rights in conjunction with the approval, other than what will be permitted under the proposed zoning of Moderate Density Residential (R-IS). As noted in the review criteria an R-15 zone would be a reasonable designation based on the surrounding zone districts adjacent to the property. ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN The subject lot is included in the urban growth azea in the AACP and has a future designation of residential. One of the goals of the AACP is to promote pedestrian accessibility. Annexing this lot will allow the City to add to the trail network by gaining an easement for a trail along the frontage of the lot and adding more sidewalk improvements to the City inventory. The Annexation Plan created in September of 2005 reflects the land use policies of the AACP with regazd to adding urbanized land. This annexation plan shall be used to ensure well-ordered development of the City, evenly distribute the cost of City services, extend services to eligible citizens, and simplify boundaries. The subject lot is located in the Ute/Northstaz, Shadow Mountain, Red Butte annexation azea. It is not located in an environmentally hazazdous azea as other lots in this azea as it is located a significant distance from the steep slopes of Shadow Mountain. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Pazks Department would like to obtain at least a 15 feet wide easement to extend the W. Hopkins Trail at this intersection towards the Marolt Bridge. Minutes from the meeting aze included as Exhibit D. Revised 5/29/2008 Page 7 of 12 The frontage of the parcel does not meet City standards. The applicant will be required to install curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the 7`n Street frontage, up to the south portion of Hopkins Avenue. Drainage is not properly conveyed through this section and the sidewalk needs to be extended. These improvements are required prior to annexation. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Staff recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the zone district designation request of R-15. PROPOSED MOTION: The Community Development Staff recommends that if the Planning and Zoning Commission satisfied with this zoning application that they may use this motion. "I move to recommend to Council, that they approve Resolution No. 00X, Series of 2008, to approve the petition for Annexation combined with the application for Zoning at 201 S. 7`n Street." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Staff findings Exhibit B -Resolution of Substantial Compliance Exhibit C -Petition and Application Exhibit D -Minutes from the Development Review Committee Exhibit E -Color Zoning Map Insert Exhibit F -Letter from neighboring property Exhibit G -Letter from neighboring property Revised 5/29/2008 Page 8 of 12 Exhibit A ANNEXATION COMBINED WITH A ZONING APPLICATION REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.310.020 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for amendments to the official zoning map shall be processed in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Standards of Review. 1. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed zoning designation is in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. The proposed zone will be compatible with the pattern of residential development that exists around the lot in the City boundardes. A review of the applicant's analysis of the conformance with the City's dimensional requirements is necessary. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Stafffeels that the proposed zone is consistent with the goals of the AACP. The lot is located in the Urban Growth Boundary. It would be an asset to the City to have the opportunity to extend the trail on Hopkins closer to the Marolt Bridge. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding The subject property the lot is surrounded by residential uses in the Moderate Density (R-1 S), Marolt open space that is noted as Low Density Residential (R-30), Residential Multi-Family (RMF), and Affordable Housing (AH) zone districts. Some of these zones have PUD overlays. Nearby on Main Street there is a Mixed Use (MU) zone district. 77te property is currently compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. If the property was annexed and zoned R-1 S under the City's regulations, the maximum development on the site would consist of two detached residential dwellings. This maximum development would also be considered compatible in this area. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. Revised 5/29/2008 Page 9 of 12 4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed zoning will have a significant impact on traffic generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning would only have the potential to construct one additional residential unit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed zoning request. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed zoning application would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. 7. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and neighborhood character of the area in that the new zoning would allow for a more consistent pattern of residential development with the remainder of the properties in the neighborhood than Is currently allowed on the site. Stafffurtherfeels that the proposal will likely allow for the massing of residential units on the site to be spread out over the entire property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding There have been few changes to the surrounding neighborhood recently. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Revised 5/29/2008 Page 10 of 12 9. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed zoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. Providing a partial linkage for the Marolt trail would be an asset. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Revised 5/29/2008 Page 11 of 12 Revised 5/29/2008 Page 12 of 12 RESOLUTION No. O'JQL e2e (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, RECOMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A REQUEST FOR A ZONE DISTRICT DESIGNATION OF R-15 FOR 201 SOUTH 7`" STREET, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS LOT 3, ADAMS SUBDIVISION, PITKIN COUNTY Parcel Identification Number 2735-123-15-003 WHEREAS, Sheri Sanzone of Bluegreen located at 300 South Spring Street, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Guyasuta Seventh Street, 201 S. 7'" Street, Aspen, Colorado, submitted a request for a map amendment in conjunction with an annexation application, dated February 12, 2008 to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the request is to receive a zone district designation recommendation of R-15; and WHEREAS, this resolution is null and void if the City Council does not approve the annexation application and the annexation does not occur; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the annexation petition and application for zoning under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on June 3rd, 2008; and, WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100%) of the owners of the affected property have consented to annexation of their property to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, this matter came on for hearing before the City Council on April 28, 2008 to approve a Resolution of Substantial Compliance; and WHEREAS, the City finds substantial compliance with said State statutes, Section 31-12-104 C.R.S, in that the property to be annexed is specifically greater than one-sixth contiguous to existing corporate limits, has a community of interest with the City of Aspen, is urban or will be urbanized in the near future, and is integrated or capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation will not extend Aspen's municipal boundary more than three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary in any one year. WHEREAS, upon review of the petition and application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, THAT: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following findings of fact: 1. A request for the annexation petition and zoning application was initiated by: Sheri Sanzone, representative from Bluegreen, 300 South Spring Street, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of the owner Guyasta Seventh Street LLC, 201 South 7's Street, Aspen, Colorado. 2. Notice of the proposed zoning designation of Moderate Density Residential (R-15) has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with Section 26-304-060(E)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Evidence of such notice is on file with the City Clerk. 3. This proposal meets the objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. This property is located in the urban growth boundary with a residential designation. 4. This proposal meets the objectives of the City Annexation Plan. The plan aims to make the City boundaries less confusing, promote pedestrian accessibility, ensure well-ordered development, distribute the costs of City services fairly, and extend City services to eligible citizens forming part of a whole community. Section 2• Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval of the annexation petition and zoning application request for the said lot to be Moderate Density Residential (R-15). Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. APPROVED AS TO FORM Jim True, Assistant City Attorney INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 3rd day of June 2008. LR Erspamer, Chairperson I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk f~rNi Bi-r Q RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RELATIVE TO THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "LOT 3 - ADAMS SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION'; FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; ESTABLISHING A DATE, TIME, AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 31-12-104 AND 31-12-105, C.R.S.; AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF SAID HEARING; AND AUTHORIZING THE INSTITUTION OF ZONING PROCEDURES FOR LAND IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED. WHEREAS, on February 12, 2008, one hundred percent (100%) of the owners of the property proposed to be annexed did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen, whereby real property described in Exhibit "A" appended to the Petition for Annexation, is being petitioned for annexation to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Aspen has referred the aforesaid petition as a communication to the City Council for appropriate action to determine if the petition is substantially in compliance with Section 31-]2-107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the information prescribed and set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of Section 31-12- 107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100%) of the owners of the affected property have consented to annexation of their property to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 31-12-107(I)(g), C.R.S., mandates that the City of Aspen initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with Sections 31-12-108 to 31-12-110, C.R.S., whenever a petition is filed pursuant to subsection (1) of Section 31-12-107, C.R.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section l That the Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen is hereby found and determined to be in substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 31-12- 107, C.R.S. Section 2 That the City Council hereby determines that it shall hold a public hearing to detemtine if the proposed annexation wmplies with Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and to establish whether or not said area is eligible for annexation pursuant to the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, as amended; said hearing to be held at a regulaz meeting of the City Council of the City of Aspen at 5:00 o'clock p.m. on the 28`" day of April, 2008, in Council Chambers at City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611. (A date which is not less than thirty days nor more than sixty days after the effective date of this resolution). Section 3 That the City Clerk shall give public notice as follows: A copy of this resolution shall constitute notice that, on the given date and at the given time and place set by the City Council, the City Council shall hold a hearing upon said resolution of the City of Aspen for the purpose of determining and fmding whether the azea proposed to be annexed meets the applicable requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and is considered eligible for z annexation. Said notice shall be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area proposed to be annexed. The first publication of such notice shall be at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. The proof of publication of the resolution shall be returned when the publication is completed, and the certificate of the owner, editor, or manager of the newspaper in which said notice is published shall be proof thereof. A copy of the resolution and petition as filed, shall also be sent by registered mail by the clerk to the Pitkin County Boazd of County Commissioners and to the County Attorney of Pitkin County and to the Aspen Schoo] District at least twenty days prior to the date fixed for such hearing. Section 4 That pursuant to Section 31-12-1 I5, C.R.S., the City Manager is hereby directed to initiate appropriate zoning procedures with regazd to the territory proposed to be annexed. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of L' ft~ , 2008. ichael C. Ireland, Ma or I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.: ~ ~~ Kathryn S. ch, City Clerk 1P W- saved: 3/l 3/2008-778-G:yahn\word\resos\Lo~ C -Ann Ldce guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request II. Petition A. Completed Petition PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN PURSUANT to the Munidpal Annexation Ad of 1965 ("ACt'~, Part 1, Article 12, Title 31, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, as amended the undersigned (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner? hereby petition the Coundi of [he Clty of Aspen, Colorado for the annexation Of an area, to be referred to as the Guyasuta Seventh Stroet LLC Annexation to the City of Aspen. Said area, consisting of approximately 33,945 squaro Taat (.78) acres and as Lot 3 oT the Adams 5ubdivislon, is more particularly described on Attachment "A," attached hereto. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION, the Petitioner alleges: 1. That It is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado. 2. That the requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-108, C.R.S., exist or have been met. 3. That not less than one-sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed Is wntiguous with the boundaries of the City of Aspen, Colorado. 4. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen, Colorado. 5. That the area to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. 6. That the area proposed to be annexed Is Integrated with or capable of being Integrated with the City of Aspen, Colorado. 7. In establishing the boundaries of the territory to be annexed, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one trail: or parcel of real estate, has been divided Into separate parts or parcels. 8. No annexation proceeding has commenced for the annexation to the munidpality other than the City of Aspen, Colorado, of all or part of the area described above. 9. The annexation proposed In this petition will not result in the detachment of area from any school district and the attachment of the same area to another school district. 10. That the Petitioner herein comprises more than fifty percent (60~ib) of the landowners in the area and own more than fifty percent (50%) of the area to be annexed, excluding public streets, alleys and lands owned by the City of Aspen, Colorado. WHEREFORE, Bald Petitioners request that the Council of the City of Aspen approve the annexation of the area described on Attachment "A," legal description of the land. The Petitioners reserve the right to withdraw this petition and their signatures there from at any time prior to the commencement of the roll call of the City Council for the vote upon the bluegreen 04 february 2008 4 of 33 r yuyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request second reading of the annexaton ordinance. Indivldwi Pltitioners signing this Petltlan represent that they own the portlon(s) of the area described on Attachment'A.' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, [have executed this Petltbn for Annexatlon thb ..l~daY of Feb~uary, 2008. ndwKrs<ownar stynaa~ e /_ ~~yice 6. W~~~/L Petltloner's/Owners Printed Name 139 FR~PORr 2o~t~ Address R~sBt,aw-- , PA ~s a ~ s qty, State, Zip bluegreen 04 February 2008 5 of 33 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation i B. Legal Description of the Annexation/Proof of Ownership -attachment A CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP PWdm CooMyTitla, Ioc„ a daffy ]iceaaed Trtla laaaaow Aaeot in Bye Salto of Colorado huc~Y eonitica the OUYASITfA SEVININ STREET, II.C, A COLORADO I.LWIID LJABIIIIY t:OMPANY am the ovma'a !o [ee aimpk otthe Eolbwlmg deaaibed paopeny: LOT 3. AW WS St16DIVSION. accadk~p to Pw Pbt thereof recorded Yay N, 1979In Plat Bads 4 d Pagr 586. ADDRESS ACCORDING TO TFE PTTKIrI COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE: 201 Solak Se~znGh St, Aapeo, CO 11611 EWClBr6RANCES: Dead d7nxtfwm : GDYASUTA BEVENIN 61REET, LL5 A CAIOFW.70lWITEP LIAB9.ITY COMPAftY To tlfa Pubk Tmeaee d Vie C~H dPITION t-erOM taN d : S6T BM11f OrighatAmouM :54,86AOD6.00 OaOad : Jenwry 3, TOOb Rxadad :.tarw~y3.1W8 ReaptlontW. :645166 Aaaigrnwntd Rail Roadad fn mm~acfon r~ the abae Oaad d Truat~rac ieoadad.larwerp 3, 2~a as fteaPif?a Na 845470. Thin cutifieale is na W be cacse:aed to bo a guuanke of title and is furaistitd for iaformatimal P ~Y- PTfK1N COUNTY TII1.B, INC. SY: auttnrized atgoaau+e CERTIFQ"sD 70: Jmalety 31.2008 at 8:00 A.NL Job No. 2179600 bluegreen 04 february 2008 5 of 33 annexatlon request ilwnrc r~1w~nlo~b~ P~NbM~N1~11~VM1i/iAE, W ~Nt{ bluegreen 04 february 2008 7 of 33 MMl~illldN~OKfbfrRRlfer~ofbMN.1ATi Y~MR~AatllO~ils - 7piulr~by~wlaMwMlr~ewgiaYDw140tl11i.1wM A~.1KHse1GpN.~ Mt q17~ ~fIbIFURYIbb/~CiMpCbC01pIy1Ga1NM10AC1bw 01MOmIY1dJJr 1a,1i7T p 9oeibt rvp~pt~ SgfY-1t11E80lIPAOE4 1