Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.920 930 Matchless Dr.0048.2005,~. THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID NUMBER PROJECTS ADDRESS PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 0048.2005.ASLU 2737-074-22-001 & 2737-074-22-022 920/930 MATCHLESS DR. JENNIFER PHELAN ANNEX & REZONE KIM RAYMOND 925-2252 4/20/06 CLOSED BY Angela Scorey on 03/03/2009 VIII IIIIII IIII IIIIIII (I IIIIIIII III IIII) IIII IIII 5 9iiiz00e z: air JRNICE K VOS CfiUDILL PITKIN COUN?Y CO R 51.00 D 0.00 SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT FOR DODARO SUBDIVISION AND PUD AMENDMENT THIS SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT ("SIA") is made and entered into as of the ~ day of ~~, 2006, by and between Christine and Peter Dodaro and Shirley Peterson, Trustee -Shirley H. Peterson Living Trust, ("Owners"), and THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporation ("City"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, Owners are the owners of Lots SA and SB of the Dodaro Subdivision and PUD Amendment, according to the Final Plat thereof recorded ~ ~ - I } 2006 in Plat Book ~L at Page~~~-as Reception No. 3 a _ in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Prope y"), which Subdivision was approved with conditions by City Council Ordinance No. 11 (Series of 2006); and WHEREAS, under Ordinance No. 11 (Series of 2006) and the Plat, the Property is divided into two (2) Lots for the development of three primary dwelling units and one Accessory Dwelling Unit on the Property. Lot SB contains approximately~„~~'~ acres, and may be developed with either one (1) duplex, or two (2) detached single- family residences, together with customary accessory uses. Lot SA contains approximately ~~_acres, and may be developed with one detached single- family residence and one detached garage containing an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The design and alteration of the existing buildings and any new buildings shall be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. The development of the Property pursuant to Ordinance No. 1 ] (Series of 2006), and the Plat, is hereinafter referred to as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, Owner and City desire to enter into this SIA for the Project in order to consolidate in one instrument the conditions of approval of the Project set forth in •Ordinance No. 11 (Series of 2006), with the intention and understanding that this SIA shall supersede and replace any other covenants or declarations in their entirety, and that from and after the execution and recording of this SIA, deemed fully and forever terminated, vacated, and of no further force or effect. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Amended Plat for recordation by the City, the parties agree as follows: 1. Dimensional Requirements. As set forth in Ordinance No. 11 (Series of 2006), the existing houses on the Property need not be demolished to accommodate the newly created lot boundaries depicted on the Plat, and the encroachments into the side Page 1 of 10 III II IIII III~I IIIIII VIII I II 5917295 az:a~F JRNICE K VOS CRUDILL PiTKIN COUNTY CO R 51.00 D 0.00 yard setbacks may continue to exist for the life of the original structures only. Upon demolition of the existing structures, the new residences or new additions to the remaining structures to be developed on the Lots shall meet the R-6 Zone District's dimensional requirements unless varied by the PUD Amendment and shall comply with the City of Aspen residential design standards, unless variances are duly obtained. The redevelopment of the Lots as presented will vary the dimensional requirements of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district. As a PUD Amendment, the dimensional requirements shall be set as follows: Lot SA -PUD Lot ~B -1@"ItL Dimensioaai Regairemente Dimenslemillteq~teements (930 Mxte6lesa) (931' M>it~toss) Minimum Lot Size 3,000 SF 3,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 30 Feet 30 Feet Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling 3,000 SF 3,000 SF Minimum Front Yard Setback 23.8 Feet 21.6 Feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 2.5 Feet from west property 3.92 Feet from the east line property line as long as existing structure is not 15 Feet from east property demolished or if an HPC line variance is granted 5 Feet from the west property line unless an HPC variance is granted Total Side Yards 17.58 Feet NA - as long as there is a minimum of ten feet between the two detached dwelling units Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 Feet -Principal Building 10 Feet -Principal Building 5 Feet -Accessory Building 5 Feet -Accessory Building(unless awaiver is granted by the HPC) Maximum Height 25 Feet 25 Feet Allowable Floor Area 2,486 SF with the ability 3,485 SF with no to land a 500 SF HPC floor dwellin unit to exceed 2,486 Page 2 of 10 I IIIIII VIII I~III IIIIiII II IIIIIIII III VIII IIII IIII 5 giine a ez a~F JRNICE K VOS CRUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 51.00 D 0.00 Lot SA -PUD Lot SB -PUD Dlmeaslonal Regnlrements Dimen~ot~sl 1C~egniremeats , (930 Matchless) (9~O Mt~el~a) area bonus for the approved SF as outlined in Ordinance site specific development plan No.35 (Series 1987) reviewed and approved by the HPC via Resolution No.35, Series 2005 2. Off-Street Parking Requirements. As part of the PUD Amendment the parking requirement for Lot SA shall meet the off-street parking requirement for the use of the property containing a detached dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit which requires three (3) off-street parking spaces. Lot SB shall meet the off-street parking requirements for the use of the property, unless a parking waiver is permitted by the Historic Preservation Commission. 3. Sidewalk Agreement. Owner agrees to fund the construction of a sidewalk along the entire unimproved Matchless Drive frontage along Lots SA and SB, Dodaro Subdivision and PUD Amendment, at such time as the City decides to undertake such construction, in accordance with the following procedure. Upon completion of construction of such sidewalk by City, City shall deliver to Owner a description of the work performed and an invoice for City's out-of-pocket cost of performing the work, and Owner shall reimburse City for the entire cost of the invoice no later than 60 days following receipt thereof. If the invoice is not paid in a timely manner; the delinquent portion of the invoice shall bear interest at 12% per annum from the date of the invoice until it is paid in full, the City shall have a lien upon Lot SA and SB, Dodaro Subdivision and PUD Amendment, until the invoice is paid in full including accrued interest, and the City shall be entitled to collect from Owner all costs of collection including reasonable attorney's fees 4. Access Easement. An access easement for Lot SB shall be provided on the north side of Lot SA, twenty (20'-0") wide, running the entire length of the newly created lot, to allow access to the northern end of Lot SA on the east property line. This access easement for Lot SA shall be recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder at the time of the recordation of the final plat for the Dodaro Subdivision/PUD Amendment. 5. Development Requirements. The following development requirements will be satisfied by Owner pursuant to Ordinance No. 11 (Series of 2006) to wit: a. Building Permit Application Requirements: The building permit application shall include the following: (i) Copies of the final Ordinance No.l l (Series of 2006) and recorded P&Z Resolution. Page 3 of 10 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII 5a ?006 az:4~F dgNICE K VOS CgUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 51.00 D 0.00 (ii) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set of plans. (iii) A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. (iv) A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. (v) A construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department. Submission of this report should be before any building permit application to allow open discussion of phasing and traffic impacts. The Staff can provide a list of those CMP requirements inclusive of: construction traffic routing, erosion Best Management Practices, soil stabilization, drainage impacts, and construction phasing plan for use in development of that plan. (vi) A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. (vii) A detailed excavation stabilization plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for review and approval by the City Engineer. The Applicants shall comply with Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 regarding the handling of any contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site prior to any excavation on and/or prior to the application for building permits on both lots. All soils on Lots SA and SB shall be considered contaminated unless determined otherwise through testing that adheres to the protocols that were established by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994. If, pursuant to said testing protocols, the soils are found to be uncontaminated, the following requirements shall not apply. However, to the extent that any contaminants are discovered, the following requirements shall apply: (a) All contaminated soils that are removed from the site shall be transported to the Pitkin County Landfill and disposed of at the Smuggler repository. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be temporarily stored above ground or remain on site shall be securely contained on and covered with a non-permeable tarp or other protected barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil and to prevent windblown dust from disturbed dirt. Page 4 of 10 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII s 5 ii~/ze0 ez:a~~ dRNICE K VOS CRUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 51. 00 D 0.00 (b) The owner and general contractor of any development on Lots 1 and 2 of the South and Gibson Subdivision shall submit a letter to the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department stating that they have read, understood, and will comply with the regulations for handling contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site as set forth in Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 prior to any excavation and/or issuance of building permits for the property. (c) The owner shall complete a Soil Removal Permit and Affidavit for excavation prior to any excavation or disturbance of dirt and prior to any issuance of building permits for the properties. 6. Fire Mitigation. The Applicants shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal if a building is over 5,000 square feet in area. 7. Water Department Requirements Individual lots need separate services. If there is more than residence on a lot a common service agreement may be allowed. The Applicants shall vacate the city water well on Lot SA. Any development shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. The City must be presented an option acceptable to the State and City by the Applicants prior to the existing well on Lot SA being abandoned or relocated. 8. Sanitation District Requirements. The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. 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. It is recommended that the old 6" clay sanitary sewer service line be replaced by a new 8" PVC main line with one manhole, thereby allowing 920 and 930 to have their own service line tied directly into a district maintained sewer line. 9. Parks. An approved tree removal permit is required prior to submitting the building permit. The Parks Department sign off will be contingent on the approved tree permit. A detailed tree protection plan is required as part of the building permit set and should include fence details and fence locations as well as the following language, "A construction fence shall be installed at the drip line of each individual or grouping of trees remaining on site. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and foot or vehicle traffic will be allowed within the tree protection fence. Contact the City of Aspen Parks Department for inspection of the Page 5 of 10 IIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIII,IIIII,IIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIII 1rJ1/17/206 02:47F` . JRNICE K VOS CRUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 51.00 D 0.00 fence, 920-5120 before any construction activities commence. After inspection and approval of the fence location the fence cannot be moved or removed without permission from the Parks Department or until the project receives the Certificate of Occupancy." Utility, connections need to be designed in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. Root Pruning: The Applicants will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on call in order to address all roots greater than 1.5 inches in diameter. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. 10. Exterior Li htg ine. All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. 11. School Lands Dedication Fee. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicants shall pay afee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicants shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. 12. Impact Fees. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.420.020. B.4, Waiver of Fees, the Park Dedication Fees may be waived. All other impact fees, as applicable at the time of submission, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. 13. Construction Schedule and Noise. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on all other days. All noise ordinances shall be complied with. Any adopted amendments in the future to permitted construction hours or noise standards shall be met. 14. Vested Rights. 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. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, 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: Page 6 of 10 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, valid for a period of three (3) years, 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 SA and SB, Dodaro Subdivision/PUD Amendment Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. 15. Recordation. Pursuant to Section 27.480.070(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code, once fully executed, this Amended SIA and the Amended Plat shall be recorded in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. The Amended Plat shall also be submitted in a digital format acceptable to the Community Development Department, for incorporation into the City/County GIS system. 16. Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent by United States certified mail to the addresses set forth below or to any other address which the parties may substitute in writing. To Owners: Pete and Christine Dodaro 930 Matchless Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Shirley H. Peterson, Trustee Shirley H. Peterson Living Trust 1909 East River Road Minneapolis, MN, 55414 With Copy To: Kim Raymond Kim Raymond Architects 161 Swinging Bridge Lane IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilllllll IIII IIII IIII III 59i~n9e ez a~F Basalt, CO 81621 JRNICE K VOS CRUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 51.00 D 0.00 Page 7 of 10 To Citv of Aspen: With Copy To: City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 17. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the land on which the Project is located and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Owner's and the City's successors, personal representatives and assigns. 18. Amendment. The Agreement may be altered or amended only by written instrument executed by the parties. 19. Severabilitv. If any of the provisions of this Agreement are determined to be invalid, it shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof. ATTEST: THE CITY OF S EN, a municipal corporatio ~,. ~~ ~ -~~ ~ -f :cz~.tC~~~_.. By: I~atlu3~a-~.--Kash- ~ ~ ~~ ~~ elan K and qL City Clerk ti`G ~ ~ APPROVED AS TO FORM: John orcester City Attorney 531295 I IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIII Iilllll 11 lIIIIIII III VIII IIII IIII 00 191702000002:47F OWNERS: Peter and Christine Dodaro By~~i'irl~.rar R. ~~y ~~,.e~ By•~is~i~ D ro Peter Dodaro Shirley H. Peterson Living Trusti~ By: Shirley Pet son, Trustee Page 8 of 10 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) °1 ~3f Izolo The~/ fo~r,egoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of --~~~C~Q~t?~006, by Helen Klanderud, Mayor, and k~~h;~oc~ City Clerk, of rty of Aspen, Colorado. a ~ ~`^ ~ (~k Witness my hand and official seal. RY O'(P......PGA My commission expires:~~~ ~ jzod~- ~'~ '~t<~ 1 L07}~E f~ ~AIV tary Public 9~F ~,/~o ~F CO~OaP STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of 2006, by Christine and Peter Dodaro. Witness my-hand and official seal. ,My commission expires: My Comm' ionExpi s 10/3 0 aQ~~ Notary ublic .,,,,,,rr.;•+ STATE OF M IT1 f~-.S~Td-F ) ss. COUNTY OF~1n ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Z~3 day of ~~e~ , 2006, by Shirley H. Peterson, Trustee of the Shirley H. Peterson Living Trust. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ,~'°~w PAUL PINNEY ~,7~: NotaryPublic-Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2010 I IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIII IIIIIII II IIIIIIII III VIII IIII IIII 1917/20 6 02:47{ ,]RNICE K VOS CRUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 51.00 D 0.00 ~~4 ~~~ Notary Public Page 9 of 10 fne .! '~w.+ I` Mortgagee Consent The ~mdersigned, being the holder of a lien on the }'roperty pursuant to a Decd of Trust recorc,ed as Reception No..__„____,^ in the Office of the Caa~k and Recorder of Pitkin Cour ty, Colorado.. hereby consents to ftrtl/~.1~T4'94'S the recording of this SIA, and hereby consents the lien of said Deed of'Prust to the matters scl forth herein. Dated thisl4thday of November _,.___,_, 2006. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. By: ~.._ _ _ .._ ... Lorna L Slaughter t ITS: Vice President S'PAT'E Ol (YIF~YfCilf~ ) ss. COl1NTY ~[~ f-~UERickZ r The foregoing Mortgagee Consent was acknow,~cdge~d~~b~e..fLore me this ~- r_ day oaf ,,'" ' IV~Y41A~ , 20(16, by ~A!-R_L-SI{~as _V!C£.N(t.S~J~/4r of Wf11.S..Fi!iifQtS~.1w J~T,aF~'IIF p~~4 Witness my hanc: and official seal. My commission expires: 31za I Flo y~~%j~CN~\~y~ rrI ~~.~ wW`V~O ~'~t ~~~ Marv Public 531295 IIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII06 1917oZ0000 20474 NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Christine Dodaro ,-., ,_.r FROM: Chris Bendon, City of Aspen Community Development Director Jennifer Phelan, Long Range Planner RE: Extension for Recordation of Subdivision/PUD Amendment Documents Request- Dodaro Subdivision and PUD Amendment DATE: November 1, 2006 SUMMARY Christine Dodaro, requests a two month extension in order to record the necessary Subdivision/PUD Plats and PUD/Subdivision Agreements with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's office for the Dodaro Subdivision and PUD Amendment project. BACKGROUND The project received final subdivision and PUD amendment approval from the Aspen City Council on May 8, 2006, which is memorialized in Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2006 (attached as Exhibit "A"). The Applicant has yet to record their Subdivision/PUD agreement or plat and their deadline to do so expires on November 3, 2006. Therefore, the Applicant has requested an extension of two months from the date of which the recordation period would expire without an extension. According to Section 26.445.070(A) of the Land Use Code, the Community Development Director has the authority to extend the recordation deadline if the request is within the vesting timeline and if there is a community interest for providing for such an extension. STAFF FINDINGS Staff believes that the request to extend the recordation deadline is within the vesting period, which ends on May 9, 2009 (three (3) years after final approval). The Applicant had a number of delays in submitting the plat due to the surveyor not making staff requested changes to the plat. By allowing for the requested extension, the Applicant will be able to get the necessary signatures for the plat certificates. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR APPROVAL I hereby extend the recordation deadline for the Dodaro Subdivision/PUD project for two months to expire on January 4, 2006 finding that the request has been made within the vesting timeline and ~rgre is a cpmrrJunity interest for providing such an extension. ~~~~ Gl , l.l,~ Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Date ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2006 Exhibit B - Letter of Request _ ~.__._..,_~ _.I_I __..Q___ -- ,.~ ORDINANCE N0. I1 (SERIES OF 2006) A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL CITY APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE DODARO SUBDIVISION (LOTS 5A AND SB) AND PUD AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING DETACHED DWELLING AND VOLUNTARY GARAGE/ADU ON LOT SA AND TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS ON LOT SB ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 920 AND 930 MATCHLESS DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PTTKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-074-22-OI and 2737-074-11-02 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Christine Dodazo, Peter Dodazo, and Shirley Peterson, Trustee -Shirley H. Peterson Living Trust, represented by Kim Raymond, requesting a combined review and approval of Subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment, for the development of two lots, Lots SA and SB; and, WHEREAS, an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a new garage/ADU is proposed for Lot SA and a total of two detached dwelling units is proposed for Lot SB; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-6) with a PUD overlay; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standazds, the Community Development Depaztment recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission determined during the review of the application that the application was available for a combined review of the land use requests and a consolidated two-step review of the PUD Amendment; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 28, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application, and took public comment; and, WHEREAS, on February 28, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 6, Series of 2006, by a four to zero (4-0) vote, recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the proposed subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment for the development of two lots with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a new garage/ADU proposed for Lot SA (930, Matchless) and a total of two detached dwelling units proposed for Lot SB (920 Matchless); and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 24, 2006, the City Council opened the hearing, took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development Director, and referral agencies of the City of Aspen and adopted Ordinance No. l 1, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment fur the development of lwo lots with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a new garage/ADU proposed for Lot SA (930 Matchless) and a total of two detached dwelling units proposed for Lot SB (920 Matchless); and, Page 1 of 8 _ ,^_ _ _ WHEREAS, the City Council fords that the development proposal meets many of the applicable development standazds and where the standards aze varied, 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 City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY CO~tJNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby Council approves with conditions the Dodaro Subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment for the development of two lots with an addition to an existing detached residential dwelling unit and garage/ADU on Lot SA (930 Matchless Drive) and allowing an additional dwelling unit on Lot SB for a total of two detached dwelling units on Lot SB (920 Matchless Drive). Sectioo 2: Plat and Aereement The Applicants shall record a subdivision/PUD plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Secton 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval. The Applicant shall also enter into a sidewalk agreement to install a future sidewalk adjacent to Matchless Drive along the entire lot frontage if it is deemed appropriate by the City of Aspen to have a sidewalk in this location at some time in the future. Section 3: Buildine Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground rechazge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. e. An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan, and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Departrnent Superintendent. Page 2 of 8 -- _ __.._ £ A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. g. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for review and approval by the City Engineer. h. The Applicants shall comply with Ordinance No. 25; Series of 1994 regazding the handling of any contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site prior to any excavation on and/or prior to the application for building permits on both lots. All soils on Lots SA and 5B shall be considered contaminated unless determined otherwise through testing that adheres to the protocols that were established by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994. If, pursuant to said testing protocols, the soils are found to be uncontaminated, the following requirements shall not apply. However, to the extent that any contaminants are discovered, the following requirements shall apply: 1) All contaminated soils that are removed from the site shall be transported to the Pitkin County Landfill and disposed of at the Smuggler repository. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be temporarily stored above ground or remain on site shall be securely contained on and covered with anon-permeable tarp or other protected barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil and to prevent windblown dust from disturbed dirt. 2) The owner and general contractor of any development on Lots 1 and 2 of the South and Gibson Subdivision shall submit a letter to the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department stating that they have read, understood, and will comply with the regulations for handling contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site as set forth in Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 prior to any excavation and/or issuance of building permits for the property. 3) The owner shall complete a Soil Removal Permit and Affidavit for excavation prior to any excavation or disturbance of dirt and prior to any issuance of building permits for the properties. Section 4: Permitted Use of the Property As outlined in the Applicants' development application, Lot SA (930 Matchless) shall be developed with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling and a detached garage/ADU, the design having been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Lot SB (920 Matchless) will contain the existing detached residential dwelling and an additional detached residential dwelling for a total of two detached residential dwellings. The design and alteration of the existing building and new building or structures shall be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Section 5: Dimensional Requirements Page 3 of 8 __ _ The redevelopment of the lots as presented will vary the dimensional requirements of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district. As a PUD Amendment, the dimensional requirements shall be set as follows: P.i i n ~~ u I ~a~f G~ i +~c{~~~ ~ !~ :r4{ ~~ c~i~ x,M~ ~~ ^ - ~v~VV:, * , fp ~ { L ~ll ~ I i '' rvr ~ :4 l u ~~ .Y . ... .. ~ir~~.. ~. l, k Jl n: tie: `.. :n' u:~G} N . .. :,: .:,i ::. .rv Minimum Lot Size 3,000 SF 3,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 30 30 Feet Minimum Lot ArealDwellin 3,000 SF 3,000 SF Minimum Front Yard Setback 23.8 Feet 21.6 Feet Minimum Side Yazd Setback 2.5 Feet from west property line 3.92 Feet from the east property 15 Feet from east property line line as along as existing structure is not demolished or if an HPC variance is granted 5 Feet from the west property line unless an HPC variance is anted Total Side Yazds 17.58 Feet NA - as long as there is ten feet between the two detached dwellin units Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 Feet -Principal Building 10 Feet -Principal Building 5 Feel -Accessory Building 5 Feet -Accessory Building (unless a waiver is granted by the HPC Maximum Hei t 25 Feet 25 Feet Allowable Floor Area 2,486 SF with the ability to land 3,485 SF a 500 SF HPC floor area bonus for the approved site specific development plan reviewed and approved by the HPC via Resolution No.35, Series 2005 Section 6: Off- Street Parkine Requirements As part of the PUD Amendment the parking requirement for Lot SA shall meet the off=street parking requirement for the use of the property containing a detached dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit which requires three (3) off-street pazking spaces. Lot SB shall meet the off-street pazking requirements for the use of the property, unless a parking waiver is permitted by the Historic Preservation Commission. Section 7: En¢ineerin¢ A CMP plan meeting the requirements of the City will be required as part of the approval process. Submission of this report should be before any building permit application to allow open discussion of phasing and traffic impacts. The Staff can provide a list of those CMP requirements inclusive of: construction traffic routing, erosion BMP's, soil stabilization, drainage impacts, and construction phasing plan for use in development of that plan. Page 4 of 8 Section 8: Fire Mitigation The Applicants shall instal] a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal if a building is over 5,000 square feet in azea. Section 9: Water Department Requirements Individual lots need separate services. If there is more than residence on a lot a common service agreement may be allowed. The Applicants shall vacate the city water well on Lot SA. Any development shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. The City must be presented an option acceptable to the State and City by the Applicants prior to the existing well on Lot SA being abandoned or relocated. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Old service line connections must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to ACSD requirements. 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 hazd landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. It is recommended that the old 6" clay sanitazy sewer service line be replaced by a new 8" PVC main line with two manholes, thereby allowing 920, 930, 940, and 950 to have their own service line tied directly into a district maintained sewer line. Section 11: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 12: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicants shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicants shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section l3: Imaact Fees Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.420.020. B.4, Waiver of Fees, the Pazk Dedication Fees may be waived. All other impact fees, as applicable at the time of submission, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. Section 14: Parks Page 5 of 8 /"` -, ~. s An approved tree removal permit is required prior to submitting the building permit. The Pazks Department sign off will be contingent on the approved tree permit. A detailed tree protection plan is required as part of the building permit set and should include fence details and fence locations as well as the following language, "A construction fence shall be installed at the drip line of each individual or grouping of trees remaining on site. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and foot or vehicle traffic will be allowed within the tree protection fence. Contact the-City of Aspen Pazks Department for inspection of the fence, 920-5120 before any construction activities commence. ARer inspection and approval of the fence location the fence cannot be moved or removed without permission from the Parks Department or until the project receives the Certificate of Occupancy." Utility connections need to be designed in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. Root Pruning: The Applicants will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on call in order to address all roots greater than 1.5 inches in diameter. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. Section 15: Vested ]tiehts The development approvals ganted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of al] requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, 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, valid for a period of three (3) yeazs, 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 SA and SB, Dodazo Subdivision/PUD Amendment Page 6 of 8 . , ^• Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to al] rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to tun until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 16: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicants pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the 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 17: This ordinance 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 18• 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. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 19• A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 24's day of April, 2006, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 27s' day of Mazch, """` Attest: ,~f~~ Kathryn S. K ,City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 8`h day of May, 2006. Page 7 of 8 <'. Attest: ~~~ I{athrya S. I b, City Clerk Approved as to form: ~A City A oraey elea an rud, Mayor Page 8 of 8 ~. a Jennifer Phalen 130 S Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Jennifer Phalen , October 31, 2006 I am writing this letter to ask for an extension on recording the plat for the Dodaro Subdivision, which is located at 920 and 930 Matchless Drive, Aspen ,CO.Our deadline was Nov. 3`d but we have come across some delays and obstacles which we did not foresee, and we would like a two month extension. We hope that this can be extended without a problem. Thanks for all your hard work and help in this matter. Sincerely, ~l Christine Dodaro aka y ± DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department "Phis Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Christine Dodaro Peter Dudaro 930 Matchless Drive Aspen CO 81611 and Shirley Peterson, Trustee - Shirley H Peterson Living, "Trust 1909 E River Road Minneapolis, MN Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address Condominium Units 1 and 2 Alpine Acres Townhouse Condominiums No 5 which is commonly known as 920 and 930 Matchless Drive Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property The Applicant received Subdivision approval and Planned Unit Development Amendment approval to subdivide the one lot into two lots (Lots SA and SB Dodaro Subdivision and PUD Amendment, set the allowable floor area for each lot land a Historic Preservation Commission floor area bonus Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Ci[y Council Ordinance No 11 Series of 2006 5/8/06 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) Effective Date of llcvelopment Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) Expiration Date of llcvelopment Order (fhe extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 17`; day of June, 2006, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. /~ ' ~/ ~ i~ ~u '~ i; ~ ~~~L ~~ Chris Bendon, Community Development Director w. ~ 920 Matchless Drive (Lot 56): two detached residential dwellin s on a 7,756 SF lot Calculation Allowable Basis Floor Area R-6 Zone Lot size 3,485 SF District and Limitation existing use Ordinance A 4,972 SF No. 35, maximum Series of 2,486 1987 per Limitation dwelling unit Effective More 3,485 SF Limitation restrictive i number .,, .+ 930 Matchless Drive (Lot 5A): one detached residential dwellin on a 8,636 SF lot Calculation Allowable Basis Floor Area R-6 Zone Lot size 3,609 SF District and Limitation existing use Ordinance A 2,486 SF No. 35, maximum Series of 2,486 1987 per Limitation dwelling unit Effective More 2,486 SF Limitation restrictive number hl~~T~-k~L~-SS W K h W a gCIGINAL CDTt-nG[ Tb RCAMJN RENP/ATED JIh16LC FAMILY tCLbE ~~aN~ I I OF PURIRE d1~LE LOT 5 B }-~ P~`"~`° "`"~" FA1.AllY V-IOUSE 7756.7 SQ. FT. sT~w n~Rb oTC~ DEMOLI°J-ICD. FROR]JED GPRP(~ LOT 5A W" ,~ ~~ r 8636.5 SQ. FT. eo~sv~~e~~__ 1 ~ `•,_ i i ~%~~~- ~ C~ ~.~G A"'* ., . 920/930 Matchless Drive: two detached residential dwellings on a 16,425 SF lot Calculation Basis Allowable Floor Area R-6 Zone District Limitation Lot size and existing use 4,511 SF Ordinance No. 35, Series 1987 Limitation A maximum of 2,486 er dwellin unit .4,972 SF Effective Limitation More restrictive number 4,511 SF z is ~n~ ~y~ `~ 1 1 --~ MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: FROM: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council ~" "PI33 Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~I Jennifer Phelan, Long Range Planner 111 RE: Dodaro Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Amendment (920 & 930 Matchless Drive) -Second Reading of Ordinance 2006 - 11, Series 2006 continued from April 24, 2006 MEETING DATE: May 8, 2006 SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report is new since the April 24`h report and addresses the issues raised by Council since their initial public hearing on this application. It contains the following: • A summary of the issues from the last meeting with additional information provided by Staff; • Staff critique and comments; • Staff recommendation & motion; and • Ordinance 11, Series 2006. A-so attached is a portion of the original staff report of April 24, 2006. This is attached primarily to show the development proposal, background and dimensional standard matrices associated with the development so that you have this information at hand. SUMMARY: At the April 24`s public hearing for the 920/930 Matchless Drive application, the City Council reviewed the proposal and moved to continue the meeting to May 8, 2006. At the April 24ei hearing, a number of important issues and questions were raised by the Council. Below, the concerns and questions voiced by the City Council are itemized issue by issue, along with comments from Staff. 1) Existing Conditions and Current Allowable Floor Area for 920/930 Matchless Drive. Currently, 920 and 930 Matchless (two detached residential dwelling units) sit on a 16,425 sq. ft. lot. In the R-6 zone district the maximum allowed density on a single lot of record is a duplex or two detached residential dwelling units. In addition to the existing residences, two accessory dwelling units could be developed on the one lot because ADUs do not count as units of density under the current Land Use Code. The allowable floor area for two detached dwelling units is 4,511 sq. fr. based upon the lot size for the underlying Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district. Ordinance No. 35, Series 1987, allows up to a maximum of 2,486 sq. ft. of floor area per dwelling unit or, for two detached dwelling units, 4,972 sq. ft. As the underlying R-6 zone district provides for a more restrictive floor area, flee lesser number of 4,511 sq. ft would govern. This is Staff's interpretation of the ordinance as is discussed in the next section. Presently, 920 Matchless ~, ... ' ~`'~, -- ~ ~ •, , rl P134 ' contains 1,450 sq. ft. in existing floor area, while 930 Matchless is 900 sq. ft. in existing floor area, for a total of 2,350 square feet. This would allow future development on the lot to expand by 2,261 sq. ft.; however, neither dwelling unit with their associated accessory structure(s) could exceed the individual cap in floor area of 2,486 sq. ft. that Ordinance 35 imposes. Finally, the parcel is eligible to land one 500 sq. ft. floor area bonus if granted by the Historic Preservation Commission for an outstanding preservation effort if Council approves the PUD Amendment being requested by the Applicant. Table 1: Current Allowable Floor Area for Lot 5 (920/930 Matchless) Calculation Basis 16,425 Sq. Ft. Lot (containing two detached residential'dwellin units)' Medium Density Residential Allowable Floor Area for Two 4,511 sq: fr. zone district (R-6) Detached Dwellings or One Du lex Ordinance No. 35, Series 1987 A maximum of .4,972 sq. ft. 2,486/Dwellin Unit Allowable Floor Area More Restrictive of the Two 4,511 sq. ft. Calculations. 2) Staff s Interpretation of Ordinance No.35. Series 1987. A large part of the discussion on April 24`h centered on the intent of Ordinance 35, Series 1987, and the basis for Staff's interpretation of the proposed allowable floor area as it.pertains to the subdivision request. The following information is provided to clarify Staffs position. Ordinance 3S (Series1987), is an ordinance that rezoned all of the lots (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) in Alpine Acres Subdivision from Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) to Medium Density Residential (R-6), and placed a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay on Lots 4 (now 4A and 4B) and 5 only. The PUD overlay provided a minimum front yard setback for Lot 4 (subsequently Lots 4A and 4B) and Lot 5 of twenty-five (25) feet. The PUD also provided minimum lot widths for Lots 4A and 4B of forty-five (45) feet and thirty-nine (39) feet, respectively. Also stated in the ordinance and of most importance with regard to this interpretation is the following condition included within the ordinance: "Each Dwelling Unit in Alpine Acres shafl be restricted to a maximum countable floor area of 2,486 square feet " It is Staff's interpretation that the language in the ordinance imposed a maximum floor area of 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit, not a maximum floor area per lot. Therefore, the allowed floor area calculation is based upon the lot size and calculated with the appropriate formula for asingle-family or duplex use of the lot. If the calculated floor area, based upon the lot size, is less than 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit, the floor area allowed would be the lesser number. If, in calculating the floor area, the number is greater than 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit, the floor area allowed would be capped at 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit. This interpretation is based upon multiple discussions amongst the entire Planning Staff and included the City Attorney. Page 2 of I 1 .~ In the case where a duplex or two detached residential dwelling units are permitted on one lot, the floor area shall be divided between the two dwellings so that each unit contains no less than a minimum percent (25% -based upon the definition of duplex in the Land Use Code) of the allowable floor area and no individual unit contains more than 2,486 square feet. In the case where a lot is further subdivided into smaller lots, the newly created lots would be required to calculate the floor area in the same manner as previously outlined. In reviewing the minutes from 1987, it is clear that there is concern that the non-designated miner cottages could be modified with additions that were incompatible with the architecture and scale of the cottages. As noted in the April 24, 2006 staff report, Alpine Acres was originally zoned Moderate Density Residential (R-1 S) but was mistakenly noted on the Official Zone District Map as Medium Density Residential (R-6). With the R-15 zone district designation, none of the lots were large enough to be subdivided and that is why the rezoning request was submitted. A cap of 2,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit was originally proposed in the rezoning application that was set at 2,486 sq. fr. The initial number (2,500 sq. ft.) was based upon the average lot size in the Alpine Acres Subdivision for a R-IS duplex lot (actually 5,005 sq. ft for Lot 5). The PUD overlay was placed upon Lots 4 and 5 to allow for lesser minimum lot widths for subdivided lots 4A and 4B (and Lot 5 if subdivided in the future) than what was required in an R-6 zone district at the time and to require a larger minimum front yard setback for the dwellings on Lots 4A, 4B, and 5. Below, Table 2 compares allowable floor area from 1987 - 2006. A more detailed table is provided as Exhibit C. Table 2: Allowable Floor Areas. 1987-2006 Zone District :Calculation Basis ''Allowable Floor Ai ea 1987 R-15 Allowable Floor Area fora 5,005 sq. ft. (Lot 5 - 16,425 sq. ft.) Duplex R_6 Allowable Floor Area fora 5,005 sq. ft. (Lot 5 - 16, 425 sq. fr.) Duplex RR=6 Allowable Floor Area fora 3,978 sq. ft. (Lot SA - 8,636 sq. ft.- SFR) SFR Ordinance No. 35, Series 1987 2,486 sq. ft A maximum of 2,486/Dwelling Unit R-6 Allowable Floor Area fora 3,731 sq. ft. (Lot SB - 7,756 sq. ft. - SFR (Du lex not allowed) Duplex) Ordinance No. 35, Series 1987 2,486 sq. ft A maximum of 2,486/Dwelling Unit 2006 Historic Landmark Pro erties R-6 (16, 425 sq. ft. lot) Allowable Floor Area for 4,511 sq. ft. Duplex or two Detached Dwellin s Ordinance No. 35, Series 1987 4,972 sq. fr. A maximum of 2,486/Dwelling Unit P735 Page 3 of 11 a^, ^+. '~,.' _ P136 Zone District Calculation Basis Allowable Floor Area 2006 Historic Landmark Pro erties R-6 Allowable Floor Area fora 3,609 sq. fr (Lot SA - 8,636 sq. ft. -SFR) SFR Ordinance No. 35, Series 1987 2,486 sq. ft A maximum of 2,486/Dwellin Unit Applicant's Request 2,486 sq. fr: plus 500 sq. ft. I HPC bonus RR=6 Allowable Floor Area fora 3,485 sq, ft. (Lot SB - 7,756 sq. ft.- Du lex Duplex) Ordinance No. 35, Series 1987 4,972 sq. ft. i A maximum of ~ 2,486/Dwellin Unit Applicant's Request 3,485 sq. fr. 3) Potential for Future Subdivision. Council asked whether the property could be subdivided in the future. The Applicants would have the ability to condominiumize both Lots SA (a detached and permanently affordable ADU is allowed to be sold) and SB. Additionally, as historic landmazk structures a Historic Landmark Lot Split could be requested in the future; however, the allowable floor area currently proposed (3,485 sq. ft for Lot SB and 2,486 sq. ft. for Lot SA) would be required to be distributed between the new lots. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: - Since the rezoning of Alpine Acres Subdivision in 1987, a number of changes to the Land Use Code have occurred that affect the subject property. The most important change for this property is that it became a historic landmark. This designation requires that any alterations or additions to the exterior of a landmazk be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. As a landmark, a higher density is allowed on a smaller lot and property owners may subdivide their property into a smaller lot than a property without the landmark designation. Also, a property can developed with two detached residential dwelling units rather than a duplex. These tools allow for more sensitive redevelopment of the ,.property than the existing zoning in 1987. In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is generally consistent with the goals of the AACP, allowing for additional density within the City, as well as the applicable review standards in the City's Land Use Code. Staff recommends supporting the minimum setback requests, but recommends that the allowable floor area meet the intent of Ordinance 35 (series 1987). Additionally Staff recommends approval of landing the 500 SF HPC bonus on Lot SA. Any future development on Lot SB will necessitate review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff recommends allowing the HPC to grant any future setback and parking waivers as it deems appropriate. The proposed ordinance is worded in the affirmative, reflecting a scenario where al] of the Applicants' requests (including the floor azea) are granted. If the Council were to deny any of the Applicants' requests, the ordinance would be amended to reflect the actual approvals. Byway of example, if the Council were to deny the floor area request, the following changes would have to be made to the resolution: Paee 4 of 11 ~. , 1. Section 5 of the ordinance would need to amend the allowable floor area for Lot SA to read, "2,486 SF with the ability to land a 500 SF HPC floor area bonus as granted by the HPC." 2. Section 5 of the ordinance would need to amend the allowable floor area for Lot SB to read, "3,485.9 SF." RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2006, upon second reading." MANAGER'S COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A -Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT B -Alpine Acres Subdivision (current & proposed conditions) E~cI-IIBIT C -Table showing Minimum Lot Sizes, Allowable Densities, and Allowable Floor Areas (1987-2006) EXHIDIT D -Ordinance No. 35 (Series 1987) EXHIBIT E -Proposed Subdivision of Lot 5 , EXHIBIT F -Massing of Structures INFORMATION FROM APRIL 24, 2006 STAFF REPORT: APPLICANT /OWNER: Christine Dodaro, Peter Dodaro, and Shirley Peterson, Trustee -Shirley H. Peterson Living Trust REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Raymond, Kim Raymond Architects LOCATION: 920 and 930 Matchless Drive, Condominium Units 1 and 2, Alpine Acres Townhouse Condominiums No.S (formerly known as Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision) CURRENT ZONING & USE Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district with a Planned Unit Development Overlay, consisting of two detached residential dwellings on the lot. Both structures are Historic Landmark Properties. PROPOSED LAND USE: 920 Matchless is proposed to accommodate two detached residential dwellings, while 930 Matchless is proposed to accommodate a detached residential dwelling and a voluntary accessory dwelling unit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. SUMMARY: The Applicants request Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Amendment to subdivide the one lot into two lots and set the minimum or maximum dimensional requirements. P137 Page 5 of 11 .~,,, ~,> - P738 LAND USE REQUESTS: The Applicants have asked the Community Development Director to combine the review procedures for the multiple land use requests (Land Use Code (LUC) Section 26.304.060 B.1., Combined Reviews). Also, the Applicants are requesting to consolidate Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development (LUC Section 26.445.030 B.2., Consolidated Conceptual and Final Review). Staff believes that the combination of reviews will reduce duplication in the amount of review time and will ensure the clarity of the final decision. Therefore, the Community Development Director has allowed for the combining of reviews and atwo-step consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD) process on this particular proposal. The Applicants are requesting the following land use approvals for the site: • Subdivision for the division of land into two lots pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Planned Unit Development Amendment to establish the minimum or maximum Dimensional Requirements for the minimum side yard setback, minimum front yard setback, and the maximum Allowable Floor Area for each lot pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445, Plarmed Unit Development. (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicants (Peter and Christine Dodaro, owners of 930 Matchless and Shirley Peterson, owner of 920 Matchless) have requested approval to subdivide the existing lot into two lots (Lot SA - 930 Matchless and Lot SB - 920 Matchless) so that each existing detached dwelling is located upon its own lot. Both buildings are designated Historic Landmarks and as such are allowed certain reduced dimensional standards in the underlying Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district for minimum lot size, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum lot width. Lot SA (930 Matchless) is proposed as an 8,636.5 SF lot to be developed with an addition to the existing residence and a detached garage with a voluntary accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above the garage. Any development involving designated historic property requires review and approval by the Historic Preservation- Commission (HPC). The•design of the addition to the existing residence and the detached garage/ADU building has been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission with recommendations for granting variances to the minimum required side yards. Dimensional variances from the underlying zone district shall be set through the PUD Amendment. Additionally, the HPC granted a 500 SF floor area bonus for an "outstanding preservation effort" for 930 Matchless which may or may not be necessary to apply on proposed Lot SA depending on the allowable floor area allowed for the lot. Lot SB (920 Matchless) is proposed as a 7,756.7 SF lot containing the existing residence and be developed in the future with a second detached residence. The following table compares the proposed development dimensions with the dimensional requirements of the Medium-Density Residential (R-b) zone district. Shaded cells indicate a variation from either the underlying zone district or from Ordinance 35 (Series 1987): Page 6 of 11 P139 Table I: Comparison of Prooosed vs. Required Dimensional Requirements Dimensional: Proposed Dimensional .Underlying R-6 Zone District Requirements = Requirement - '= Re uirements 't `~ ' ~..~ ~~ {Lot SA Lot 5B ~ x d.3 ' j y, ~ L G '~ ` ~ 930 ~ ~, 920', ~ ' .~z ~ ? r' WW ~ ., Matchless Matchless ' '~ ,.., ~ ~. , :' Minimum Lot 8,636.5 SF 7,756.7 SF 3,000 SF Size Minimum Lot 52 Feet 31.85 Feet 30 Feet Width Minimum Lot 8,636.5 SF 3,878.35 SF 3,000 SF Area/Dwellin Minimum Front 23,8 Feet 21.b Feet_ 25 Feet Yard Setback Minimum Side A`minimum , A minimum Lot SA Lot SB Yard Setback of 2:5 Feet of 3.92 Feet . Min. Side Yard: 10 Feet Min. Side Yazd: 5 Feet Total Side Yards3: 28:18 Total Side Yazds': NA Minimum Rear 10 Feet and 10 Feet and 10 Feet -Principal bldg. Yard Setback 5 Feet 5 Feet 5 Feet -Accessory bldg. Maximum Hei t 25 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet Floor Area Ratio 3,486 SF . " 3,485.9 SF A maximum of 2,486 SF per dwelling unit (FAR) Minimum Off- 3 Spaces 4 Spaces Residential -Single-family and duplex: lesser of Street Parking (2 for free (2 each for one space per bedroom or two spaces per unit market unit free mazket Residential -Accessory Dwellin¢ Units and & 1 for units) Carriage Houses: One space per unit ADU) Notes: Shaded blocks indicate a difference from the underlying zone district or Ordinance 35 (Series 1987) and where the PUD Amendment would allow deviation, if approved.. 1 -For Historic Landmark Properties. 2 -Conditions imposed upon the property by ordinance 1987-35. 3 -The R-6 zone district requires a total side yard setback of both side yards in addition to a minimum for each. Additionally, two detached residential units on one lot (as proposed for Lot SB) are not required to meet the total side yard setback, provided there is a minimum often (10) feet between the two detached buildings. 4 -Total floor area for multiple detached dwelling units on a lot less than nine-thousand squaze feet listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwellin . In order to create the two lots as proposed by the owners of 930 Matchless and the owner of 920 Matchless, the PUD needs to be amended in the following ways: 1) The minimum setbacks for the side yards will need to be allowed to be less than what is allowed in the R-6 zone district; and, 2) The existing PUD minimum front yard setback should be amended to accommodate the existing location of both historic structures; and, Page 7 of 11 ~"""` '"~ ..~ K,.~ - P140 3) The PUD will need to allow the floor area to be calculated using the underlying (R-6) standards for 920 Matchless and to set the floor area of 930 Matchless at 3,486 square feet (less than what the underlying R-6 zone district would allow); and, 4) Finally, with the future development of Lot SB, the Applicants would like to request that the PUD ordinance allow for the HPC to grant any necessary variances from required minimum setbacks or parking standards and to have the ability to allow Lot SB to be eligible Fora 500 SF floor area bonus if the future development proposal is deemed an outstanding preservation effort by the HPC in the future. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision of the lot into Lots SA and SB with the passage of Resolution 6 (Series 2006). With regard to the PUD Amendment, the Commission recommended approval in setting the minimum front and side yard setbacks as requested by the Applicants. The Commission recommended that the allowable floor area for Lot SA (930 Matchless) be set at 2,486 SF with the ability to land the 500 SF HPC bonus and for the allowable floor area of Lot SB (920 Matchless) to be set at 3,485 SF. Additionally, the Commission recommended that with the future design and redevelopment of Lot SB, the HPC be allowed to grant any additional variances from required setbacks or parking waivers. History of Alpine Acres Subdivision and the effect of Ordinance 1987- 35 To better inform the City Council of the land use history on the subject property, the following summary is provided: • The City annexes Alpine Acres Subdivision, Block 1, Lots 1-5 in 1976 (Ordinance 33). Three of the lots (1, 4, & 5) have a duplex building on them. Both Lots 4 and 5 have two small Victorians on each lot that are connected by a garage, therefore considered a duplex. Two lots are unimproved (Lots 2 & 3). Ordinance 1976-69 zones the annexed land Moderate-Density Residential (R-15). • As part of the annexation, a domestic well is conveyed to the city that serves Lots 1, 4, and 5 as part of an annexation agreement. The agreement allows the lots within the subdivision to use the well water for imgation/decorative purposes once Lots 1, 4, and 5 connect to city water. The well is currently located on Lot 5 and due to its close proximity to the proposed addition to 930 Matchless, is proposed to be abandoned or relocated. • In 1977 Lots 1, 4, and 5 are condominiumized. • In 1986, the owners of condominiumized Lot 4 (Bishop& Dunn) which contains two detached residential buildings, submit a request for subdivision exemption for a lot split to subdivide Lot 4 into two separate lots. During review of the application Staff determines that there is a clerical error on the Official Zone District Map as Alpine Acres Subdivision is shown as Medium-Density Residential (R-6) rather than Moderate- DensityResidential (R-15), as it was originally zoned. The minimum lot size requirement in 1986 for the R-15 zone district does not allow Lot 4 to be subdivided into two lots. As a result, all of the lot owners in Alpine Acres apply Page 8 of 11 ,. -. ... .., for rezoning to R-6 and Lot 4 requests a lot split. The property owners within the subdivision propose a voluntary allowable floor area cap of 2,500 per dwelling unit, which is similar to the per dwelling unit allowance for a duplex in the R-15 zone district for the existing lot sizes within Alpine Acres. The number is negotiated to a maximum of 2,486 SF per dwelling unit in Ordinance 35 (series 1987). In conjunction with the rezoning of the property from Moderate-Density Residential (R- 15) to Medium-Density Residential (R-6), a PUD overlay is placed upon Lots 4 and 5 which sets the minimum front yard setback for Lot 4 (subsequently Lot 4A and 4B) and .Lot 5 at twenty-five (25) feet. -The PUD overlay also sets the minimum lot width for Lots 4A and 4B. • In 2002, a PUD Amendment is submitted by the owner of Lot 4A to allow his property to be eligible fora 500 SF floor area bonus for an outstanding preservation effort. The amendment is approved which allows Lot 4A a maximum floor area of 2,986 SF. STAFF COMMENTS: SUBDIVISION: The Applicants are requesting subdivision approval to create two lots (Lots SA and Lot SB) from one lot (Lot 5) which requires approval of subdivision. In reviewing the subdivision portion of the npplication, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Review Standards. Stnf~feels that the proposal is consistent with the infill development Qoals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) PUD Amendment: A Planned Unit Development is a process in which a site specific development plan is created which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of the land and promotes objectives outlined in the LUC and goals of the AACP by allowing the variation of the underlying zone district's dimensional requirements. The parcel currently exists with a PUD overlay; however, based upon the new development proposal the PUD must be amended and dimensional requirements established. The applicant is requesting that minimum setbacks and allowable floor area be varied. Minimum Setbacks: The Applicants have requested to reduce the minimum side yard setback requirement for proposed lot SA and SB. Due to the existing location of the two residences, an amendment to the required minimum front yard setback should also be considered. Based upon the proposed lot size, the underlying zoning requires Lot SA (930 Matchless) to have a minimum side yard setback of ten 10 feet and a combined setback of 28.18 feet. Both the proposed addition to the single-family residence and the new detached garage/ADU have been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the HPC is recommending approval of the reduced setbacks. As approved by the HPC, the single-family residence requires a 2'- 6" minimum setback from the proposed west property line and a minimum combined setback of 17'-7". The detached garage/ADU requires a 5'- 4" minimum setback from the proposed west property line and a 6'-2" minimum setback from the east property line. A combined minimum setback of 11'-7" is necessary for the garage/ADU. Additionally; the existing PUD overlay requires a minimum front yard setback of twenty-five P141 Page 9 of 11 ~ ~, i ~.s .. P142 feet rather than ten feet as allowed by the underlying zone district. The present building sits at 23.8'. Lot 5B (920 Matchless) requires a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet, based upon the proposed lot size, but will not require a combined setback if developed with two detached residential dwellings as long as the buildings are a minimum of ten feet apart. The existing structure is proposed to be 3-I1" from the proposed property line. The current PUD overlay requires a minimum front yard setback of twenty-five feet which is not met by the existing structure which sits at 21.6'. Staff feels that the historic designation of both ecistine bui/dings and the required review and ~roval of anv exterior alterations by the Historic Preservation Commission to maintain the historic inte¢rity of the property warrants the granting of the proposed setbacks and any future setback variances granted by the HPC. Allowable Floor Area: As noted previously, Ordinance 35 (series 1987) restricts the floor area allowed per dwelling unit in the subdivision. The ordinance states that, "Each Dwelling Unit in Alpine Acres shall be restricted to a maximum countable Jloor area oj2,486 square feet. " It is Staff's interpretation that the language in the ordinance imposes a maximum floor azea of 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit. When determining the floor area, if the calculated floor area is less than 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit, the floor area allowed would be the lesser number. If, in calculating the floor area, the number is greater than 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit, the allowable floor area would be capped at 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit. The Applicants are requesting that the City Council grant the allowable floor area for Lot SB (920 Matchless, owned by Shirley Peterson) be in conformance with the underlying Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district, which is also in conformance with Ordinance 35 (Series 1987). With regard to Lot SA (930 Matchless, owned by the Dodazos), the Applicants are requesting the allowable floor area be set at 3,486 SF, which is greater than what Ordinance 35 (series 1987) allows but less than what the underlying R-6 zone district would permit. There are a number of options that the City Council may consider in determining the allowable floor area for both lots. Two options, at either end of the spectrum, are identified below: 1) The Council may determine that the allowable floor area voluntary cap included in the rezoning ordinance (1987-35) should continue to run with the land. In 1987, there was concern over the larger floor area that would be allowed with rezoning the property to R- 6 and its impact on the existing Victorians. The property owners at the time of the rezoning voluntarily offered and agreed to the cap. Under this scenario, Lot SA's allowable floor area for the single-family residence would be capped at 2,486 SF. The HPC approved design for the residential addition and detached garage/ADU requires an allowable floor area of 2,986 SF. If the Council determines that Lot SA be limited to 2,486 SF of allowable floor area, the Applicants (in this case the Dodaro's) will need to secure the 500 SF floor area bonus granted by the HPC for Lot SA. Only one HPC bonus can be granted from a pazent parcel. Lot SB (920 Matchless) which is owned by Shirley Peterson is proposed to have two free market units on it at some point in the future. With a 7,756.7 SF lot, the underlying zoning would allow a floor area of 3,48.9 SF (which also meets the requirement of Ordinance 3~, Series 1987). Page 10 of 11 .., 2) The Council could determine that the proposed allowable floor areas for the lots be determined by the underlying zone district requirements. In establishing the dimensional requirements of a PUD, Land Use Code Section 26.445.050 B. notes: "the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD." By using the underlying zone district standards as a guide, the floor area allowed by the underlying zoning for Lot SA (930 Matchless) developed with the HPC approved single- family residence would be 3,609 SF. If the Applicants, in this case the Dodaros are allowed to have a floor area that is slightly below what the R-6 zone district would allow, it will not be necessary for them to land the 500 SF floor area bonus on Lot SA because the underlying floor area is 500 SF in excess of what is necessary to build the development plans that the HPC has approved. The excess floor area could be turned into two transferable development rights, which the Dodaros have stated that they are interested in creating. Lot SB, with the two free market units would have an allowable floor area of 3,485.9 SF. As mentioned earlier, only one 500 SF bonus granted by the HPC is allowed for a designated property and/or fathering parcel. If the City Council allows both lots to meet the underlying zone district standards with regard to allowable floor area, the one bonus could be available to Lot SB in the future. Staff recommends following Option 1 requiring thnt the intent of Ordinance 35 (series 1987) be maintained with regard io allowable floor area, as all other properties within the Alpine Acres Subdivision are subiect to the floor area cap. Lot SA would need to land the HPC Roor area bonus to maximize the allowable floor area of the lot to 2 986 SF allowin¢ for the development of the HPC approved addition The floor area for Lot SB would be 3 485.9 SF. SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATIONS FEE: Given that the proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicants either dedicate lands for school function or pay acash-in-lieu payment. The Applicants have proposed to pay acash-in- lieu payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.630. Staff has inclz~ded a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that the Applicants pay the School Lands Dedications fee•prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed development. PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE: A property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures is not required to pay a Park Development Impact Fee for additional bedrooms added to the site pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. P143 Page 11 of 11 ~ ^~ wr - - P144 Exhibit A SUBDIVISION REVIEW CffiTERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.480.050 of the City. Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standazds and requirements. A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Findine The future land use map in the AACP shows this property to be residential. The proposed use is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. Applicable policies and goals of the AACP that the subdivision meets are: locating residential development within the city boundaries and locating development close to the commercial core and transit stops. Additionally, the historic resources will be rehabilitated. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area Staff Findine There are many residential uses within the area including mobile homes, single family residences, duplex residences, and multi family residential development. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staf(Finding As the application indicates, the surrounding properties are close to fully developed. All development associated with this application is internal to the site and will not encroach onto the public right-of--way ar adjacent properties. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the futa~re development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. S[a(f Finding The proposed development is in compliance with the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district requirements and meets all other land use regulation except for where the Applicants are requesting to vary from a standard. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. StaffFindin~ Staff believes that the property is suitable for subdivision. The site contains no steep topography and no known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed development. However, there may be contaminated soils and the resolution requires mitigation if contaminated soils ate foamd. _ In addition, Staff believes that there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, Stafff:nds this criterion to be met. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied. by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. StaffFindinp The Applicants have consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. StaffFindinQ The Applicants are not providing replacement dwellings units and are not subject io the Replacement Housing Program. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable to the proposal. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. P145 StaffFindinQ The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pa~rsuant to Land L'se Code Section ?6.630. The Applicants have proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing .~ ~, 4. i P146 land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Thus, staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, § 2) Sta jf Findine The Applicants' project, as proposed, is exempt from GMQS. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS In accordance with Section 26.445.030(2) of the Land Use Code, due to the limited extent of the issues involved, the Applicant has requested a consolidated conceptual/final PUD. This two-step process consolidates the conceptual and final development plan reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, with public hearings occurring at both. Section 26.445.050, Review Standazds: Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD outlines that a development application shall comply with the following review standards A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staf(Findinp The future land use map in the AACP shows this property to be residential. The proposed use is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. Applicable policies and goals of the AACP that the development meets are: locating residential development within the city boundaries and locating development close to the commercial core and transit stops. Additionally, historic resources will be rehabilitated as the lots are redeveloped. Siafffinds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. S[af(FindinQ There are many residential uses within the area including mobile homes, single family residences, duplex residences, and multi family residential development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. StaffFindinQ 3 P147 As the application indicates, the surrounding properties are close to fully developed. All development associated with this application is internal to the site and will not encroach onto the public right-of--way or adjacent properties. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the fiitzire development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GivIQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Sta(rFindinQ The Applicants' project, as proposed, is exempt from GMQS. Staff Ends this criterion not to be applicable. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. StaffFindin~ The proposed dimensional requirements, with regard to proposed setbacks, complement and help maintain the integrity of the historic structures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staf/Finding Staff believes the massing and scale of the proposal on 930 Matchless is appropriate for the site and the historic resource since it has received approval by the HPC. Any future development of 920 Matchless will need to be reviewed for a Certificate of Appropriateness which will create a scale and massing appropriate to the neighborhood and the historic resource. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: 4 ~., .~. ,~ _ P148 a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city.. Staff Findine _ Proposed Lot SA (930 Matchless) meets the underlying zone district requirements with regard to off-street parking. The development of an additional residence has not been designed and is expected to meet the off-street parking requirements unless granted a waiver by the HPC. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. StaffFindine Staff believes that sufficient infrastructure capabilities exist to accommodate the proposed development. The adjacent public right-of--way on Matchless Drive and the access easement at the rear of the lots are su~cient to accommodate the required fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance for the proposed development. The City of Aspen Fire Marshal, Utilities Director, and a representative from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District have reviewed the proposal and have proposed conditions of approval to mitigate for any insufficiencies. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Sta (Finding 5 ., Staff believes that the site is suitable for development and that this criterion is not applicable to the subject application. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a speci£tc area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. StaffFindino The Applicants are not requesting an increase in allowable density. Staff believes that the site is suitable for development and that this criterion is not applicable to the subject application. B. Site Design: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding Both existing structures on the property are designated historic landmarks. Any new structures, additions, or alterations are required to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) which will ensure the integrity of the existing structures. The proposed setback variations, recommended by the HPC, will also contribute to maintaining the integrity and setting of the historic structures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staf(Finding As infill development, there are no significant open spaces to be preserved. However, any placement of buildings have, or will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission to preserve the integrity of the historic resources. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. P149 ~.,. .~, - P150 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staf Finding The existing historic resources are appropriately oriented towards Matchless Drive. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Sta( Findin¢ - Staffbelieves that the proposal is appropriately arranged in a manner that allows for emergency vehicles to easily access the site. The site is served by both a public rights-of--way (Matchless and Heron Drive) and an access easement that acts like a service alley at the renr of the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. StaffFindi~ The Applicants have proposed to provide units that meet the building department's accessibility requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Sta(fFindinp The Applicants will be required to submit a site drainage plan that was prepared by a licensed engineer. The proposed development shall not increase historic flows of the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately de- signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staf(Findinp The Applicants are not proposing to construct any non-residential structures on the site. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. C. Landscape Plan: The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staf(Findin2 7 ~. The Applicants are proposing to maintain the significant trees that ecist on the property. The Applicants shall szebmit a landscaping plan for review by the Parks Department with regard to tree protection, removal and planting prior to issz~ance of a building permit for the project. Staff finds this criterion to be rnet. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staf{Finding Mature trees are required to be preserved. The historic resources will be preserved and any future development must be designed in a way to maintain the integrity of the resources. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding The Applicants have proposed and are required to provide tree protection fencing around the drip line of any tree that is to be preserved on-site. Additionally, no constn~ction activity or storage of construction materials shall be allowed within the drip line of any trees to be preserved on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Architectural Character: It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. StafrFindin¢ As historic landmarks, any changes to the property with regard to buildings are required to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission is regztired to review projects so that new structz~res, additions, and alterations complement the historic strz~ctures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. StaffFindina P151 8 ~ ~. P152 The Applicants have stated that passive solar and natural venting/cooling will play a significant part in the design of the building as well as efficient fixtures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Sta(rFindinQ The proposed parcels have adequate areas for snow storage. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Lighting: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering- both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All -ighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Sta(fFindine The development shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements and the Applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the Zoning Officer to review at the time of building permit submittal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the fmal PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding The development shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements and the Applicants shall submit a lighting plan for the Zoning Officer to review at the time of ba~ilding permit submittal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. StaffFindin2 The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area. Therefore, staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. P153 StaffFindinp The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area. Therefore, staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. StaffFindin2 The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area. Therefore, staff finds that this criterion is not applicable H. Utilities and Public Facilities: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. StaffFindin2 Staff believes that adequate public facilities exist to accommodate the proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Adverse impacts oh public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. StaffFindinQ The affected utility agencies have reviewed the proposed plans and the concerns have been addressed as conditions of approval in the attached resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement Staff Findi nQ The Applicant is not proposing to install oversized utilities or public facilities and it is not anticipated that the Applicant will be reguired by the City to provide oversized utilities. Staff does not find this criterion to be applicable to this application. I. Access and Circulation (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to Minor PUD applications): The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1D *"` ^'~ ..> ..~: P154 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding The proposed development has adeguate access from Matchless and Heron Drive and has additional access to the lots via an access easement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding Staff believes that the access easement at the rear of the properties is appropriate for access. Staff finds this criterion to be met. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public t'acilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Sia(f Finding ' The Applicant is proposing to redevelop Lot SA (930 Matchless) with an nddition to the existing residence. Lot SB (920 Matchless) may be developed at a later date. However, no joint facilities or infrastructure is required and the proposal is not a phased project. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. 11 ~. ir, a ORDINANCE N0. 11 (SERIES OF 2006) A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL CITY APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE DODARO SUBDIVISION (LOTS SA AND SB) AND PUD AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING DETACHED DWELLING AND VOLUNTARY GARAGE/ADU ON LOT 5A AND TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS ON LOT SB ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 920 AND 930 MATCHLESS DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-074-22-0] and 2737-074-22-02 WHEREAS, the Contrnunity Development Department received an application from Christine 'Dodaro, Peter Dodaro, and Shirley Peterson, Trustee -Shirley H. Peterson Living Trust, represented by Kim Raymond, requesting a combined review and approval of Subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment, for the development of two lots, Lots SA and SB; and, WHEREAS, an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a new garage/ADU is proposed for Lot SA and a total of two detached dwelling units is proposed for Lot SB; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-6) with a PUD overlay; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission determined during the review of the application that the application was available for a combined review of the land use requests and a consolidated two-step review of the PUD Amendment; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 28, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application, and took public comment; and, WHEREAS, on February 28, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 6, Series of 2006, by a four to zero (4-0) vote, recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the proposed subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment for the development of two lots with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a new garage/ADU proposed for Lot SA (930 Matchless) and a total of two detached dwelling units proposed for Lot SB (920 Matchless); and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 24, 2006, the City Council opened the hearing, took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development Director, and referral agencies of the City of Aspen and adopted Ordinance No. _, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment for the development of two lots with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a new garage/ADU proposed For Lot SA (930 Matchless) and a total of two detached dwelling units proposed for Lot SB (920 Matchless); and, Page 1 of 7 ,~* ^*. ~..- . ,: - ,o WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets many of the applicable development standards and where the standazds are varied, 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 City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1• - Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby Council approves with conditions the Dodaro Subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment for the development of two lots with an addition to an existing detached residential dwelling unit and garage/ADU on Lot SA (930 Matchless Drive) and allowing an additional dwelling unit on Lot SB for a total of two detached dwelling units on Lot SB (920 Matchless Drive). Section 2: Plat and Aereement The Applicants shall record a subdivision/PUD plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval. The Applicant shall also enter into a sidewalk agreement to install a future sidewalk adjacent to Matchless Drive along the entire lot frontage if it is deemed appropriate by the City of Aspen to have a sidewalk in this location at some time in the future. Section 3: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. e. An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan, and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. Page 2 of 7 ~. f A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. g. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for review and approval by the City Engineer. h. The Applicants shall comply with Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 regarding the handling of any contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site prior to any excavation on and/or prior to the application for building permits on both lots. All soils on Lots SA and SB shall be considered contaminated unless determined otherwise through testing that adheres to the protocols that were established by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994. If, pursuant to said testing protocols, the soils are found to be uncontaminated, the following requirements shall not apply. However, to the extent that any contaminants are discovered, the following requirements shall apply: 1) All contaminated soils that are removed from the site shallbe transported to the Pitkin County Landfill and disposed of at the Smuggler repository. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be temporarily stored above ground or remain on site shall be securely contained on and covered with anon-permeable tarp or other protected barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil and to prevent windblown dust from disturbed dirt. 2) The owner and general contractor of any development on Lots 1 and 2 of the South _ and Gibson Subdivision shall submit a letter to the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department stating-tlr ,tie lta~e read; undar~tgod,,and will comply with the regulations for handling conta te~-so+~~.~igth}~~~t~he.~~fJ~'rmer Smuggler Superfund Site as set forth in Ordinance ~ P 25,i~mes,o~ ~9`d~fio~, to any excavation and/or ~. ~ ' o huiAdi ermits for the ~o ert ~. ' " ` ,',r:ii 3 .~`l+SD4~~h ~ ~rP P,.P Y r .- ~+ NYYY1`j~~ ti~j,:~i~,t~~~r~rt~ VT J j~d' 3) The owner shall complete`a Soil'Rbr4roval Permit and Affidavit for excavation prior ' to any excavation or disturbance of dirt and prior to any issuance of building permits for the properties. Section 4: Permitted Use of the Property As outlined in the Applicants' development application, Lot SA (930 Matchless) shall be developed with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling and a detached garage/ADU, the design having been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Lot SB (920 Matchless) will contain the existing detached residential dwelling and an additional detached residential dwelling for a total of two detached residential dwellings. The design and alteration of the existing building and new bui ding or structures shall be reviewed and approved by t e Histonc Preservation Commissiotn~. ~''ir ~,.~_ ,~ ~ ~,~ ~.I,-Q~~ ~1n~ c~SG "TD ` o~-L-1(~~~ ~ rj 9 ~ ~ ~~~SS w I 1 ~' Section 5: Dimensional Requirements ~~~ G` ~/' _ w r ~~~~ { ~a/X,,~-5 Lo~C Page 3 of 7 P157 "^ ~^'- '~u~r c..:,a~ P158 The redevelopment of the lots as presented will vary the dimensional requirements of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district. As a PUD Amendment, the dimensional requirements shall be set as follows: ~ ; ~' di0. Lot SA PUD Dimensronal ~ Lot SB ~iTD Dimensronal ~y. ~~ ; _ ,, w`~ k a ~;~' ~ ry,~ ~ ,~'; Requirements ~ ~ `",~ ~ lye ~~ ~ ~ ~ Requrreinents ' .. ? E< :° . '~= ~'*~ ;: ; ~ . ~~=F Matchless) ` ~ "" (930 ~~ ~ ' (9201VIatchless) ~ ?~ .r y. ~ =u ! , _ n ? _ , . ~r , ,_ ~- Minimum Lot Size 3,000 SF 3,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 30 30 Feet Minimum Lot Area/Dwellin 3,000 SF 3,000 SF Minimum Front Yard Setback 23.8 Feet 21.6 Feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 2.5 Feet from west property line 3.92 Feet from the east property 15 Feet from east property line line as along as existing structure is not demolished or if an HPC variance is granted 5 Feet from the west property line unless an HPC variance is anted Total Side Yards 17.58 Feet NA - as long as there is ten feet between the two detached dwelling units Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 Feet -Principal Building 10 Feet -Principal Building 5 Feet -Accessory Building 5 Feet -Accessory Building (unless a waiver is granted by the HPC) Maximum Hei ht 25 Feet 25 Feet Allowable Floor Area 3;4$frSF ~ W ~ '~ ~ I 3,485.9 SF wr~Fk{}3e.abi}i~-te- - CY~ ~~ U .!, n _ _ 1 .7 .. cnn nr ~., C ~ T rt Section 6: Off- Street Parkine Requirements G~~^ ~Gr'"""k`°~ t1~s ~ .~ As par[ of the PUD Amendment the parking requirement for Lot SA shall meet the off-street~~~ parking requirement for the use of the property containing a detached dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit which requires three (3) off-street parking spaces. Lot SB shall meet the off-street parking requirements for the use of the property, unless a parking waiver is permitted by the Historic Preservation Commission. Section 7: EnQineerin~ A CMP plan meeting the requirements of the City will be required as part of the approval process. Submission of this report should be before any building permit application to allow open discussion of phasing and traffic impacts. The Staff can provide a list of those CMP p , • ..sequire~meY~t~ inclus~ 'of: ~onstruc~~on ;traffic routing, erosion BMP's, soil stabilization, ~s. 1 drainage impacts aiid' ct~nstructiop~hasin~a plan.ft~' use,;in develppplgxiraf tliat,p(an: n . SeSti~n $:,~ire NIit56atiori `) ~ ~J ~ ~.... _ ~ , .--~ ~ v ' Page 4 of 7 ,,..~ .. P159 The Applicants shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal if a building is over 5,000 square feet in area. Sectiou 9: Water Department Requirements Individual lots need separate services. If there is more than residence on a lot a common service agreement may be allowed. The Applicants shall vacate the city water well on Lot SA. Any development shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standazds, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. The City must be presented an option acceptable to the State and City by the Applicants prior to the existing well on Lot SA being abandoned or relocated. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains)- to ACSD lines shall be allowed. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Old service line connections must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to ACSD requirements. 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 aze 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. It is recommended that the old 6" clay sanitary sewer service line be replaced by a new 8" PVC main line with two manholes, thereby allowing 920, 930, 940, and 950 to have their own service line tied directly into a district maintained sewer line. Section 11: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 12: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicants shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicants shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 13: Impact Fees Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.420.020. B.4, Waiver of Fees, the Park Dedication Fees maybe waived. All other impact fees, as applicable at the time of submission, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. Section 14: Parks An approved tree removal permit is required prior to submitting the building permit. The Parks Department sign off will be contingent on the approved tree permit. A detailed tree protection Page 5 of 7 ~ ..r P160 plan is required as part of the building permit set and should include fence details and fence locations as well as the following language, "A construction fence shall be installed at the drip line of each individual or grouping of trees remaining on site. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and foot or vehicle traffic will be allowed within the tree protection fence. Contact the City of Aspen Pazks Department for inspection of the fence, 920-5120 before any construction activities commence. After inspection and approval of the fence location the fence cannot be moved or removed without permission from the Parks Department or until the project receives the Certificate of Occupancy." Utility connections need to be designed in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. Root Pruning: The Applicants will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on call in order to address all roots greater than 1.5 inches in diameter. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. Section 15: Vested Rights 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. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right.. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, 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, valid for a period of three (3) years, 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 SA and SB, Dodaro Subdivision Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the Paee 6 of 7 r ~.. -~ ..i P161 date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 16: Al] material representations and commitments made by the Applicants pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the City Council, 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 17: This ordinance 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 18: 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. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 19: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 24~' day of April, 2006, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 27~h day of March, 2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor Page 7 of 7 P1 ~. g*r~ h` ,', v }V' ~~' ~ ~ t "P~` ,~ Rs w - ~~~~~~ t h.'~ ~ w f~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ V p Aa 'r H~~ ~ e d ~ taM ~ ~ ~ Q .i ~~ ASS itry. ~ki 3 x 4 , ~5i ~ Pm. f~ Y • G ~. , ~ ~ .~y~'~`~ t w- p r` ~• ~L. 4~a^E ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ (.. ~ ~. _ "Vyn i 'w ~ ! ^N ~ . x ~ S . "Vr°S ~ ffi r P R . ~`' B9'' Y S ~ti Z 3 ~ S ° P `i . t a r r+~ ._ 3a ?' ° e >6 .` ~ ~' dYf v S P _p ~ ' ' i '~ / ia. r <. r e y4 ,. 4 , ~~~ ~~ ~P163 ' ~ y c,~ ;n w om w ~ ~ w ~ w cn w ~ c. a .`a ;o o ° ~ °` ~ ~ 1~- ~ "' ~ 7 M N ~ O ~ V ~ ~ ~ fC /y~ ' 0 i ~.r C C O 0 O w ~"~ ~-- D\ O w'1 T N M 5 x M M V M M O _ o £ , * $ ,; O _ O o N a =x w v~ w w O cb O ~b 'D Y :' W' ~ V1 '/'~ O ~ ~. N. ~ ' m q ~ ~ ~ b ` c. o ^ ~ c ~ :° ~` ~" bus ` w w w w ~ ~ w~G o ~ N o ?, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c-, ~a'w ~b ° cG` ~ °~ ,.t sg S«r,.rs ~g~ o ~ ~ 7 o ~ ~ 7 ~ M o v ~ o o ~ 'D GL 'b M w m G .C + ~ d W O _.'' ~-~~- r ~^ y ^ ' . ~p ^ ~p ~ ~O ~ O N O y U ~ O N ~ N N N ~.j b ~ . O ~ ~ „ ~ ~ ' Z z Z ^ p a w ~~ = id' ~ ~ 3 ~ :b ~ AW' ~ N ~w ~ O ~w ~ Q Y ~ ~ o ~ o ~ . y o, ~' - w ~ w iu n ob ~'b ~ " `' ~ t ~ try.. O v i c .O. .-. .-. ~ .K ;~ j~y°~ ^ V1 ~ ~ V'~ O y O y c1 y {~ ~ ' Y n §% ~' vi c`. w w .. w w O w a~-- ~ ctl ~ ~w ono ~+~' '~."..= p.~ r Ul ~ ~ v1 rn . ~ C -- y w ~ ' '~ o ~ ~' ~, o o u„ ~ oo ~w ~ ti ~ m O r ~ x ~ Y 47: ~ ~ ~e ~ "° :jai ~ cd O ' cd ~y ~ ctl O y ~ °' ~ ~ .b ~ L. r ~ o w ~ o QJ ~ K ~., ,b r~ N Q ~. y ~ ¢ s. ¢ °J ~. ~y 3 .0 `i 4 n o ~^ ~ ~ ~ ~ -° o~ ~ ~~ o ~ ^ °Q °a O a ~ '~ '~ r ~ , ~ ~ oq~ oaa a~pu. v CG ' r ~ G' ^'2 ca ~ ~ tC ~ V] td h ~ O E E^ c 3 c 5 3 0 ~0 3 0 '~ ~; ~ o 3 ~ L • ~ ~o , ~ ^-~ ~ . . , ""'` ~lB lT ,~. P164 ~7 1~6 4 ?` N 'f 1 PAGE EOOK 5 - ~ ~ ~ ~. I S~ O ~ Y ~ J~ ORDINANCE NO. - ~ mi -A (Series of 1987) " `- ~' z a °' ~ ~~ AN ORDINANCE REZONING TAE ALPINE ACRES SIIBDI~ION~ CITY CDF'~ ID~~NTIAL) TO R-6 ASPEN, PLTRIN COUNTY, COLORADO FROti R-15 (RES (RESIDENTIAL,) AND PLACING A PLANNED UN IT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY ON ALPINE ACRES LOTS 4 AND 5 WFIEREAS, an application and petition have been submitted by Joseph Dunn, Charles Bishop_and other owners of the Alpine Acres Subdivision to rezone to R-6 (Residential) Alpine Acres and to place a Planned Unit Development Overlay on Alpine Acres Lots 4, subsequently resubdivided Lots 4A & 4B, and Lot 5; and W}IEREAS, the subdivision is presently Zoned R-15 (Residen- tial); and WID;REAS, all of the owners of Alpine Acres Subdivision have agreed to request a voluntarily imposed maximum floor area (FAR) of 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit; and WNERF.AS, as part of the rezoning request, Soseph Dunn and. Charles Bishop have submitted a subdivision exception request for the purpose of creating two lots; and WID;F2EAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held on July 21, 1987, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend that the subdivision exception and rezoning be approved; and WHEREAS, the application has been found to be generally consistent with Section 24-12.5 of the Land Use Code which establishes criteria for rezoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that due to the existing narrow lots and large front yard setbacks of Lots 4 and 5 a II . } 4 Planning Unit Development Overlay is appropriate so to allow for the creation of new lots not meeting the minimum lot width .~~~ .. ., P165 eoaH 54~ Pa~~19? requirement and to maintain the existing character of the front yard setbacks; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has considered the recommen- dation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and has determined the proposed rezoning to be compatible with surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity of the .site. NOW, TfD;REFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY TAE CITY COIINCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That it does hereby rezone to R-6 the Alpine Acres Subdivi- Sion and place on Lots 4 and 5 of Alpine Acres a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay subject to the following conditions voluntarily imposed by the subdivision property owners: A. Each dwelling unit in Alpine Acres shall be restricted to a maximum countable floor area of 2,486 square feet. B. Front yard setbacks of Lots 4 and 5, and subsequently resubdivided Lots 4A and 4B, shall be a minimum of 25 feet; and /7 C. The minimum lot width of newly created Lots 4A and '4B ~ shall be approximately 45 feet and 39 feet respect- ively. Section 2 That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the rezoning described in Section 1 and the City Engineer be author- ized and directed to amend the map to reflect the zoning change. Section 3 That the City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinan e to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. ^% - P166 Book 547 PacE198 Section 4 If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or i% unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such ;~ portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent I' provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.- - ~: Section 5 A public hearing on the Ordinance will be held on the ~'~~~ ll f of ~v , 1987 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, ' Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same was published once in a news- ~f paper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. ;~ INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by/,law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ~~ ~v of ~Ct ~~ ~=~ 1987. ,`\`,~ gf.'~li William L. Stirling, Mayor f ATTEST:. Z ~{ Kathryn ~ 3Coch, City Clerk ~.C )ft~C}NgtS,y adopted, passed .and appr~owed/this ~'r day ofyG~~l/ 1987..,," ~ ~ /~~~~~ ~, William L. Stirling, M or ~~yy' GF I ;' %ATTEST~Sr '•. •~? `=nryt' Koch, City Clerk gh.49 C• ^~ /~ ~~~/~ t//~ ~~ ~l ~'J d ~`~- d ~-- ~n~.~ !~~ r------ ~ ~ I ------ ---- --- --- 3 ' I I - '- -------~------W % ?`~~~ dciy ~ ~ `~`g Z~ ,l¢s~ a.u,cs .97N ~~cz I ~~ I I ~s' s ®- I® o 1~~®®® ~GGGF ® O~~ ~ ® a3 ® ® ®~ I I ~m®®®®®®® ~ ®® o ~o ~~ I I m ~ v ~ S~ Q ~ Z~ I ~/ " J C3 S~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ®® ~ ^ N ~F ~ ® I O 0 JJ~ ~ 3 Qp Q O ~ ~; ~ Q ® ® ~® i I J n ~ ?~o ?Z~ J m 3 ®~ ®~ ~w~ ~k~ os~ ~~ ~~~ o~,a~~ 3nR14 SS37HJlt~'W --- ----- L - -- ~~ P168 k 0 Cr 0 r ~- 0 N S P169 -t- 0 1 ~' k w --, '`/ ~ _ P170 1 Q (~ 0 P171 1y 3 1 0 n ~ ~ ~../ _ P172 N N .~ O V J ~q fi ~\ ~h~~-r.~ P .h. S fi Y d ~ t~ ]^i tF"ft'N .L iii k~(~ T'+ I r~5. y f~ ~ °'r~ ~1 3` "ak~:F' *a'k i t M i p .i r '.e- ~ -.~ r t x~ s » .' i a ,~;~: x a} U'-+G x,~ ''F Y~ -: S ~ wP~C-hYl~,S". ~A~i.n, tai' _ `'~ x +~ ~g ; r X55~, ~ -~~, +,~~ >~ fi ~,t€ e ,~``~5: d s 99 3 ~A, tl zaC S--'~`fy#>n r z e e T 5 r x~~ Y ~. r '~.', ~~?: y, v n l J~4: Trv 'ie 4 Y ~ g 4' 43~a~. 'n ~k~~d=3 ~ ~~Y'~~rt i~ %3~ur'v >te~•• ..~~++ 2 i>eR3TM x 3 g i Y 'Fa rt x~. ~ v~. ~Cl y~'{?L ~ '3W'mM ~~h _ £ F a T~ ~ }"~T t }~T 5Lx"" ~~~. 4 ~ g "ar. ~ ` S 't ~' is 3 % ' €~,,~ ~.5.,_ ,$., ,e. '~ i .$' 4 ~ -rc. ~} ~~~~yi e ni ~5~, ~Gr _ t ~ '`ro.~.,r '~ :~ ~ ~ ~¢. ~vTde'~"x-.=y~b~t _ > i ~fi `°' WrF fia§ 3 1=-t~ t tt'+Efi- '~' .~d t h~ '$.~T~f U'G ~ S a'3 ~ d % -~ .. fix £' x~"~' .F+ .;.+~ w -,Tyn a J QS* "~~~~2.5 [~t "`s-.rv'"'4k~c ~ `ti*#-~<N~T r'%~s'r 6~ ,~"~-,x~~'. arc ±:,r 1 r~ i +v a~.±-L ~~."' ntt`^~,~ ~ `~"xt +~' ~: tY3x~d 5 i :~i& ~~ :~~~ i ~ ~ t h'iL ~ ~} ~ ~ "{ ~ '{. m~Tr '~'vn 1e. `.Ss y 3,ap %, r eiP-, ,x-a w Y3 Y~ ~ 2~"s1 , ~~ m w _ n z a ~~~~s5` ~' 25.x. "~ ~`F~ ; ~ >_, i..,. t- a .~' ~` rr~y a ~ ~s .. ".~ ~~,4 P?,mot ~: ~3x.c~-'n'~E~ ~tVv4~'.t~7P ~ Nom, 4 8c _ "ra' ~; ~ "'S aV~:. sN"`n ~' ~t k vA~ b $' r ~ '' 3 P ~ tr ry~{ ; Y~ ~ 'taS G q _ +-}1 r L a ~ ~ (y -y # T 3 ~t X ~n.L atom g 3 P1 r e P173 MEIVIORr+,NDUM ~~ TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council /J THRU: Chris Bendon, Cornmunity Development Director) ' a ~ FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Long Range PlannerU~( lJ~ RE: Dodaro Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Amendment (920 & 930 Matchless Drive) -Second Readin off Ordinance 2006 - 11, Series 2006 MEETING DATE:. Apri124, 2006 APPLICANT /OWNER: Christine Dodaro, Peter Dodaro, and Shirley Peterson, Trustee -Shirley H. Peterson Living Trust REPRESENTATIVE: - Kim Raymond, Kim Raymond Architects LOCATION: 920 and 930 Matchless Drive, Condominium Units 1 and 2, Alpine Acres Townhouse Condominiums No.S (formerly known as Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision) CURRENT ZONING 3c USE Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Zone district with a Planned .Unit Development Overlay, consisting of two detached residential dwellings on the lot. Both structures aze Historic Landmazk Properties. PROPOSED LAND USE: 920 Matchless is proposed to accommodate two detached residential. dwellings, while 930 Matchless is proposed to accommodate a detached residential dwelling and a voluntary accessory dwelling unit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. SUMbIARY: The Applicants request Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Amendment to subdivide the one lot into two lots and set the minimum or maximum dimensional requirements. .PHOTO: 920 Matchless llnve ~~ P174 LAND USE REQUESTS: The Applicants have asked the Community Development Director to combine the review procedures for the multiple land use requests (Land Use Code (LUC) Section 26304.060 B.1., Combined Reviews). Also, the Applicants are requesting to consolidate ConceptuaUFinal Planned Unit Development (LUC Section 26.445.030 B.2., Consolidated Conceptual and Final Review). Staff believes that the combination of reviews will reduce duplication in the amount of review time and will ensure the clarity of the fmal decision. Therefore, the Community Development Director has allowed for the combining of reviews and atwo-step consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD) process on this particular proposal. The Applicants aze requesting the following land use approvals for the site: • Subdivision for the division of land into two lots pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (Gifu Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Planned Unit Development Amendment to establish the minimum or maximum Dimensional Requirements for the minimum side yard setback, minimum front yazd setback, and the maximum Allowable Floor Area for each lot-pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development. (Gifu Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicants (Peter and Christine Dodazo, owners of 930 Matchless and Shirley Peterson, owner of 920 Matchless) have requested approval to subdivide the existing lot into two lots (Lot SA - 930- Matchless and Lot SB - 920 Matchless) so that each existing detached dwelling is located upon its own lot. Both buildings are designated Historic Landmazks and as such aze allowed certain reduced dimensional standazds in the underlying Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district for minimum lot size, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum lot width. Lot SA (930 Matchless) is proposed as an 8,636.5 SF lot to be developed with an addition to the existing residence and a detached garage with a voluntary accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above the garage. Any development involving designated historic property requires review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. (HPC). The design of the addition to the existing residence and the detached gazage/ADU building has been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission with recommendations for granting variances to the minimum required side yards. Dimensional variances from the underlying zone district shall be set through the PUD Amendment. Additionally, the HPC granted a 500 SF floor azea bonus for an "outstanding preservation effort" for 930 Matchless which may or may not be necessary to apply on proposed Lot SA depending on the allowable floor area allowed for the lot. __:_, Lot SB (920 Matchless) is proposed as a 7,756.7 SF lot containing the existing resideice and"be developed in the future with a second detached residence. The following table compazes the proposed development dimensions with the dimensional requirements of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district. Shaded cells indicate a variation from either the underlying zone district or from Ordinance 35 (Series 1982): Page Z of 8 ,._.. P175 Table 1: Comparison of Proposed vs. Required Dimensional Minimum Lot 8,636.5 SF 7,756.7 SF 13,000 Minimum Lot 52 Feet 31.85 Feet 30 Feet Width Minimum Lot 8,636.5 SF 3,878.35 SF= 3,000 SF Area/Dwellin Minimum Front ~ °1~3Fisf~ et " ........... ` fi Feel.~*: 25 Feet Yard Setback , `~ r Minimum Side Aaunrmum a+Y.'h A„u~munum~ { Lot SA Lot SB Yazd Setback ~ ~„ pf2 5 Faet ~ ~~ 42~~eet ,. ~ ~r£3 Min. Side Yazd: 3 0 Feet Min. Side Yazd: 3 Feet aF ~ x?'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Total Side Yazds :28:18 Total Side Yazds : NA r, , r ~ „ , , _ ;.. Minimum Reaz 10 Feet and 10 Feet and 10 Feet -Principal bldg. Yazd Setback 5 Feet 5 Feet 5 Feet-Accesso bld . Maximum Hei ht 25 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet Floor Area Ratio SF~~~ ~ ~,4fft~i 3,485.9 SF A maximum of 2,486 SF per dwelling unit r Minimum Off- 3 Spaces 4 Spaces Residential -Single-family and duplex: lesser of Street Pazking (2 for free (2 each for one space per bedroom or two spaces per unit mazket unit free mazket Residential -Accessory Dwelline Units and 8t 1 for units) Camaee Houses: One space per unit . Notes: Shaded blocks indicate a difference from the underlying zone district or Ordinance 35 (Series 1987) and where the PUD Amendment would allow deviation, if approved. 1 -For Historic Landmark Properties. 2 -Conditions imposed upon the property by ordinance 1987-35. 3 -The R-6 zone district requires a total side yard setback of both side yards in addition to a minimum for each. Additionally, two detached residential units on one lot (as proposed for Lot SB) aze not required to meet the total side yazd setback, provided there is a minimum often (10) feet between the two detached buildings. 4 -Total floor area for multiple detached dwelling units on a lot less than nine-thousand squaze feet listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling. In order to create the two lots as proposed by the owners of 930 Matchless and the owner of 920 Matchless, the PUD needs to be amended in the following ways: 1) The minimum setbacks for the side yazds will need to be allowed to be less than what is allowed in the R-6 zone district; and, 2) The existing PUD minimum front yazd setback should be amended to .accommodate the existing location of both historic structures; and, Page 3 of 8 :.~ P176 3) The PUD will need to allow the floor area to be calculated using the underlying (R-6) standards for 920 Matchless and to set the floor azea of 930 Matchless at 3,486 squaze feet (less than what the underlying R-6 zone district would allow); and, 4) Finally, with the future development of Lot SB, the Applicants would like to request that the P[JD ordinance allow for the HPC to grant any necessary variances from required minimum setbacks or parking standards and to have the ability to allow Lot SB to be eligible fora 500 SF floor area bonus if the future development proposal is deemed an outstanding preservation effort by the HPC in the future. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision of the lot into Lots SA and SB with the passage of Resolution ~ (Series 2006). With regazd to the PUD Amendment, the Commission recommended approval in setting the minimum front and side yazd setbacks as requested by the Applicants. The Commission recommended that the allowable floor azea for Lot SA (930 Matchless) be set at 2,486 SF with the ability to land the 500 SF HPC bonus and for the allowable floor area of Lot SB (920 Matchless) to be set at 3,485 SF. Additionally, the Commission recommended that with the future design and redevelopment of Lot SB, the HPC be allowed to grant any additional variances from required setbacks or parking waivers. History of Alpine Acres Subdivision and the effect of Ordinance 1987- 35 To better inform the City Council. of the land use history on the subject property, the following summary is provided: • The City annexes Alpine Acres Subdivision, Block 1, Lots 1-5 in 1976 (Ordinance 33). Three of the lots (1, 4, & 5) have a duplex building on them. Both Lots 4 and 5 have two small Victorians on each lot that are connected by a gazage, therefore considered a duplex. Two lots aze unimproved (Lots 2 & 3). Ordinance 1976-69 zones the annexed land Moderate-Density Residential (R-15). • As part of the annexation, a domestic well is conveyed to the city that serves Lots 1, 4, and 5 as part of an annexation agreement. The agreement allows the lots within the subdivision to use the well water for irrigation/decorative purposes once Lots 1, 4, and 5 connect to city water. The well is currently located on Lot 5 and due to its close proximity to the proposed addition to 930 Matchless, is proposed to be abandoned or relocated. • In 1977 Lots 1, 4, and 5 are condominiumized. • In 1986, the owners of condominiumized Lot 4 (Bishop& Dunn) which contains two detached residential buildings, submit a request for subdivision exemption fora lot split _ to subdivide Lot 4 into two separate lots. During review. of the application Staff determines that there is a clerical error on the Official Zone District Map as Alpine Acres Subdivision is shown as Medium-Density Residential (R-6) rather than Moderate- Density Residential (R-15), as it was originally zoned. The minimum lot size requirement in 1986 for the R-15 zone district does not allow Lot 4 to be subdivided into two lots. As a result, all of the lot owners in Alpine Acres apply Page 4 of 8 P177 for rezoning to R-6 and Lot 4 requests a lot split. The property owners within the subdivision propose a voluntary allowable floor area cap of 2,500 per dwelling unit, which is similaz to the per dwelling unit allowance for a duplex in the R-15 zone district for the existing lot sizes within Alpine Acres. The number is negotiated to a maximum of 2,486 SF per dwelling unit in Ordinance 35 (series 1987). In conjunction with the rezoning of the property from Moderate-Density Residential (R- 15) to Medium-Density Residential (R-6), a PUD overlay is placed upon Lots 4 and 5 which sets the minimum front yazd setback for Lot 4 (subsequently Lot 4A and 4B) and Lot 5 at twenty-five (25) feet. T'he PUD overlay also sets the minimum lot width for Lots 4A and 4B. • In 2002, a PUD Amendment is submitted by the owner of Lot 4A to allow his property to be eligible fora 500 SF floor azea bonus for an outstanding preservation effort. The amendment is approved which allows Lot 4A a maximum floor azea of 2,986 SF. STAFF COMMENTS: $UBDMSION: The Applicants are requesting subdivision approval to create two lots (Lots SA and Lot SB) from one lot (Lot 5) which requires approval of subdivision. In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Review Standards. Staff feels that the proposal is consistent with the in~ll development goals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). PUD Amendment: A Planned Unit Development is a process in which a site specific development plan is created which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of the land and promotes objectives outlined in the LUC .and goals of the AACP by allowing the variation of the underlying zone district's dimensional requirements: The pazcel currently exists with a PUD overlay; however, based upon the new development proposal the PUD must be amended and dimensional requirements established. The applicant is requesting that minimum setbacks and allowable floor azea be varied. Minimum Setbacks: The Applicants have requested to reduce the minimum side yard setback requirement for proposed lot SA and SB. Due to the existing location of the two residences, an amendment to the required minunum front yard setback should also be considered. Based upon the proposed lot size, the underlying zoning requires Lot SA (930 Matchless) to have a minimum side yard setback of ten 10 feet and a combined setback of 28.18 feet. Both the + proposed addition to the single-family residence and the new detached garage/ADU have been reviewed and approved by`the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the HPC is recommending approval of the reduced setbacks. As approved by the HPC, the single-family residence requires a 2'- 6" minimum setback from the proposed west property line and a minimum combined setback of 17'-7": The detached. gazage/ADU requires a 5'- 4" minimum setback from the proposed west property line and a 6'-2" minimum setback from the- east property line. A combined minimum setback of I1'-7" is necessary for the gazage/ADU. Additionally, the existing PUD overlay requires a minimum front yard setback of twenty-five Page 5 of 8 P178 feet rather than ten feet as allowed by the underlying zone district. The present building sits at 23.8'. Lot SB (920 Matchless) requires a minimum side yazd setback of five (5) feet, based upon the proposed lot size, but will not require a combined setback if developed with two detached residential dwellings as long as the buildings are a minimum of ten feet apart. The existing structure is proposed to be 3-11" from the proposed property line. The current PUD overlay requires a minimum front yazd setback of twenty-five feet which is not met by the existing structure which sits at 21.6'. Staff feels that the historic designation of both existing buildings and the required review and approval of anv exterior alterations by the Historic Preservation Commission to maintain the historic integrity of the proverty warrants the Fronting of the proposed setbacks and anv frture setback variances Fronted by the HPC. Allowable Floor Area: As noted previously, Ordinance 35 (series 1987) restricts the floor area allowed per dwelling unit in the subdivision. The ordinance states that, "Each Dwelling Unit in-- Afpine Acres shall be restricted to a maximum countable floor area of 2,486 square feet. " It is Staff's interpretation that the language in the ordinance imposes a maximum floor area of 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit. When determining the floor area, if the calculated floor area is less than 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit, the floor area allowed would be the lesser number. If, in calculating the floor area, the number is greater than 2,486 squaze feet per dwelling unit, the allowable floor azea would be capped at 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit. The Applicants aze requesting that the City Council grant the allowable floor area for Lot SB (920 Matchless, owned by Shirley Peterson) be in conformance with the underlying Medium-Density .Residential (R-6) zone district, which is also in conformance with Ordinance 35 (Series 1987). With regazd to Lot SA (930 Matchless, owned by the Dodazos), the Applicants are requesting the allowable floor area be set at 3,486 SF, which is greater than what Ordinance 35 (series 1987) allows but less than what the underlying R-6 zone district would permit. There aze a number of options that the City Council may consider in determining the allowable floor area for both lots. Two options, at either end of the spectrum, aze identified below: 1) The Council may determine that the allowable floor area voluntary cap included in the rezoning ordinance (1987-35) should continue to run with the land. In 1987, there was concern over the larger floor area that would be allowed with rezoning the property to R- 6 and its impact on the existing Victorians. The property owners at the time of the rezoning voluntarily offered and agreed to the cap. Under this scenario, Lot SA's allowable floor area for the single-family residence would be capped at 2,486 SF. The HPC approved design for the residential addition and detached garage/ADU requires an allowable floor azea of 2,986 SF. If the Council ' determines that Lot SA be limited to 2,486 SF of allowable floor area, the Applicants (in " this case the Dodaro's) will need to secure the 500 SF floor azea bonus granted by the HPC for Lot SA. Only one HPC bonus can be granted from a parent parcel. Lot SB (920 Matchless) which is owned by Shirley Peterson is proposed to have two free market units on it at some point in the future. With a 7,756.7 SF lot, the underlying zoning . would allow a floor azea of 3,485.9 SF (which also meets the requirement of Ordinance 35, Series 1987). Page 6 of 8 P179 2) The Council could determine that the proposed allowable floor azeas for the lots be determined by the underlying zone district requirements. In establishing the dimensional requirements of a PUD, Land Use Code Section 26.445.050 B. notes: "the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD." By using the underlying zone district standards as a guide, the floor azea allowed by the underlying zoning for Lot 5A (930 Matchless) developed with the HPC approved single- family residence would be 3,609 SF. If the Applicants, in this case the Dodazos are allowed to have a floor area that is slightly below what the R-6 zone district would allow, it will not be necessary for them to land the 500 SF floor azea bonus on Lot SA because the underlying floor azea is 500 SF in excess of what is necessary to build the development plans that the HPC has approved. The excess floor area could be turned into two transferable development rights, which the Dodaros have stated that. they aze interested in creating. Lot SB, with the two free mazket units would have an allowable floor azea of 3,485.9 SF. As mentioned earlier, only one 500 SF bonus. granted by the HPC is allowed for a designated property and/or fathering pazcel. If the City Council allows both lots to meet the underlying zone district standards with regard to allowable floor area, the one bonus could be available to Lot SB in the future. Stafirecommends following Option I requiring that the intent of Ordinance 35 (series 1987) be SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATIONS FEE: Given that the proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicants either dedicate lands for school function or pay acash-in-lieu payment. The Applicants have proposed to pay acash-in, lieu ,payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.630. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that the ,4pplicanu pay the School Lands Dedications fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed development. PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE: A property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures is not required to pay a Pazk Development Impact Fee for additional bedrooms added to the site pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development lmpac Fee. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. Page 7 of 8 r-, ~ ~ ,. P180 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is generally consistent with the goals of the AACP as well as the applicable review standards in the City's Land Use Code. Staff recommends supporting the minimum setback requests, but recommends that the allowable floor area meet the intent of Ordinance 35 (series 1987). Additionally Staff recommends approval of landing the 500 SF HPC bonus on Lot SA. Any future development on Lot SB will necessitate review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff recommends allowing the HPC to grant any future setback and parking waivers as it deems appropriate. The proposed resolution is worded in the affirmative, reflecting. a scenario where all of the Applicants' requests (including the floor area) aze granted. If the Council were to deny any of the Applicants' requests, the ordinance would be amended to reflect the actual approvals. By way of example, if the Council were to deny the floor area request, the following changes would have to be made to the resolution: I. Section 5 of the ordinance would need to amend the allowable floor azea for Lot SA to read, "2,486 SF with the ability to land a 500 SF HPC floor azea bonus as granted by the HPC." 2. Section 5 of the ordinance would need to amend the allowable floor azea for Lot SB to read, "3,485.9 SF." RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2006, upon second reading." MANAGER'S COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: EXI~IT A -Review Criteria and Staff Findings Ex[~rr B -Referral Comments ExI1iBIT C -Alpine Acres Annexation Plat (1976) ExFUaIT D -Existing and Proposed Conditions for Lot 5 Exl~ri E -Planning and Zoning minutes of 2/28/06 Exl~rr F -Ordinance No. 35 (Series 1987) ExIllBri G -Planning and Zoning minutes of 7/21/87 ExI-z>BrI H -City Council minutes of 7/21/87 ExI~TT I -City Council minutes of 7/21/87 ExIIIDIT J -Application (please bring bound application from the Council packet of March 27, 2006) Page 8 of 8 P781 ORDINANCE N0. 11 (SERIES OF 2006) A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL CITY APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE DODARO SUBDIVISION (LOTS 5A AND 5B) AND PUD AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING DETACHED DWELLING AND VOLUNTARY GARAGE/ADU ON LOT 5A AND TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS ON LOT 5B ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 920 AND 930 MATCHLESS DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. ParcellD: 2737-074-ZZ-01 and 2737-074-ZZ-OZ WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Christine Dodazo, Peter Dodazo, and Shirley Peterson, Trustee -Shirley H. Peterson Living Trust, represented by Kim Raymond, requesting a combined review and approval of Subdivision - - -- - and consolidated PUD Amendment, for the development of two lots, Lots SA and SB; and, WHEREAS, an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a new garage/ADU is proposed for Lot SA and a total of two detached dwelling units is proposed for Lot SB; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-6) with a PUD overlay; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission determined during the review of the application that the application was available for a combined review of the land use requests and a consolidated two-step review of the PUD Amendment; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 28, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application, and took public comment; and, WHEREAS, on February 28, 2006, the .Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 6, Series of 2006, by a four to zero (4-0) vote, recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the proposed subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment for the development of two lots with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a new garage/ADU proposed for Lot SA (930 Matchless) and a total of two detached .dwelling units proposed for Lot SB (920 Matchless); and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on Apri] 24, 2006, the City Council opened .the hearing, took public testimony, considered pertinent :recommendations from the. ,,. . . Community Development Director, and referral agencies of the City of Aspen and adopted Ordinance No. _, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment for the development of two lots with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a new gazage/ADU proposed for Lot SA (930 Matchless) and a total of two detached dwelling units proposed for Lot SB (920 Matchless); and, Page 1 of 8 ~__. P182 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets many of the applicable development standazds and where the standards aze varied, 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 City Council finds that this ordinance fiirthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby Council approves with conditions the Dodazo Subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment for the .development of two lots with an addition to an existing detached residential dwelling unit and gazage/ADU on Lot SA (930 Matchless Drive) and allowing an additional dwelling unit on Lot SB for a total of two detached dwelling units on Lot- - - - SB (920 Matchless Drive). Section 2: Plat and Agreement The Applicants shall record a subdivision/PUD plat and ageement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval. The Applicant shall also enter into a sidewalk agreement to install a future sidewalk adjacent to Matchless Drive along the entire lot frontage if it is deemed appropriate by the City of Aspen to have a sidewalk in this location at some time in the future. Section 3: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepazed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground rechazge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size [he facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. e. _ An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan, and drainage and.soils ..:_ _... reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. Page 2 of 8 P183 f A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. g. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for review and approval by the City Engineer. h. The Applicants shall comply with Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 regazding the handling of any contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site prior to any excavation on and/or prior to the application for building permits on both lots. All soils on Lots SA and SB shall be considered contaminated unless determined otherwise through testing that adheres to the protocols that were established by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994. If, pursuant to said testing protocols, the soils are found to be uncontaminated, the following requirements shall not apply. However, to the' extent that any contaminants are discovered, the following requirements shall apply: 1) Al] contaminated soils that aze removed from the site shall be transported to the Pitkin County Landfill and disposed of at the Smuggler repository. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be temporarily stored above ground or remain on site shall be securely contained on and covered with anon-permeable tarp or other protected barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil and to prevent windblown dust from disturbed dirt. 2} The owner and general contractor of any development on Lots 1 and 2 of the South and Gibson Subdivision shall submit a letter to the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department stating that they have read, understood, and will comply with the regulations for handling contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site as set forth in Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 prior to any excavation and/or issuance of building permits for the property: 3) The owner shall complete a Soil Removal Permit and Affidavit for excavation prior to any excavation or disturbance of dirt and prior to any issuance of building permits for the properties. Section 4: Permitted Use of the Property As outlined in the Applicants' development application, Lot SA (930 Matchless) shall be developed with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling and a detached garage/ADU, the design having been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Lot SB (920 Matchless) will contain the existing detached residential dwelling and an additional detached residential dwelling for a total of two detached residential dwellings. The design and alteration of the existing building and new building or structures shall be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. -ana Z of R ~-. ,, P184 Section 5: Dimensional Requirements The redevelopment of the lots .as presented will, vary the dimensional requirements of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district. As a PUD Amendment, the dimensional requirements shall be set as follows: „ ; -.Lot SA - PIID Dimensional. Lot SB -PUD Dimensional ~ ' ,. Requirements . ~ ~ ' ~ ~;.Requireirieiits (930 Matchless) '(920'Nlafchless) [ Minimum Lot Size 3,000 SF 3,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 30 30 Feet Minimum Lot Area/Dwellin 3,000 SF 3,000 SF Minimum Front Yard Setback 23.8 Feet 21.6 Feet. Minimum Side Yazd Setback 2.5 Feet from west property line 3.92 Feet from the east property 15 Feet from east property line line as along as existing structure is not demolished or if an HPC variance is granted 5 Feet from the west property line unless an HPC variance is anted Total Side Yards 17.58 Feet NA - as long as there is ten feet between the two detached dwellin units Minimum Reaz Yazd Setback 10 Feet -Principal Building 10 Feet -Principal Building 5 Feet -Accessory Building 5 Feet -Accessory Building (unless a waiver is granted by the HPC) Maximum Hei ht 25 Feet 25 Feet Allowable Floor Area 3,486 SF 3,485.9 SF with the ability to land a 500 SF HPC floor azea bonus granted by the Commission Section 6: Off- Street Parking Requirements As part of the PUD Amendment the parking requirement for. Lot SA shall meet the off-street parking requirement for the use of the property containing a detached dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit which requires three (3) off-street parking spaces. Lot SB shall meet the off-street parking requirements for the use of the property, unless a parking waiver is permitted by the Historic Preservation Commission. Section 7: Engineering A CMP plan meeting the requirements of the City will be required as part of the approval process. Submission of this report should be before any building permit application to allow open discussion of phasing and traffic impacts. The Staff can provide a list of those CMP requirements inclusive of: construction traffic routing, erosion BMP's, soil stabilization, drainage impacts, and construction phasing plan for use in development of that plan. Page4of8 P185 Section 8: Fire Mitigation The Applicants shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal if a building is over 5,000 square feet in area. Section 9: Water Department Requirements Individual lots need separate services. If there is more than residence on a lot a common service agreement may be allowed. The Applicants shall vacate the city water well on-lot SA. Any development shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with -the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen. Water Department. The City must be presented an option acceptable to the State and City by the Applicants prior to the existing well on Lot SA being abandoned or relocated. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No cleaz water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Old service line connections must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shazed 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. It is recommended that the old 6" clay sanitary sewer service line be replaced by a new 8"PVC main line with two manholes, thereby allowing 920, 930, 940, and 950 to have their own service line tied directly into a district maintained sewer line. Section 11: Exterior Liehtin2 All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 12: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicants shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicants shall provide the mazket value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 13: Impact Fees Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.420.020. B.4, Waiver of Fees, the Park Dedication Fees maybe waived. All other impact fees, as applicable at the time of submission, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. Section 14: Parks PaOP S of 4 P186 ,~-, ,,~ An approved tree removal permit is required prior to submitting the building permit. The Parks Department sign off will be contingent on the approved tree permit. A detailed tree protection plan is required as part of the building permit set and should include fence details and fence locations as well as the following language, "A construction fence shall be installed at the drip line of each individual or grouping of trees remaining on site. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of constniction backfill, storage of equipment, and foot or vehicle traffic will be allowed within the tree protection fence. Contact the City of Aspen Parks Department for inspection of the fence, 920-5120 before any construction activities commence. After inspection and approval of the fence location the fence cannot be moved or removed without permission from the Pazks Department or until the project receives the Certificate of Occupancy." Utility connections need to be designed in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. Root Pruning: The Applicants will need` to contract with a tree service, and have them on call in order to address all roots greater than 1.5 inches in diameter. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. Section 15: Vested Rights 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. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section. 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the Ciry 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, valid for a period of three (3) years, 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 SA and SB, Dodazo Subdivision Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Page 6 of 8 P187 The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law .for the exercise of such rights shal] not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 16: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicants pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the 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 azi authorized entity. Section 17: This ordinance 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 18: 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 The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 19: A public hearing on this ordinance shall beheld on the 24a' day of April, 2006, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m..in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED FUBLISHED as provided bylaw, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 27ei day of Mazch, 2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor Paae 7 of 3 P188 Approved as to form: City Attorney Pale 8 of 8 .~ P189 Exhibit A SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.430.00 of the .City. Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Findino The future Zand use map in the AACP s•hoviu• this property to. be residential. The proposed use is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. Applicable policies and goals of the AACP. that the subdivision meets are; locating residential development within the city bozmdaries and locating development. close to the commercial core and transit stops. Additionally, the historic resources will be rehabilitated. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent-with the character of existing ]and uses in the area: Staff Findino There are many residential uses within the wren .including mobile homes, single family residences, duplex residences, .and multi family residential development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. StaffFindinQ As the application indicates, the s•z~rrounding properties are close to fully developed All development associated with this application is internal to the site and will not encroach onto the public right-of--way on adjacent properties. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding The proposed development is in compliance with the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district requirements and meets• all other land use regulation except for where the Applicants are requesting to vary from a s•tnndard. Stcfffinds this criterion to be met. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snorvslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other P 190 ~ `' "i condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Findi Staj believes thnt the property is suitable for subdivision. The site contnins no steep topography and no known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed development. However, there may be contaminated soils and the resolution requires mitigation if contaminated soils ate fozmd. In addition, Staff,believes that there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities becaz~se the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.530 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals ofl the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding The Applicants• have consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to Section 26.80. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall ~e required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding The ,4pplicants are not providing replacement dwellings units and are not subject to the Replacement Housing Program. Stafffnds this criterion is not applicable to the proposal. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. StaffFindin~ The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to Land Us•e-Code Section 2ti.630. The Applicants have proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing P791 land, which tivill be paid prior to building permit issuance: Thus, stc~finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. .Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created. parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. ={4-2001, § 2) Staff Finding The Applicants' project, as proposed, is exempt from GMQS Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. PLANNED Ur+iT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW.CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS In accordance with Section 26.445.030(2) of the Land Use Code, due to the limited extent of the issues involved, the Applicant has requested a consolidated conceph:al/final PUD. This two-step process consolidates the concephial and final development plan reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, with public hearings occumng at both. Section 26.445.050, Review Standards`. Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD outlines that a development application shall comply with the following review standards A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding The future land use map in the AACP shows this property to be residential. The proposed use is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. Applicable policies and goals of the AACP that the development meets are: locating residential development within the city boundaries and locating development close to the commercial core and transit stops. Additionally, historic resources will be rehabilitated as the lots are redeveloped. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Findin o There are many residential uses within the area including mobile homes, single. family residences, .duplex residences, and multi family residential development. Staff finds-this criterion to be mei. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely .affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding P192 >^ ~. As the application indicates, the surrounding properties are close to fully developed All development cwsociated with this application is internal to the site and will not encroach onto the public right-of-way or adjacent properties. Therefore, Stc~does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. Staff ftnds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either-been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or .GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding _ The Applicants' project, as proposed, is exempt from GMQS Stcff finds this criterion not to be applicable. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, panting, and historical resources. Staff Finding The proposed dimensional requirements, with regard to proposed setbacks, complement and help maintain the integrity of the historic structures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and o1'the surrounding area. Staff Finding Stcff believes the massing and scale of the proposal on 930 Matchless is appropriate for the site cmd the historic resource since it has received approval by the HPC. Any future development of 910 Mcuchless will need to be reviewed for a Certificate of Appropriateness which will create a sccde cmd massing appropriate to the neighborhood cmd the historic resource. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a P793 a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestriaq access anallor khe commitment to utilize automobile , disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding Proposed Lot ~A (930 Matchless) meets the underlying zone district requirements with regard to off-street parking. The development of an additional residence has not been designed and is expected to meet the off-street parking requirements unless granted a waiver by the HPC. Staff ,finds this criterion to be met. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced il': a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. StaffFindine Staff believes that szfficient infrastructure capabilities exist to accommodate the proposed development. The adjacent public right-of--way on Matchless Drive and the access easement at the rear of the lots are sufficient to accommodate the required fire protection, snow removal; and road maintenance for the proposed development. The City of Aspen Fire Marshal, Utilities Director, and a representative from .the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District have reviewed the proposal and have proposed conditions of approval to mitigate for any insufficiencies. Staff finds• this criterion [o be met. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced i1': a) The land is nut suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, clue to runot3', drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will h:rve a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Sta{fFinding !_ . P194 "q! Staff believer that the site is suitable jor development and that this criterion is not applicahle to the szrbject application. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, `as identified in subparagraphs 4 and ~, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. StdffFindinp The Applicants are not requesting crn increase in allowable density. Staff believes that the site is suitable for development and that this criterion is not applicable to the subject application. B. Site Design: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is :complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. .The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site. which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. StaffFindin~ Both esis•ting structures• on the property are designated historic landmarks. Any new structures, additions, or alterations• are required to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) which will ensure the integrity of7he existing structures. The proposed setback variations, recommended by the HPC, will also contribute to maintaining the integrity and setting of the historic strzrctzrres. Stc~f ads this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open sp:ues and vistas. StnffFindina As infill development, there are no significant open spaces to be preserved.. However, any placement of buildings have, or will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission to preserve the integrity of the historic resources. Staff finds this• criterion !o be met. 6 P195 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urbm or rural contest where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. StaffFindin~ The existing historic resources• are appropriately oriented towards Matchless Drive. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. Buildings and access ways ure appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Findine -- Staff believes that the proposal is• appropriately arranged in a manner that allows for emergency vehicles to easily access the site. The site is served by both a public rights-of--way (Matchless and Heron Drive) and an access easement that acts like a service alley at the rear of the property. Stafffinds• this• criterion to be met 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding The Applicants• have proposed to provide units that meet the building department's accessibility requirements. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. StaffFindine The Applicants will be required to submit a site drainage plan that was prepared by a licensed engineer. The proposed development shall not increase historic flows of the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces behveen buildings are appropriately de= signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding .The Applicants• are not proposing to construct any non-residential structures on the site. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. C. Landscape Plan: The purpose o}• this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of .the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits. a well designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserving existing significant vegetafion, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding 7 Piss ^,~ The Applicants are proposing to maintain the significant trees that eris•t on the property. The Applicants shall submit n landscaping plan for review by the Parks• Department with regard to tree protection, removal and planting prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Signit3cant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and. interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. StaffFindin~ Mature trees are required to be preserved The historic resources• rovill be preserved and any future development must be designed in a yvcry to maintain. the integrity of the resources•. Staff finds. this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staf/ Finding The Appliccmts have proposed and are required to provide tree protection fencing around the drip line of any tree that is to be preserved on-site. Additionally, no construction activity or storage of construction materials shall be allowed within the drip line of any trees to be preserved on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Architectural Character: It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use o1' resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its .purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character plan, which adequately depicts. the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: ' 1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Stafl'Finding As' historic landmarks, any changes to the property with regard to buildings are reyzrired to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission is regzired to review projec•ts• s•o that new structures, additions, and alterations complement the historic structures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 1. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- orless-intensive mechanical systems. Staf(Findine S P197 The Applicants have stated that passive solar and natural venting/cooling will play a s•igniftcant part in the design of the building as well as efficient fixta~res. Stafffinds• this criterion to be met. 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. StaffFindine • The proposed parcels have adequate areas for snow storage. Stuff f nds this criterion to be met. E. Lighting: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior-of tLe development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding The development shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements and the Applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the Zoning .Officer to review at the time of building permit submittal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2, All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the fins] PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention. to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Findin.Q The development shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements and the Applicants shall submit a lighting plan for the Zoning Officer to review at the time of building permit submittal. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. G. Common Parly Open Space, or Recreation Area: If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. Staff Findin P The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area. Therefore, stcfffinds that this criterion is• not applicable. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. ,r-~ P198 ~~ ~ `~~ StnlfFindino The Applicant is' not proposing nny common park, open space, or recreation area. Therefore, staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restrictio^ ag•.iinst future residential, commercial, or industrial development. StafFFindine The Applicant is not proposing any common ark, open space, or recreation area. Therefore, staff finds• that this criterion is not applicable H. Utilities and Public Facilities: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities assgciated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Finding Staff believes thnt ade yuate public facilities exist to accommodate the proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Finding The affected utility agencies• have reviewed the proposed plans and the concerns• have been addressed as conditions of approval in the attached resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer 'is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. StaffFindine The Applicant is not proposing to install oversized utilities or public facilities and it is not anticipated that the Applicant will be rega~ired by the City to provide oversized utilities. Staff does not find this• criterion to be applicable to this application. I. Access and Circuhition (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to Minor PUD applications): The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail f:uilities and minimizes the use of'security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: l0 ,.J ~ P199 I. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Stafl Findtn~ The proposed development has adequate access from Matchless and Heron Drive and has additional access to the lots via cm access easement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do nut create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads Ire proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. _- Staf~Findin.Q Staff believes• that the access easement at the rear of the properties is appropriate for access: Stafffmds• this criterion to be met. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects da not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Sta{{Findin~ The Applicant is proposing to redevelop Lot 5.4 (930 Matchless) with an addition to the existing residence. Lot ~B (9?0 Matchless) mcry be developed at a later date. However, no joint facilities or infrastructure is• required and the proposal is not a phased project. Therefore, Stcff finds this criterion not to be applicable. ,._ ~_ ~. ..MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: Alex Evoniiz. Com. Dev. Engineer Date: November 2, 2005 Re: 920 & 930 Matchless, Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision .Parcel #'s 2737-074-22-0O1 8~ 237-074-22-002' Attendees; Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Eng.; Nick Adeh, Engineering; Jenhifer Phelan, City Planning; Phil Overeynder, City Water; Brian Flynn, City Parks; Kim Raymond, Owners Representative The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Subdivision Request at their November 2, 2005 meeting and has compiled the following comments: General: The Appfcant would like to subdivide L.ot #5 of the Alpine Acres Sub/PUD in#o two lots. Currently the lot cohtains two detached residential dwellings both of which are historic landmarks. The proposal would allow one lot (930 Matchless] to contain an existing historic single-family residence and d voluntary.agcessory dwelling unit and-theptherlot (920 Matchless) would contain the other existing single,family residence and be)arge enough to develop an.additional detached residentiatdwelling. ' In order fo develo.p the lots as proposed the existing PUD needs to be dmended: The Applicant is requesting that the Floor Area Ratio.(FAR) allowance ~6e in compliance with the underlying Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone districf, rather than being limited to 2,486 SF per dwelling unit. At a minimum, the applicant will need to land a 500 SF HPC bonus for 930 Matchless if the Applicant is not allowed to adhere to the underlying zoning with regard to FAR. . Additionally, as a site specific development plan, the Applicahtwill need to amend the PUD to allow for an ddditiongl detached dwelling unit on 920 Matchless. Building Deportment-No Attendance; Fire Protection District - No Attendance; ' Engineering Department -Nick Adeh; _ - Matchless Drive needs to be wide enough for two-way traffic. - Easements will be required for lot access. - All encroachmehts need to be corrected. Housing Office - No Attendance; _- Page 3 of 4 November 2, 2005 - 920 and 930 Matchless Drive P201 • Ingress /egress will need to be maintained at-all times for the City. • The Owners need to present an option acceptable to the State and City before change in the existing well location and access is undertaken. ,. Community Development Engineer-Alex Evonitr; • No comments at this time until the water issues are resolved. • All standard permit requirements must be met for issuance of building permits. ~ . Aspen Consolidated Waste District-Tbm Bracewell; • 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:plahs to assure that clear water . connections (rbof, foundation, perimeter, patio. drains) are not connected * to the sanitary sewer system. • On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. • Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line gccording to specific ACSD requirements. = Currently, 920,930,°40 and 950 PJ~atchless ate served by a comr~~on old 6" Clay sanitary sewer service line. ACSD would recommend that this old line be replaced by a approximately ] 70 feet of new 8".PVC main line with two manholes, thereby allowing each resident to have its own service line tied directly into a district maintained sewer line. • Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new.. development or the existing publicly owned sewer system requires _ modification or adjustment, a line extension request and collection system ' agreement are required. Both are ACSD Board of Director's action items. - • Applicant will be required to deposit funds with the districtfor engiheering ' fees, construction observation fees, fees to clean and televise the new main sewer line extension into the project. The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stub outs before building permit. • Beldw grade, development may require installation of a pumping system. , • One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unif 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 landscdping may impdct public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid before the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimpte for this project ante detailed plans have been made ava~able to the district. - Where additional development would produce flows that wou'Id exceed the planned reserve cgpacity 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 2.1~N~~ \ \ ~/ .. .. F R' ~~.p W ~_ ~~ ,;., ~, ~~ n \/,\~ 1 .~ ~. `~~ ~R{Q ~ SJ~~~~.Q.~~ 9 ; Lam.. ` £ v-~L _ ] <u w _x q `u %~ 30 E ^sa ` a-d ~ ~'a '_'?E' ~~ e`c a V e u_ C C VJ m O L .°j ~ E N' m m N C ^ lJ' Ci m 7 y m 9 i Y p Q ZO n ~ `c c _ m u E ,~^ . a <"rf ° - u py^ - '~ V ~N..esn o9 ~.a u0'~i a. u O n u^ ~= T ~. ~ W ? P r ~ u a O u q u d p° U _°-~ .~--~ .~ m C a° N° roJ. t C °O~ m~ q ~ p i 6' q u L ! y r ~_ c° 2 E • F_ p° `u o G LK 6"_]a°o ame ~. gyQaaCypn '"w~ ^a q= 6 W 9 ~ v a C r ~ V 4 U 0 Dq 9 i ~y y 6 N ~ M .v C! Y y NI e0 C 0] S~ p y 'e p O u U °° L N^ Y L N ~ LL y i~.Q C~_NVa `y?ur n`iV L. YVI~~VIL [[~~ (~ Ti P O.-La'] 5 xa x~c p^ti~~M `gyp y~ U ° ~N ~ > S tl` L a C 9L d~x YU EN `.. ~+1 Q~ V L 6• O aas e g 9 N ~ O x] a~ V 9 Y~ 9 p ~ v >. - „9 CO O TO ^ °° 8 e 3 u L'S ~~ ~ c. 2 c u° c g 6 a= a Y N O 9 . 'Z v C m~ Y y r E s 9 9 ~ °° 'w 3 S x°.~ a s E.S ~ u °u ° c c r° `L °p,°u ~~, ~°~,Ny.. a. E-.6 's9~°E'O°''S O p u x ~ r~- um °m~ou'C, TE'm_~upuuu3t;~+°. r. _ ^ Zv °t'9 : E `..ti V 5"v'`a `a c° ._m ~= ^ ^ -s O._ ~ c~ °o e a c`°a"oc°a u~pNy 3,r, °'Oa a _ Z q ~ 3 a.F p n.? a g `o ~ p p. b °° 0 6 tw w v n 6 9 g q~° q°= 6 6 2- ~ OCn `n011uv ON'~C~f,.°A _ NGnrlp ~__ r-. G_ 0 _ G n c `~ n_ g 1T~ P203 ' anxaa ssazs~aeu G~~~\~ ~ ommission Meeting - Minute,., February 28.2 the year prior and decide how much of that unused growth should be carved forward into the next year. In years past there was a provision for that but it automatically rolled forward; this was the opposite approach because it requires growth to be brought forward. Bendon noted there were two annual allotments (1) free market allotment at 37 units per year and (2) commercial allotment at 28,000 net leasable square feet-per year. Tonight we were talking about the roll over allotment; how much from prior years allotments do you want to roll over. Bendon said there was what was called the development ceiling; the idea of a cap like 30,000 people on a monthly average. So there were already days (4`~ of July) that 32,000 to 33,000 people were in town; it gives an idea of the growth ceilings. Bendon said that Exhibit B showed the annual allotment for 2005 by project (the growth management year runs from the first day of March to the last day of February). Bendon stated the .application date was what establishes when the project is allocated the allotment. Bendon said the second chart in Exhibit B included the, Growth Ceilings for 2005. The growth rate maximum was 2% a year per the AACP; all the categories were based upon a 2% growth rate except the free-market residential which was a 1% growth rate. Kruger asked for expected proposals. Bendon replied that .could not be done until the proposals were in the Community Development. Marion asked about temporary and permanent traffic generationbeing included in the evaluation to think about the overall growth of the town. No public comments. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to continue the public hearing on'the Growth Management Allotment for 2006 to March 7`~; seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor, APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (2/7/6): 920/930 MATCHLESS DRIVE SUBDIVISION/PUD Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on 920/930 Matchless Subdivision PUD. Jennifer Phelan provided the notice. Kim Raymond, architect, stated that she represented Chris and Peter Dodaro. Jennifer Phelan said this was a somewhat complicated piece of property with some history to it. The lot is just under 16,500 square feet with 2 detached historic residential dwelling units on it. Phelan stated that currently there is a ~,... ti `/ ~/ Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting -Minutes -February 28, 2006 P2fl5 condominium association creating separate ownership interests in the existing dwelling units and they would like to subdivide the parcel into 21ots (Lots SA & SB) so that proposed Lot SA, 930 Matchless, an 8,636 square feet lot, would contain 1 of the single family residences with an addition to the residence, a detached garage and voluntary ADU. Proposed Lot 51~, 920 Matchless, a 7,756 square feet lot, would be created with an additional dwelling unit to be built; allowing for a total of two detached residential dwelling units on the property. Looking at the two houses from Matchless, 930 is on the right and 920 is on the left: Phelan stated this parcel of land is part of a subdivision known as Alpine Acres Subdivision (5 lots) that was rezoned Medium-Density Residential (R-6), in 1987 with a PUD overlay placed on-two of the lots. The PUD overlay affects the front yard setback and the minimum lot widths while the rezoning of the subdivision capped the maximum allowable floor area per dwelling unit to 2,486 sq. ft. The applicant requested Subdivision approval to divide the one lot into two lots and the PUD Amendment approval to allow the floor area of both lots to match the underlying R-6 zone district allowable floor area rather than meet the cap of 2,486 sq. ft. per dwelling unit of Ordinance 35 (Series 1987). Ordinance #35-87 restricts a dwelling units allowable floor area to a maximum of 2,486 square feet. Phelan said the Applicants were also asking for setback variances and the ability to land an HPC bonus of 500 square feet (either now or in the future) for an outstanding HP design on the property. Phelan said the history of the property is that this property was annexed in 1976 and zoned R-15. It was a subdivision with 5 lots (Alpine Acres); 3 lots were developed with duplexes while two were vacant lots. The existing duplexes on three of the lots were miner's shacks or cottages connected by a garage and therefore considered a duplex. Since the original annexation two of the existing duplexes have had the common garage removed. In 1986 the owners of Lot 4 asked for a subdivision to divide their lot into 2 lots; at this time it was discovered that the zoning map showed this lot as being located in the R-6 zone district while the Ordinance said it was R-15. The ordinance was determined to take precedence which created a problem for the proposed subdivision of Lot 4 since the R-15 zone district requires a larger minimum lot size than the R-6 zone district. Phelan used an area map to show the subdivision. As a result of.this discovered inconsistency between the original zoning ordinance and the official zone district map, the whole subdivision applied to rezone to R-6 and Lot 4 subdivided into Lots 4A & 4B. Phelan said the 1987 Ordinance which rezoned the property from R-15 to R-6 capped the floor area to a maximum of 2,486 per dwelling unit within the entire subdivision. ~i'~ ;~~vT" 4 .-, ,..., P206 Aspen Planning 8c Zonis Commission Meeting - Nlinutes~ February 28, 2006 Under the current proposal Lot SB, 920 Matchless, proposed for the 2 detached residential dwelling units is allowed a higher density on the parcel because it is a historic landmarked property, only requiring a 6,000 sq. f t lot rather than a 9,000 sq. ft. lot to build two dwelling units. The effect of ordinance #35-87 in capping ,the allowable floor area is the same as the underlying allowance in the R-6 zone district: 3,485 square feet. Phelan said that on Lot SA, 930 Matchless, which is proposed as asingle-family residence, the 1987 Ordinance caps the floor area at 2,486 square feet for the single family home while the underlying R-6 zone district would allow a floor area of . 3,609 sq. ft.. The applicant is asking forthe underlying zone district square footage to apply to 930 Matchless, which would require a PUD Amendment. Phelan said the applicant wanted the extra square footage of 623 sq. ft. (as the HPC approved design requires 2,986 sq. ft. of floor area) to be turned into TDRs to sell. If the underlying zone district allowable floor area is not granted, the Applicants will need to land the 500 sq. ft. HPC bonus to build the approved design. Kim Raymond stated that they really don't need the whole 3,609 square feet and they wanted to create a couple of TDRs, which was an incentive from the historic preservation to offset the costs of the restoration and all the meetings that they have to attend. Brandon Marion asked the total square footage for each lot. Kim Raymond replied that the Lot 5B, 920 Matchless, gets 3,485 square feet total with 2 buildings or 1 house at 2,486 square feet. Raymond stated that they went through the HPC process and the 500 square foot bonus was granted by the HPC for an allowable floor area of 2,986 square feet to build this house and the ADU on Lot SA. Raymond said that if they go with the R- 6 zoning, which would be 3,609 square feet; the extra 623 square feet would not be needed to build what has been approved but they would like 3,486 square feet, which would allow them to build their design and create two TDRs. Raymond said then they would end up with the same square footage as 950 Matchless down the street (2,986 sq. ft.), which would be congruent with the neighborhood. Raymond said it would also be the same as worked out on 920 Matchless: 3,486 sq. ft. vs. 3,485 sq. ft.; they would be willing to give up the 500 square feet that HPC granted- because they would have enough square footage to create TDRs with the R-6 zoning and restrict the 500 square feet to be used only as TDRs; that would guarantee there would not be more density on this lot since 930 Matchless could accommodate two free- market units rather than one free-market unit and a ~~~` 5 ~~ ~.. `.. Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting -Minutes -February 28, 2006 P207 voluntary ADU and help the Dodaos defray the cost of refurbishing their historic cabin. Raymond said the existing yellow Victorian is owned by the Dodaros (930 Matchless) in which Peter Dodaro's mother lives and the little whiteVictorian with add-ons, which was where Chris and Pete Dodaro lived is owned by Chris Dodaro's mother. Raymond stated in the future they would like to refurbish the little cabin with the add-ons by removing all the add-ons and redo a single story addition to make this a 700 to 800 square foot little unit and have the option to build a small home in back.. Phelan stated with 930 Matchless, the single family residence, the applicant was asking for underlying zoning so that they will have an allowable floor area of 3,609 square feet; however, they only need just under 3,000 square feet to develop what has been approved by HPC so they would have an excess of 600 square feet that they would like to tum into TDRs and would not need to land the 500 sq. ft. HPC floor area bonus. Phelan said the Ordinance in 1987 gave a 25 foot front yard setback for both buildings and currently neither were 25 feet so it was suggested that the setback be amended to where the current house are located for both 920 and 930 Matchless. 930 Matchless also requires a combined setback variance for the approved addition and garage. Phelan said that with the existing structure on 920 Matchless they need a variance from the proposed new lot line, which was included in the Resolution. Also included in the resolution is the ability of the HPC to grant any required setback variance rather than having to amend the PUD when addition development is proposed on the lot. Phelan said staff recommended that the intent of 1987 Ordinance be maintained, restricting 930 Matchless to 2,486 square feet rather than the underlying R-6 zone district as it relates to allowable floor area and allowing the granted HPC bonus for the design to be landed on lot SA. Staff also recommended approval of the setback variances currently requested by the applicant and provide the HPC the authority waive any parking and grant any necessary variances with regard to the future redevelopment of lot SB (920 Matchless). The allowable floor area for 930 Matchless would be 2,986 square feet and 3,486 square footage for 920 Matchless. Marion asked if on 920 Matchless (Lot SB) the setback variance was required because of the addition that was being torn down, once that is torn down the ~ _! 6 F ,. ^R P208 Aspen Planning & Zon ng Commission Meeting -Minute`s'- February 28, 2006 underlying setbacks are allowed to exist as non-conforming. Phelan said in the Resolution it says if and when the building is torn down then it would need to meet the underlying R-6 zone district setbacks unless in the HPC design review they would grant setback variances. Marion asked if the non-conforming parking was allowed in the Resolution for 920. Phelan responded they will meet the underlying parking requirement with the proposal unless the HPC grants a parking waiver at the time of its review. Christine Dodaro stated that they were not a wealthy family; they were trying to stay here and she thought that TDRs were created to help people preserve the historic houses. Dodaro said it cost so much more money to preserve the house than to demolish it and start from scratch, that was why they were asking for this underlying zoning. Ruth Kruger asked how much TDRs sell for these days. Phelari replied none have been sold at this date.. Raymond said that the city HPC TDRs were worth a lot less than the county TDRs. Dodaro stated that when they bought the houses they were not historically designated and then they became historically designated later; after that the ordinance was created; the historic incentives were not there and they probably would not have signed. No public comments. Marion said that technically speaking if 920 (Lot SB) were to be granted by subdivision and the 3,485 square feet was its allowable floor area, could it still be allowed to apply for the 500 square foot bonus once it submits its design guidelines? Phelan replied that currently, you can only land one 500 square foot bonus for a parent parcel. If they landed that 500 square, foot bonus for 930 Matchless to increase the allowable floor area from 2,486 sq. ft. to 2,986 sq. ft. then they would not be able to apply for another bonus on 920 Matchless. However, if 930 Matchless was granted the .allowable floor area of the underlying zone district; then the bonus would not be needed for the approved design and could potentially be landed on 920 Matchless in the future. Phelan said the basis for granting the bonus was for an extraordinary design and preservation effort and not all projects are granted the bonus. Any bonus needed to be included in the PUD Amendment because of the constraint of the Ordinance. Marion asked if P&Z could direct which lot the bonus be applied to. Phelan replied yes. Kim Raymond said she was trying to simplify by getting the 3,486 for both lots then they would give up the HPC bonus for either lot. Raymond thought that LotSB (920) was able to accommodate the 3,486 square footage for 2 dwelling units (a smaller historic unit and a Single Family Dwelling in the rear). Raymond _~~~~Y~ 7 ... ~~! Minutes -February 28, 2006 P209 Aspen Planning 8c Zoning Commission Meeting - said that they were willing to limit Lot SB to 2,986 square feet if they could have the extra 500 square feet for the bonus for TDRs; that way they were giving up the ability to build the extra 500 square feet on 920. Raymond said they were willing to limit the FAR on the one lot. John Rowland asked why they were resorting to the Ordinance from 1987. Phelan stated the Ordinance from 1987 affects all 5 lots within that subdivision; the cap on that subdivision runs with the land; when it was created there were additional concerns of greater floor area allowances and additional development with the rezoning from R-15 to R-6: The voluntary cap on-the property was proposed by the owners at that time so the Ordinance in place requires anyone in that subdivision have the maximum 2,486 floor area cap per dwelling unit. Rowland asked when the last time someone from that subdivision came in. Raymond replied that 950 Matchless was 2 to 3 years ago and HPC granted them a 500 square foot bonus. Phelan added they also had to amend that PUD to land 500 square feet. Raymond said that 950 was already split from 940. Rowland asked. the difference in square footage. Phelan replied that the underlying zoning allows 930 Matchless 3,609 square feet so it would be approximately 600 square feet more than the Ordinance allows at 2,486 square feet. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #6, Series 2006, granting the subdivision and Planned Unit Development approval, with conditions, for the creation Lots SA and SB recommending that City Coamcil approve with conditions the Dodaro Subdivision PUD Amendment granting Lot SA 2,486 square feet phis the 800 square foot bonus and allowing LotSB the underlying zoning at 3,485 square feet for 2 residences and no 800 sga~are foot bonx~s on 920 Matchless. Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Rowland, yes; Marion, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 4-0. Meeting Adjourned Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk ~~ _ ___ P210 _. _ _ _ _ '7 ~_, = PAGE196 ~4 _ _ .. J ~ 1 EOON ~ _ u ~~ _< ~~ ? G~ o ~ > `J J.;. ~ ORDINANCE NO. ~ ,,, ~, os ~. ~ (Series of 1987) n ; a= O 0 O `} AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE ALPINE ACRES SUBDI~`IO ~ CITY aOF A ~~ SPEN, PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO FROH R-15 (RESIDENTIAL) TO R-6 (RESIDENTIAL) AND PLACING A PLANNED UNIT DE~7ELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY ON ALPINE ACRES TATS 4 AND 5 WHEREAS, an application and petition have been submitted by Joseph Dunn, Charles Bishop and other owners of the Alpine Acres Subdivision to rezone to R-6 (Residential) Alpine Acres and to place a Planned Unit Development Overlay on Alpine Acres .Lots 4, subsequently resubdivided Lots 4A & 4B, and Lot 5; and WHEREAS, the subdivision is presently zoned R-15 (Residen- tial); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of Alpine Acres Subdivision have agreed to request a voluntarily imposed maximum floor area (FAR) 1 of 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, as part of the rezoning request, Joseph Dunn and Charles Bishop have submitted a subdivision exception request for the .purpose of creating two lots; and , WHT2RF A S at a duly noticed public hearing held on July 21, ~ ~ 1'987, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend that ~ the subdivision exception and rezoning be approved; and 1 WHEREAS, the application has been found to be generally consistent with Section 24-12.5 of the Land Use Code which establishes criteria-for rezoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that due to the existing narrow lots and large front yard setbacks of Lots 4 and 5 a Planning Unit Development overlay is appropriate so to allow for the creation of new lots not meeting the minimum lot width 1 1 _ _ _ _ _._ . P211 ._ - EO~K 5`t I PgGE~~ 1 requirement and to maintain the existing character of the front yard setbacks; and WHF'RFAS, the Aspen City Council has considered the recommen- dation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and has determined the proposed rezoning to be compatible with surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity of the site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY TFiE CITY. COIINCIL OF TFiE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: .Section 1 That it does hereby rezone to R-6 the Alpine Acres Subdivi- Sion and place on Lots 4 and 5 of Alpine Acres a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay subject to the following conditions voluntarily imposed by the subdivision property owners: A. Each dwelling unit in Alpine Acres shall be restricted to a maximum countable floor area of 2,486 square feet. B. Front yard setbacks of Lots 4 and 5, and subsequently resubdivided Lots 4A and. 4B, shall be a minimum of 25 feet; and C. The minimum lot width of newly created Lots 4A and '4H shall be approximately 45 feet and 39 feet respect- ively. Section 2 That the .Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the rezoning described in Section 1 and the City Engineer be author- ized and directed to amend the map to reflect the zoning change. Section 3 That the City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinance to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. ,.T. P212 Section 4 -e _. _.. ..._ y. __ eooK 547 PncE198 2f any section ,• sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall ,not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5 A public ,hearing on the Ordinance will be held on the ~'~~' of ~.G~-x-1.1 1987 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same was. published once in a news- paper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. SNTRODIICED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by/law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the /~' ~`~ of L~C< u.a~~ 1987. .• Y.,.9f~~y' ATTEST: '• • O lLl A M Rathr~ r'i )ftj 1987. ,, _y ..0 f ,,{{, cATTEST,:f ~'~; • Z "_ .-ri~y7~ loch, City Clerk gh.49 [' . ~~ 7R1.~n William L. Stirling, Mayor ch, City Clerk ~,,~ ~ ) adopted, passed and app~rov/ed/'this ~~ay ofyG~~..19/ William L. Stirling; M or T .. _ h~~ 213 ~` RECORD-OF-PROCEEDINGS PL-AIiNfN6~rN8-29N~N0--- -- -- ---- -- ~IIL~- 2-1 r-1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 5:00 pm. ROL~~ALL Answering roll call were Jasmine Tygre, Roger Bunt and Jim Colombo. Ramona Markalunas and David White arrived immediately after roll call. Mari Peyton_was excused. COMM-ISSiQNER`S COMMENTS Jim Colombo: If the other Commissioners feel as I do, I would like to ask staff to present us with essential summary of Council hearing decisions that. effect us or that we would probably have to see again. There are times when Council is making decisions that by protocol should have come to us .first. Or decisions that- we have passed on to them with our recommendations, and we don't even know what the final decision was. We would like to have some follow-up. Perhaps a brief summary of what is going on and what a decision was and what it was based on. Jasmine: Perhaps this could be included in your comments in our "-, packets. Welton: I did some double checking on that Marolt item and at least from Planning staff I have got confirmation that the parcel of land that the house sits on would be a day care center was purchased with the 6th penney funds. Any change in use from open space uses has to go to a vote of the population. Steve: We are trying to get the City Attorney's office to take a position because we feel it is more a legal issue than it is something that the Planning staff has .the expertise on. It is a little bit nebulous right now. The City Attorney has not made a definitive statement. Jasmine: Do you have any idea when they are going to come forward with a conditional use application? Steve: They are' hoping to come forward very soon. In August they would like to have a P&Z hearing so that hopefully by September, if things go the. way they want them to, they could open it up. Jasmine: But we expect to get an opinion from the City Attorney before that time on that condition? Steve: Yes. 1 P214 `` Roger: Regarding the Zoline Property: I assume that Council has had no P&Z input concerning that type of thing at all. David: I think that it is very important when we do something .like we did last week regarding the Marolt property that Council -get that and we get something back. Our charter says we are supposed to help plan things for the community and one of our big complaints was in not maintaining what they have got. Now if they have got another piece of property, that's great but the maintenance of that property is critical to making the entrance to Aspen look decent and the Marolt entrance to Aspen looks terrible. The City can do thin-gs that other people can't do and we can't have that continue. STAFF-EOMMENTS Steve: Council is going to consider an incentive package on Historic Preservation on Monday, July 27. It would be very good if some P&Z members could attend that meeting to explain the basis of the resolution that endorse those incentives in particular the landuse ones since that is basically all this Commission dealt with. PREFFIOUS~tPN8TE5 Roger made a motion to adopt the minutes of June 16, 1987 and ;July 7, 1987. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. PIISI;O:~H-EAR~NG ALP-PNE-AER£S---S~F7-IS It)N'-RE2ONYNe Steve: The location of Alpine Acres is just north of Gibson Avenue.. There are 5 lots ranging in size of 15,900 sq ft to just over:19,000 sq ft. The total area is 2.7 acres. The most easily distinguishable feature of the subdivision are the 4 victorian structures on Matchless Drive on lots 4 & 5. There are also 2 modern duplexes to the east of those victorians which are known as the Court Club condominiums. Then along Gibson Avenue just behind those or just to the south of the Court Club condominiums is another duplex which were .historic structures but they have been added to and altered and modernized a great deal and are now a duplex structure. The request before you is to rezone Alpine Acres from R-15 to R-6. The rezoning was initiated by Joe Dunn and Chip Bishop so that they could do a lot split of Lot 4 of which they are co- owners. .That then would allow them to do a modest expansion of their victorians. That is the immediate reason as to why the 2 ,.,, ~.: ... P215 rezoning is in front of you. The Dunns and Bishops are also requesting a subdivision exception for that lot split. There was a zoning error which we discovered when they. had first submitted a request for a lot split. The map said R-6. Then when we looked at the Ordinance it said R-15 with some stipulations. And because it is R-15 they were not allowed at that time to do the lot split. The stipulations were that building of the unimproved lots were to be where the Court Club Condos are now is limited in FAR to 1600 sq ft. and a 6 month minimum lease restrictions were applied to all the properties. Because of that, Council =initiated rezoning to help the applicants so that they could submit an application and get things going. Looking at the rezoning criteria,, criteria #1 is compatibility with the surrounding zone districts and land uses and a suitability of the site for development. This neighborhood is quite a mix of both land uses, residential land uses and zone districts. There is a lot of R-15 and R-15(a) within that neighborhood. There is also some high density zoning including the mobile home park .just to the west of the development and just to the east of Alpine Acres is Sunny Park North which is residential multi-family. We feel that there is a certain pattern a5 you go north. There is that R-15 area and the R-6 is further to the south. However we note .that this development is already built out at a density that is very similar to R-6 and that R-6 is compatible with the neighborhood. The main issues relate to the outside characteristics and the concerns for any redevelopment of .Alpine-Acres. We 1`ooked at 3 issues primarily. The FAR is something that the applicants have addressed by volunteering that. there be restrictions of 2500 sq ft for each dwelling unit. We note that that is higher than the 1600 sq ft limitation on the duplexes but it is considerably lower than what would be allowed if they were to undertake lot splits and create single family lots throughout the subdivision. Basically it is the same number as the duplex FAR on a 1500 sq ft lot. So it is very similar to the existing allowed FAR. We reviewed the .size of the existing structures in the sense of what 2500 sq ft is in terms of bulk and the nature of the request which was partly justified in the application to help preserve and enhance those victorians. We felt that 2500 sq ft would allow doubling and tripling the size and may be a little greater than what would take care of all the objectives that we felt were being stated. We determined that 1800 sq ft would allow for a modest expansion that wouldn't overshadow the existing structures nor would it dwarf the neighboring structures. We suggest that that be considered as a more appropriate FAR. Also remember that fi00 sq ft of garage is exempt from FAR calculations so in effect 3 ,.. ^~ P216 "` you do get a somewhat larger structure. The second issue is .t he setbacks and greenspace. All of the-lots have a great deal of greenspace. The victorians have somewhat of a distinct setback situation where they are approximately 27 ft north of Matchless Drive. This is an amenity of the subdivision that we suggest should be preserved. If you build closer to that street then it could effect the neighbors. It could very much deter or effect negatively the views of the other structures. The third area is the width of the lots. The re-subdividing of Lot 4 cannot meet the minimum lot width of 60 ft in the R-6 zone district..- The lot width of newly created parcels are approximately 39 feet and 42 feet. The City cannot approve a subdivision or a lot split exception from subdivision creating non-conforming lots. So the lots can be created through the PUD provision. All three of these issues lead us to think that PUD overlay really would be appropriate for Alpine Acres. That is basically the nature of our recommendation. The other criteria of traffic safety, air and water quality should not be affected because they are not going to change the density at this time. With regard to community need: We think it is really in the benefit of the community to facilitate the owners of the property to be able to make improvements. And regarding the general plan, _: we noted that the R-6 zone would continue to be consistent with the single family residential category which it now has. Suggested alternatives: .The first one is to zone the Alpine Acres Subdivision R-6 and set the 2500 sq ft maximum FAR. The second .would be R-6 with 1800 sq ft FAR. The third R-6 with PUD overlay 1800 maximum FAR, a 25 ft front yard setback and establish lot widths of less than 60 ft. We are recommending that the #3 alternative. With regard to the Lots with subdivision exception: We noted that the lot that would be created for Lot 4, the parcels would be conforming except in,lot width. We recommend the approval subject to the R-6 PUD condition. The Engineering Department has requested the agreement to join the Special Improvement District if they are formed. That is a fairly standard request on their part. .The 6 month lease restriction which did apply to the entire subdivision should continue to be .applied. John Kelly representing Joe Dunn and Chip Bishop: The only reason that this application is here is because these houses were moved in the early '60s over to that property. They were originally duplexes. They were condominiumized shortly after the City annexed .the property. The 1600 sq ft restriction really only applied to the lot that the Courthouse Condominiums are on. 4 w r / P217 The houses are physically separate. The only way they can practically expand them is separately. This requires separate financing, separate ownership .and everything else. If they are to expand any other way, they have to turn them back into a duplex. We have been advised that architecturally that is a disaster. We are going to end up with a box-like structure because we have to have 20 ft common wall. That is the reason we went to the Building Department and said what can we do. They said it is R-6 so go in for a lot split. We then discovered at the very .last minute that it wasn't R-6, though the City map said it was. That is why the rezd_ning requESt is here. Technically when it is a City-initiated zoning request, you don't require approval of all the people in the area. But we were advised by the Planning Office to go around to all the neighbors. and get everyone's consent. It-was treated as a private one in that we went around and got everybody's consent. What we presented to everyone was basically what we had before. The reaction of most of the neighbors was that is fine to rezone this but we. don't want to downzone our FAR. That is basically the. way they felt about it. We picked the 2500 sq ft figure because that is what duplex expansion would allow. Its 1000 to 1300 less than what would be allowed .under R-6 without any restriction at all. We voluntarily restricted it. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Bishop feel that if it is knocked down to the 1800 sq ft, they would rather have now what they have and they will work out some way to expand with duplexes. That would be a much .less aesthetically pleasing alternative. In reality we are only .talking about Lots 4 and 5. The Coates Condominiums are very recent and not susceptible to expansion. It just isn't very practical. The same situation exists with Lot 1. Just recently they put a lot of money into their units and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that they would tear those down to increase FAR. They are not that susceptible to expansion. We have no objection to the setback. We already have a private covenant in the subdivision which applies to those 4 victorians that you can't build anything on the front 27 feet of the lot. There are 13 different owners over there and we got everybody's agreement to this. We presented that figure on the 22nd of-June. The first I heard that the Planning Office was recommending 1800 sq ft was last Thursday. It was virtually impossible for us to go back to all these people and have another meeting and get it all together. So we would request that our original proposal of 2500 sq ft be the voluntary restriction. The R-6 in the rest of the City is a lot more than that. There .are plenty of houses larger than 2500 sq ft in that neighborhood.. 5 ,~~, -,. P218 Regarding the PUD: The substandard nature of the lots is something Gannett has come up with at the last minute. As single -, family residents we would be exempted from that anyway. I again have to say that we did not present this to other neighbors that way. .Whether or not any of them would object to that, I don't .know. The lot split exemption was set. It was calendared and everything else and .then at the last minute they. found this map problem. That was.. something that was not raised at .the time. I think they can approve substandard lots. Welton:. There is PUD over this entire subdivision and single families are exempt. Duplexes 8re not. Steve: Right. But since -they are condominiumized I made the point that they are not effected with additional reviews. John: They were all duplexes originally.. Physically they are no longer duplexes. At some point before my clients bought the property the common walls were removed which took away its duplex character. Under the provisions of the condominium declaration, we will uncondominiumize them and make them .two single family lots. That is really the only way it is practical for them to expand. It could have been expanded as a duplex and we want them to stay as the victorian. Welton: Are there any physical duplexes that would have a hardship placed on them if there is a PUD overlay? Steve: There are 3 duplexes on Lots 1, 2 & 3. John: .Those are physically and legally duplexes. Steve: Our intent is not to place a hardship on them. We thought it was not an additional hardship. It is a matter of addressing the Lot width situation and the. ability for future redevelopment. Welton: But if the duplexes on Lot 1, 2 or 3 wont expand more than 1$ of their FAR they wont have to have a PUD amendment. Steve: Right. But that would be done in conjunction with the condominiumization. Welton: I am saying next year if they don't add more than 1$ they would not be exempt from PUD and that would be a hardship on them. Steve: Is it a hardship because they would then have to meet the criteria or would they just be subject to .public review. They are subject to public review. 6 ,~ ~, P219 Welton: Because it is $1570 and sit around for 6 months waiting to go through the process. Steve: The fees are set on the number of meetings. Jim Colombo: Hypothetically, if one of them came in and wanted a larger than that percentage increase, what would you think the process would be for them. Steve: A PUD amendment as well as the condominiumization plan. Jim: How many meetings would=you set and what would the fee be? Steve: In both cases the PUD amendment can be a one-step process. It depends on the varying impacts. We .try to determine during the pre application. Welton: Say he wants to add a bedroom. I can't see putting him through any kind of PUD amendment process. Steve: The PUD setup with the exemption on PUD which is a P&Z only or a PUD amendment and then there is the condominiumization platt -part that can be either be 2 steps be 1 step. I am not sure there is any additional hardship as long as they meet the criteria and Z would imagine that they would with a miner extension. Welton: The only staff exemptions are if it is only 1~. Stever Right, there is a staff signoff if it is less than 1~ and doesn't increase coverage of the lot. Welton: And 1~ would be around 18 sq ft. Steve: -And then there is the P&Z signoff which is a one-step. The fee on this is $680.00 But often we aren't charging the maximum. Welton: It is clear to me that another vehicle other than a PUD overlay is needed on this. It makes no sense to make those conforming lots. Roger: I would not be adverse to giving them R-6 but the problem is we create non-conforming lots which the code says we shouldn't do. That is what we are stuck with here--PUD or nothing. If the PUD can be accepted or a one-step process, that would be no different than amending the condominium agreement and at the same cost. I don't see where that's a great adversity to the people in the duplexes. David: PUD seems to be overkill. I live next to lot #2. On 7 F , P220 `` ~ Park Circle there is I don't know how many people per sq ft. Then you go over to the other side and you have got the trailer park which has thousands of people per sq ft. There is only two, 4 and. 5, which are these old houses which were moved. When they sold them that is when they took down the things which made them duplexes and they put them on the market. That was '82 or '83. If we could put some restrictions on the square footage and I am not opposed to looking at 25, 18 is ridiculous. They can't even move in 18, They don't want to make them monstrous. Except for the people on the other side of Gibson, everybody around there is crammed in. Looking at Gibson down along King Street is supposed to be R-15 (a) . That is not R-15, That is an R-6 if you have ever seen one. With the duplexes and everything else that is along that street. So this is all much, much denser than they are. So I think we have got to figure- out a way--I won't go PUD overlay. That seems to be an absurd layer of bureaucracy. John: My clients don't care about PUD. I doubt that the Haases would. But I can't speak for them. It may be the concern of some people if their buildings burn down or whatever. The practical thing is that Lots 1, 2 and 3 are really not susceptible to much expansion. The Haases could do the same sort of thing we could do. They could go in and ask for a lot split and modestly expand backwards. Nobody has indicated to us that they want to do any expansion. This has all been done by us. Maybe we can put a PUD on our lots if that is what you want to do. I don't know what -the rest of the people in the subdivision are going to say. I just don't want to be in a position with out neighbors that we misrepresented what was going to happen. PUD was not part of our plan when we got an approval. Welton: I am personally very hesitant for PUD overlay on some- body without their knowledge. Steve: If there is a co-ordination problem trying to get it all together so that all of the owners understand what is going on, perhaps it is appropriate to table this until they. have got a chance to understand it all. John: Well, we could put those lots in PUD and leave the rest alone. Nobody cares about the setbacks. We have got private covenants that cover that anyway. Steve: To do that, I would at least go to Lots 4 and 5 because they are both in the same kind of situation. Welton: According to code the smallest area that can have a PUD overlay is 27,000 sq ft. John: We have got more the 30,000. I would like to see that done and then maybe we could proceed. 8 .„ ,~,. ~.~ P221 Welton: I think we can zone it all R-6 and put the PUD only on 4 and 5. That should accomplish your goal and not take away any property rights of others. There is no effect at all on single family, only duplexes. , Jasmine: So there is no reason to include Lot 5 in the PUD. Steve: Yes there is. Then they can do a lot split if-they want to at a later date. .Jasmine: Then if they have =no objection and they know about it, we could put that in as a condition of this. John: They signed off on the R-6. Steve: It doesn't change the FAR. The only thing it does is allow to .them. to redevelop that lot--tear down the existing and rebuild. They would have that ability. Jasmine: How big are the existing structures? John: Coates is right around 1650.. There are 4 of them. Ours are around 800 and 1100. Jim: So regardless of the zoning problem what you are planning on doing is bringing an 800 sq ft victorian over 27 ft setback on ~' 2500 sq ft without somehow changing enormously the character and bulk of the building? Joe Dunn: We aren't going to put 2500 sq ft addition on. Chip:. What I have planned to do with mine is just go upstairs. I have got 1100. I want an upstairs. Right now the upstairs is about 2 ft short of a legal upstairs. Roger: If admitted under R-15 it is worth 2500 sq ft. John: That is if you box the whole thing. The whole idea is not to do that. Jim: I am trying to imagine how you are not going to do that if the units start with 800 sq ft and bring them up to 2500 sq ft. Chip: First of all the 800 sq ft unit is the one that is already done down below. That's on Lot 1. Ours are going 1050 to 1500. Roger: I think if you put the limit of 2486, that gives you no more than what they give to you right now on this property. John: That was our objective. 9 .•~ P222 Steve: If you look at Lot 1 which has those two structures off of Gibson, the existing-FAR is a little bit less than 2500 for the two units•together. That is why we suggested you do something less. Welton: The two basic questions are how to accomplish not making the new lots non-conforming. A single family dwelling is completely exempt and does not have to• do anything as far as PUD is concerned. The other question is the lot size and I hear Roger saying 2486 is a maximum. Jasmine: Theoretically a lot split doesn't necessarily mean additional development. We are doing a rezoning even with a PUD which is giving the applicant more development rights than they would have had previously when .the parcel was first annexed because it was R-15.. When this area was annexed into the City one of the conditions with the R-15 zoning was that each different building would be limited to an external FAR 1600 sq ft. Or may comply with any applicable FAR regulations at the time of permit issuance whichever is more restrictive. So clearly the intent under annexation was that this was to be an R- 15 with very limited sized dwellings. Clearly the intent under annexation was that this was to be an R- 15 with very limited size dwellings. Now in order to accomplish the lot split and do a PUD you get the rezoning and all of a sudden you have got 2500 sq ft structures. I don't think that was what was intended. John: Let me clarify that and I think Steve agrees with me on this. You have to read that very carefully. What it said was that the unimproved lots shall be limited to 1600 sq ft. Now Lots 4, 5 and 1 were improved prior to 'the time of annexation. The only one that applied to were Lots 2 and 3. It clearly does not apply to us. We have been through this with the City. Jasmine: Why doesn't it? Its ,all the same subdivision. John: I don't know. The Planning Office asked that of us. I talked to the attorney, Lennie Oates, who represented Luke Anthony when the annexation was done and he said he didn't even remember it. He said he can't imagine whey he ever would have agreed to it. It says they were going to consider it for high density employee housing too. Jasmine: It just seems to me that the intent was not to have very big buildings in that subdivision and whether it is an unimproved lot or not the buildings that were already there were under that. John: But they did not restrict the building expansion. 10 P223 Jasmine: I understand that. I am trying to figure out why this is all happening the way it was because it seems to me that you are making a significant increase in size in those two dwellings. Joe: .The condos got built after that. They were supposed to be restricted. They put in an 800 sq ft basement which makes 'them the 16 plus 800. They allowed them to do that and call that a storage area so they are already built up to the 2400.- Jasmine: I am very unhappy with that 2500 foot limit. Originally it was intended to be small modest buildings and you are making them huge. With=all our concern about FAR and very big buildings on very little- lots, to me it is another classic example of small lots with great big buildings on them. Welton: It is going to be a lot smaller this way. Most of them would be in the 4,000 sq ft rather .than the 2500. David: In the mobile home .park right next door to lot 5, there are 3 or 4 mobile homes on this size lot. This was brought in with those restrictions in '76 but in '83 they brought in the trailer park. That was in the City before it was in the County. There has been a lot of changes. I don't think with the size of those lots--how thin they are and how wide they are--that someone is going to build 2500. He has got 1100 downstairs but he can't use the upstairs because it has not got enough height in it. What he wants to do is be able to open up the height. The one next door could put it in back but he can't' do too much or he touches his .neighbor or he goes into the street. I don't think he could possibly build 2500. it wouldn't look very good and since it is their houses I don't think 2500 is too big. Roger: There is ambiguity built into that Ordinance 69 series '76. it says there "By adoption of the R-15 zoning category for the unimproved lots, the City. shall not be precluded from the consideration of the appropriateness of these sites for high .density employee housing." Initially when the small dwellings were put on there, I can see keeping the unimproved lots down to more or less the .same scale. But at this point with what is in there, 2 don't see a problem tending to keep everything to that same scale-which in this case is about 2500 sq ft per unit. Steve: Which is considerably larger than the existing development pattern. If you look at it as a subdivision, you say shall we try to retain some of the amenities. John: What it really comes down to is if you develope those like my clients want to as single family houses it is going to have a lot less impact than developing as a duplex. Welton: For example in R-6 the FAR allowed on a 3,000 sq ft non- conforming lot is 2400 sq ft. These lots are almost 8,000. 11 P224 ``' Steve: I feel that it is not a good direction to only zone the 2 lOtS•PUD. I can't urge ;you to go that direction. It is a mish- mash of zoning in an area that-- Welton: Is already a mish-mash. This saves the aggravation and hassle for Lots 1, 2 and 3 duplex lots to have to go through a PUD process of one sort or another every time they want to add on a bathroom. John: The only thing that I could say is the lot split exemption that these guys filed has been there for_ months and months. The first time that the substandard width of the lots was ever brought up was last Thursday. We have been fiddling around with this thing since September of 1986 and it just isn't that controversial a deal. Roger: I move to recommend approval of the rezoning of the Alpine Acres from. R-15 to R-6 with PUD overlay for new Lots 4A and 4B and old Lot 5 with voluntary imposed conditions that .each dwelling unit be restricted to a maximum of coverable floor area of 2486 sq ft for Lot 4A and 4B. Y Welton: Just the 4A and 4B and a blanket FAR for the whole subdivision. Steve I would suggest that you make a condition D that says the .PUD overlay only applies to lots 4 and 5 and then just rezone to R-6 and take PUD out of the first sentence. Roger: Basically our attitude is that the concept is fine go up to the maximum allowed under R-15 for all the lots, right? Welton: No. R-6 or R-15 floor is the same. It is based on the lot size on the sliding scale. Steve: It is the difference between the duplex- FAR and single family if the they were to split. The FAR of 2486 would be 1/2 of the duplex FAR. Welton: If they were two single families built on there they could be 3784. As a duplex it would be 4973 and 1/2 verses 2485. So we are taking duplex, cutting them in half .and moving them onto two separate lots and getting them more FAR by figuring it that way. Roger: What is one single family on one of the new lots? Welton: 3784. So we are .restricting them to 1200 sq ft lots. Roger: So that we are consistent between 4A, 4B and 5. In the 12 ~.. , P225 case of Lot 5 though the figure would be 2503. John: 100$ of .the people have signed up on 2500 sq ft. No one is going to object to 2486. I think that is the maximum voluntary FAR restriction for the whole subdivision. Roger: Then I will restate condition A--each dwelling unit will be restricted to the maximum coverable floor area of 2486 sq ft. Condition B being the same as the Planning Office memo dated 7- 15-1987. Condition C being simply saying except that we identify the 39 feet for Lot 4B and the 45 feet for Lot 4A. David seconded the motion. Roger: I put ,the PUD in with the basic motion. The PUD was on Lots 4A, 4B and 5. Now the condition D that there is the verification of the platt concerning naming of the street either Matchless Drive or Silverking Drive. Everyone was in favor of the motion except Jasmine. Roger: I move to recommend approval of the requested subdivision exception for the purpose of splitting Lot 4 into Lot 4A and 4B of Alpine Acres as requested subject to the following conditions: Conditions 1 and 2 being the same as Planning.Office memo dated 7-15-1987. Condition 3 modified to include Lots 4A, 4B and 5 fl'r~ until Alpine Acres is rezoned R-6 with a PUD overlay for Lots 4A, E'a,'' 4B and 5. Jim seconded this motion. Everyone was in favor of the motion except Jasmine. Roger: I move to reconsider the previous motion concerning a signed statement from Lot 5. - Everyone was in favor of the reconsideration. Roger: I make a motion amending my first motion to include condition E being that the applicant shall endorse signed statement from the owner of Lot 5 agreeing to being a -part of PUD. Jim seconded this motion with all in favor except Jasmine. Welton: The public hearing is closed and the regular meeting is adjourned. The time was 6:15 pm. Jan' a M. Carn y, City eputy Clerk ca,~.~ ` ~~~ 5 ~~t,~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~.(Wj ~~~~rt ~ P227 Rev*r}ar~leeti-na-----'-issven-ei~ty-Camrcrl ~pasr'14.' 39&7 Chuck Roth, engineering department, recommended formation of a district for this work. Council wanted to send out a question- naire to residents in the proposed area to determine the response and interest. Roth told Council of .the 900 questionnaires received back, 80 percent of theresdent s. were in favor of continuing with the pr of eat and with getting the wires under- grounded. The next step was a resolution tc require the utilit- ies to prepare cost estimates to do the work. That resolution was passed in February. The next step is to pass this ordinance. The prime utilities are the power utilities, and the main one is the City of Aspen electric department.--Roth noted Holy Crossfell within the geographical description of what is to ~be undergrounded. Roth told Council all utilities have been very cooperative- with the city in doing the work. Roth said the cost estimates have. been provided to the city clerk. The original estimate to bury the service connections was between 51,200,000 and 51,500,000. These estimates of the improvements district will be about 5500,000. Roth pointed out these estimates are high because if the utility companies underestimate the costs, they are legally obligated to cover the difference. Roth told Council the telephone company will -not take their wires down. until two blocks of the project are totally undergrounded. The improvement district has been judged the best technique to get the entice system undergrounded. Ed Grange, Holy Cross, told Council they shaee the city's feeling that all the services will not be undergrounded without a mechanism to get this done. Kelly Hloomer, Canyon Cable, told Cou ncil they endorse the pr of ect and encourage Council to move forward. Roth told Council this will be a 10 year assessment period, and the funds may be handled in-house rather than banded. Roth told Council the staff will send every property owner a letter telling them what their exact costs will be. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Tuite, no; Gassman, yes; Fallin, yes; Isaac, yes; Mayor Stirling, no. Motion carried. 6RD3-tahNEY-1135--3ER2-C9-@F~999 - Alpine Acres Rezoning Councilwoman Fallin moved to read Ordinance #35, Series of 1987; seconded by Councilman Tuite.- All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE !35 (Series of 1987 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE ALPINE ACRES SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, FROM R-15 (RESIDENTIAL) TO A-6 (RESIDENTIAL) AND PLACING A 16 P228 ,. - .^~ ~. Reval - 8.¢oQ•~ -~~-.- 3-94}7 PLANNED UNIT .DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY ON ALPINE ACRES ' LOTS 4 AND 5 was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 1987, on first reading; seconded by Councilman .Tuite. Steve Burstein, planning ofFice, said this is- 2.7 acres in the Smuggler neighborhood. Burstein said this does meet the rezoning cciteria. There is an FAR restriction of 2500 square feet volunteered by the applicant. John Relly, representing the appl icant, told Council the reason for this, rezoning is so that these can be developed separately as Victorians. Relly said these can be torn down and replaced with a duplex. The appli- cants want to expand their houses, and the only way they can technically do this is with a lot split and with R-6 zoning. Rel-ly told Council the neighbors unanimously. support this. Relly noted with a duplex they can legally build 2500 square feet per side, and the applicants did not want to increase the FAA by zoning so agreed to that FAR. Relly told-Council. this sub- division is~fully built out. Joseph Dunn, applicant, told. Council they would like to avoid building a duplex and would like to keep these two structures separate and maintain the Victorian flavor. Roll call vote; Council membe[s Fallin, yes; Gassman, yes; Tuite, yes; Isaac, yes; Mayor Sti rl ing,.yes. Motion carried. ORD-I-N 1-9fl7 - Annexing E ast Meadow/JUkati Councilman Isaac m owed to approve Resolution #20, Series of 1987; seconded ,by Councilwoman Pallin.- A1L in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Pallin moved to read Ordinance-#36, Series of 1987; seconded by Councilman Gassman. All in favor, motion .carried. ORDINANCE #36 (Series of 1987) AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN AS REFERRED TO AND DESCRIBED IN THAT PETITION FOR ANNEXA- TION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN CERTIFIED BY THE CITY CL ERX ON APRIL 2, 1987, COMMONLY RNOWN AS "EAST MEADCW AND JUKATI SUBDIVISION" wasread by the city clerk Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Ordinance #36, Series of 1987, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Roll call vote; Council members Gassman, yes;TUite, yes; Isaac, yes;. Fallin, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. 17 ~. 1 ,, ~~ ~~n~ ~5 ~~,~~g~ z~~. ~-c~.~. ri w2 ~ , `~~~ ~~ ~~~ Revu-l~ar Meeti rto--A~e~r2ity Comrci-Y- _..--'Semtemtier -l-4-'i-387 P229 3. Councilwoman Pall in said last year Council approved money to have a senior PGA golf tournament in town; what. has happened to the tournament. Assistant City Manager Mitchell said the tournament did not happen, =and staff has ~:w ritten a letter to Starr enterprises requesting a final report whether this can be put together foe next year. If it cannot, the city is requesting a refund of the 510,000 seed money. Mitchell said staff should. have a repazt for the next meeting. 4. Councilman Gassman request for the next agenda a discussion of not sanding the streets as he ..feels this is worth looking into. Councilman Gassman said the city could inform people that sanding the streets puts a lot of dust- into the air and is difficult to pick up and ask people to drive more carefully. Councilman Gassman said he doubts the accident rates are higher ~on the streets that are not currently sanded. Councilman Gassman saidthis would save money both in putting the sand on the streets and in .picking it up. Councilman Gassman moved to have this on the agenda September 28; seconded by Mayor Stirling. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Isaac. Motion carried. - ORDINAN2£-i3s:-SER~2E3 9F-i9&7 - Alpine Acres Rezoning Steve Burstein, planning off ice, told Council the request is to rezone this area from A-15 to R-6 as well as a subdivision exception to split lot 4 containing two Victorian houses. Burstein told Council the lots -range in size from 15,890 square feet to over 19,000 square feet. The Court Club duplexes are located on lots 2 and 3 and there is no -allowable ihcrease in. density in the area. P s Z recommended apptov al of the rezoning. subject to 3 conditions, which have been agreed upon by the applicant. These conditions are listed in section 1-of the ordinance. Burstein noted .this application does meet the rezoning criteria. There was concern about the floor area ratio, which will be restricted to 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit. Burstein told Council the concept isthey should retain the same floor area ratio for each unit they would have if they built duplexes, and these is not increase in floor area. P 6 2 had suggested a FAR of 1800 square feet in keeping with the area. Another condition is the front yard setback for lots 4 and 5 as existing to retain the character of the subdivision. The last condition is a minimum lot variaticn, which is necessary for lots 4A and 4B because they are such narrow lots. Burstein pointed out a PUD overlay would be placed on lots 9 and 5 to allow for a minimum lot width variation. The planning office has suggested the PUD should be on the entire subdivision because-that would be ~., .^°, P230 ~ - R~,.Lcrizr-Meetirar-----ksIIen'City-Evunci9--- ~- - Sevtemtrer ~1-4: 1989 more consistent. Burstein recommended approval of adoption of this ordinance. Burstein also recommended approval of the lot split .subject to 3 conditions. (1) That a suhdivision plat be filed which includes lot areas, easements, rights-of-way, (2) a statement of subdivisionexception should be flied including the 6 month minimum lease restriction, and f3)~that the plat not be accept until the rezoning is approved. John Kelly, representing the applicant, said the reason the applicant went through the processis to he able to develop the houses as individual houses. The only other practical alterna- tive is to start from scratch and build a duplex Kelly told Council at one point these houses were duplexes. They are condominiumized, and a lot split is the only practical way each owner can develop his house. Belly told Council this proposal has 100 percent approval of all the people in the subdivision. The owners came up with the FAR restriction-of 2486 square feet, which could be built in a duplex. Mayor Stirling opened .the public hearing. Therewere no com- ments. Mayor Stirling closed the puhlic hearing. , Councilman Isaac asked if it is necessary to put a PUD overlay on this subdivision in order to review each of the improvements. Kelly said the only way the property owners can do a lot split is through a PUD. Mayor Stirling asked what the side yard setbacks are. Chip Bishop told Council they are 7-1/2 feet and 5 feet. Kelly noted by ~k eeping the front yard setback larger, it will require that the development go .onto the back of the lot. Councilman Tuite said there is no guarantee that these houses have to stay Victorian houses. Belly pointed out these struc- tures have a very low rating on the historic inventory; they are both rated Y. -Kelly told. Council if the .owners did not want these houses to remain Victorians, it would have been easier to start over and build a. dupl ex. The owners want to keep the Victorians. Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Ordinance 335, Series of 1987, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Zsaac. Roll call vote; Council members Tuite, yes; Gassman, yes; Isaac, yes; Fallin, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carzied. Councilwoman Fallin moved to approve the requested suhdivision exception for the purpose of splitting lot 4 Alpine Acres into lot 4A and 4B subject to the conditions as outlined in the planning office memorandum; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. ORDiNANGE-337:-SEA-tEB-~P~ii 89 - East Meadow/7ukati Zoning A r '~ 4:..+° MEMORANDUM S7 TO: Mayor Klandenid and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Commtmity Development Director~~lM FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Long. Range Planner RE: Dodaro Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Amendment (920 & 930 Matchless Drive) -First Rending of Ordinance 2006 -1 / Series 2006 MEETING DATE: Mazch 27, 2006 APPLICANT /OWNER: Christine Dodazo, Peter Dodaro, and Shirley Peterson, Trustee -Shirley H. Peterson Living Tnist REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Raymond, Kim Raymond Architects LOCATION: 920 and 930 Matchless Drive, Condominittm Units 1 and 2, Alpine Acres Townhouse Condominituns No.S (formerly known as Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision) CURRENT ZONING & USE Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district with a Planned Unit Development Overlay, consisting of two detached residential dwellings on the lot. Both structures are Historic Landmazk Properties. PROPOSED LAND USE: 920 Matchless is proposed to accommodate two detached residential dwellings, while 930 Matchless is proposed to accommodate a detached residential dwelling and a vohmtary accessory dwelling unit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. SUMMARY: The Applicants request Subdivision gild Planned Unit Development Amendment to subdivide the one lot into two lots 'and set the minimum or maximum dimensional requirements. P115 Pll6 LAND USE REQUESTS: The' Applicants have asked the Community Development Director to combine the review procedures for the multiple land use requests (Land Use Code (LUC) Section 26.304.060 B,1., Combined Reviews). Also, the Applicants are requesting to consolidate Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development (LUC Section 26.445.030 B.2., Consolidated Conceptual and Final Review). Staff believes that the combination of reviews will reduce duplication in the amount of review time and will ensure the clarity of the final decision.. Therefore, the Community Development Director has allowed for the combining of reviews and atwo-step consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD) process on this particulaz proposal. The Applicants are requesting the following land use approvals for the site: • Subdivision for the division of land into two lots pursuant to Land Use Code .Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Planned Unit Development Amendment to establish the minimtun or maximum Dimensional Requirements for the minimum side yazd setback; minimum front yard setback, and the maximum Allowable Floor Area for each lot pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development. (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicants (Peter and Christine Dodaro, owners of 930 Matchless and Shirley Peterson, owner of 920 Matchless) have requested approval to subdivide the existing lot into two lots (Lot SA - 930 Matchless and Lot SB - 920 Matchless) so that each existing detached dwelling is located upon its own lot. Both buildings are designated Historic Landmarks and as such are allowed certain reduced dimensional standards in the underlying Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district for minimum lot size, minimum lot azea per dwelling unit, and minimtun lot width. Lot SA (930 Matchless) is proposed as an 8,636.5 SF lot to be developed with an addition to the existing residence and a detached gazage with a voluntazv accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above the garage. Any .development involving designated historic property requires review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The design of the addition to the existing residence and the detached garage/ADU building has been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission with recommendations for granting variances to the minimum required side yards. Dimensional variances from the underlying zone district shall be set through the PUD Amendment. Additionally, the HPC granted a 500 SF floor area bonus for an "outstanding preservation effort" for 930 Matchless which may or may not be necessary to apply on proposed Lot SA depending on the allowable floor azea allowed for the lot. Lot SB (920 Matchless) is proposed as a 7,756.7 SF lot containing the existing residence and be developed in the future with a second detached residence. The following table compares the proposed development dimensions with the dimensional requirements of the Meditun-Density Residential (R-6) zone district. Shaded cells indicate a variation from either the underlying zone district or from Ordinance 35 (Series 1987): Page 2 of 8 6 ~ n..l P117 __a r~:... e..,.:...~~1 RPnnirPments iabie i nom < ulsunuirivy~~ ou ~~ ~ ~• l ~ Il'nderlpng R fi Zone pistrict Requirements Dimenstonal Pro used D ' = imensiona t ~ ~m ~ ' i Requirement ~ , ~.. rr ~~ ,~e uir ' Lat. ~E~.,ae-+ s= ~ s., a emen ~.,j ~ftt' J 13:'' ,R :~4~~ , ~ ~~. ~~ y~v~ ~.t ;~ ~~ 4~ +`i ,F ~ ~,t,.~`~q~ xci,~3 a~ .w~r~' ~ ~.fsl~c~ ~..5^'# x'° - m ~~ ~~` zr ~" ~e3S: t a ~n atCllrf:SS~~ ~ ,. ~tT u"~-`~„a ~:; +~N,*, t.`... a~ knn: :sP v, .. 9v _~ < ~ r' "~k x~~ ,;K"f'^+s~h+ C i,..,"kfta . , ~... Mmimiun Lot 8,636.5 SF 7,756.7 SF 3,000 SF Size Miniiniun Lot 52 Feet 31.85 Feet 30 Feet Width Minimum.Lot 8,636.5 SF 3,878.35 SF 3,000 SF Area/Dwellina Minimum Front 23..$~Feet 2k:6 Feet€ 25 Feet Yard Setback ~~N S ~ L'r ..kT .x~3i Lot SB Minimum Side A minimwir 5 Feet f 2 1A minimums ; 92 Feet ' xaf 3 Lot SA Min. Side Yazd: 10 Feet Min. Side Yard: 5 Feet Yard Setback . o - . ~ Total Side Yards3: 28.18 Total Side Yazds3: NA 10 Feet and 10 Feet -Principal bldg. Minimum Rear 10 Feet and ~ Yard Setback 5 Feet 5 Feet 5 Feet -Accessory bld . Maximum Height 25 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet 486 SF per dwelling emit` aximum of 2 A , m Floor Area Ratio 3,486 SF , - 3,485.9 SF (F~) - , . Minimtun Off- 3 Spaces • 4 Spaces Residential -Single-family and duplex: lesser of Street Parking (2 for free (2 each for one space per bedroom or two spaces per unit mazket unit free market Residential -Accessory Dwelline Units and & 1 for units) Carriage Houses: One space per unit ADU) Notes: Shaded blocks indicate a difference from the underlying zone district or Ordinance 35 (Series 1987) and where the-PUD Amendment would allow deviation, if approved. 1 -For Historic Landmazk Properties. 2 -Conditions imposed upon the property by ordinance 1987-35. 3 -The R-6 zone district requires a total side yazd setback of both side yards in addition to a minimtun two detached residential units on one lot (as proposed for Lot SB) are not Additionally for each , . required to meet the total side yard setback, provided there is a minimum of ten (10) feet between the two detached buildings. raits on a lot less than nine-thousand square feet lli d d ng t we 4 -Total floor area for multiple detache a rea listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor allowed for one detached residential dwelling. In order to create the two lots as proposed by the owners of 930 Matchless and the owner of 920 Matchless, the PUD needs to be amended in the following ways: 1) The minimum setbacks for the side yards will need to be allowed to be less than what is allowed in the R-6 zone district; and, 2) The existing PUD minimum front yard setback should be amended to accommodate the existing location of both historic strictures; and, Page 3 of 8 P118 - ~~ 3) The PUD will need to allow the floor area to be calculated using the underlying (R-6) standards for 920 Matchless and to set the floor area of 930 Matchless at 3,486 square feet (less than what the underlying R-6 zone district would allow); and, 4) Finally, with the future development of Lot SB, the Applicants would like to request that the PUD ordinance allow for the HPC to grant any necessazy variances from required minimum setbacks or pazlting standards and to liave the ability to allow Lot SB to be eligible fora 500 SF floor area bonus if the future development proposal is deemed an outstanding preservation effort by the HPC in the future. The Plaiming and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision of the lot into Lots SA and SB with the passage of Resolution 6 (Series 2006). With regard to the PUD Amendment, the Commission recommended approval in setting the minimum front and side yard setbacks as requested by the Applicants. The Commission recommended that the allowable floor azea for Lot SA (930 Matchless) be set at 2,436 SF with the ability to land the 500 SF HPC bonus and for the allowable floor azea of Lot SB (920 Matchless) to be set at 3,485 SF. Additionally, the Commission recommended that with the future design and redevelopment of Lot SB; the HPC be allowed to grant any additional variances from required setbacks or parking waivers. History of Alpine Acres Subdivision end the effect of Ordinance 1937 35 To better inform the City Council of the land use history on the subject property, the following smnmazy is provided: • The City amiexes Alpine Acres Subdivision, Block 1, Lots 1-5 in 1976 (Ordinance 33). Three of the lots (1, 4, & 5) have a duplex building on them. Both Lots 4 and 5 have two small Victorians on each lot that aze connected by a garage, therefore considered a duplex. Two lots are unimproved (Lots 2 & 3). Ordinance 1976-69 zones the annexed land Moderate-Density Residential (R-15). • As pazt of the annexation, a domestic well is conveyed to the city that serves Lots 1, 4, and 5 as part of an annexation agreement. The agreement allows the lots within the subdivision to use the well water for irrigation/decorative purposes once Lots 1, 4, and 5 connect to city water. The well is currently located on Lot 5 and due to its close proximity to the proposed addition to 930 Matchless, is proposed to be abandoned or relocated. • In 1977 Lots I, 4, and 5 aze condominiumized. • In 1986, the owners of condominiumized Lot 4 (Bishop& Dunn) which contains two detached residential buildings, submit a request for subdivision exemption for a lot split to subdivide Lot '4 into two separate lots. During review of the application Staff determines that there is a clerical error on the Official Zone District Map as Alpine Acres Subdivision is .shown as Medimn-Density Residential (R-6) rather than Moderate- Density Residential (R-15), as it was originally zoned. The minimum lot size requirement in 1986 for the R-15 zone district does not .allow Lot 4 to be subdivided into two lots. As a result, all of the lot owners in Alpine Acres apply for rezoning to R-6 and Lot 4 requests a lot split. The property owners within the Pace 4 of 8 ,~.. w ~ ~: P119 subdivision propose a vohmtary allowable floor azea cap of 2,500 per dwelling unit, which is similar to the per dwelling unit allowance for a duplex m the R-15 zone district for the existing lot sizes within Alpine Acres. The number is negotiated to a maximum of 2,486 SF per dwelling trait in Ordinance 35 (series 1987). In conjtmction with the rezoning of the property from Moderate-Density Residential (R- 15) to Medium-Density Residential (R-6), a PUD overlay is placed upon Lots 4 and 5 which sets the minimum front yard setback for Lot 4 (subsequently Lot 4A and 4B) and Lot 5 at twenty-five (25) feet. The PUD overlay also sets the minimum lot width for Lots 4A and 4B. • In 2002, a PUD Amendment is submitted by the owner of Lot 4A to allow lus property to be eligible fora 500 SF floor area bonus for an outstanding preservation effort. The amendment is approved which allows Lot 4A a maximum floor area of 2,986 SF. STAFF COMMENTS: - SUBDIVISION: - The Applicants are requesting subdivision approval to create two lots (Lots SA and Lot SB) from one lot (Lot 5) which requires approval of subdivision. In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480. v^5^v, Review Standards. Staff feels that the proposal is consistent with the infill development Qoals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). PUD Amendment: A Planned Unit Development is a process in which a site specific development plan is created which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of the land and promotes objectives outlined in the LUC and goals of the AACP by allowing the variation of the underlying zone district's dimensional requirements. The parcel cturently exists with a PUD overlay; however, based upon the new development proposal the PUD must be amended and dimensional requirements established. The applicant is requesting that minimum setbacks and allowable floor azea be varied. Minimum Setbacks: The Applicants have requested to reduce the minimum side yazd setback requirement for proposed lot SA rind SB. Due to the existing location of the two residences, an amendment to the required minimum front yard setback should also be considered. Based upon the proposed lot size, the underlying zoning requires Lot SA (930 Matchless) to have a minimum side yazd setback of ten 10 feet and a combined setback of 28.18 feet. Both the proposed addition to the single-family residence and the new detached garage/ADU have been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) -and the HPC is recommending approval of the reduced setbacks. As approved by the HPC, the. single-family residence requires a 2'- 6" minimum setback from the proposed west property line and a minimum combined setback of 17'-7". The detached garage/ADU requires a 5'- 4" minimum setback from the proposed westAproperty line and a 6'-2" minimum setback from the east property line. A combined minimum setback of 11'-7" is necessary for the garage/ADU. Additionally, the existing PUD overlay requires a minimum front yard setback of twenty-five Page 5 of 8 p-- P720 " ' feet rather than ten feet as allowed by the underlying zone district. The present building sits at 23.8'. Lot SB (920 Matchless) requires a minimtun side yard setback of five (5) feet, based upon the proposed lot size, but will not require a combined setback if developed with two detached residential dwellings as long as the buildings are a minumun of ten feet apart. The existing structure is proposed to be 3-11" from the proposed property line. The current PUD overlay requires a minimum front yard setback of twenty-five feet which is not met by the existing structtue which sits at 21:6'. Staff feels that the historic designation of both ecistino 6uiZdinQs and the required review and approval of anv exterior alterations by the Historic Preservation Commission to maintain the hrstorzc rnte2nty ofthe DroDerty warrants the ~rantin~ ofthe proposed setbncks and anv fzttzere setback variances Qranted by the HPC' Allowable Floor Area: As noted previously, Ordinance 35 (series 1987) restricts the floor area allowed per dwelling unit in the subdivision. The ordinance states that, "Each Dwelling Unit in Alpine Acres shall be restricted to a maximum countable floor area of 2, 486 square feet. " It is Staff s interpretation that the language in the ordinance imposes a maximum floor azea of 2,486 squaze feet per dwelling unit. When determining the floor area, if the calculated floor area is less than 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit, the floor area allowed would be the lesser number. If, in calculafing the floor azea, the number is greater than 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit, the allowable floor area would be capped at 2,486 square feet per dwelling trait. The Applicants are requesting that the City Council grant the allowable floor area for Lot SB (920 Matchless, owned by Shirley Peterson) be in conformance with the underlying Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district, which is also in conformance with Ordinance 35 (Series 1987). With regazd to Lot SA (930 Matchless, owned by the Dodaros), the Applicants are requesting the allowable floor azea be set at 3,486 SF, which is greater than what Ordinance 35 (series 1987) allows but less than what the underlying R-6 zone district would permit. There aze a number of options that the City Council may consider in determining the allowable floor area for both lots. Two options, at either end of the spectrum, are identified below: 1) The Council may determine that the allowable floor area voluntary cap included in the rezoning ordinance (1987-35) should continue to nm with the land. In 1987, there was concern over the larger floor area that would be allowed with rezoning the property to R- 6 and its impact on the existing Victorians. The property owners at the time. of the rezozung volm7tai~ily offered and agreed to the cap. Under this scenario, Lot SA's allowable floor azea for the single-flcnily residence would be capped at 2,486 SF. The HPC approved design for the residential addition and detached garage/ADU requires an allowable floor area of 2,986 SF. If the Council determines that Lot SA be limited to 2,486 SF of allowable floor area, the Applicants (in this case the Dodazo's) will need to secure the 500 SF floor area bonus granted by the HPC for Lot SA. Only one HPC bonus can be granted from a parent parcel. Lot SB (920 Matchless) which is owned by Shirley Peterson is proposed to have two free market units on it at some point in the future. With a 7,756.7 SF lot, the underlying zoning would allow a floor area of 3,485.9 SF (which also meets the requirement of Ordiriance 35, Series 1987). Page 6 of 8 i ,_ .~ ~., , P121 2) The Council could determine that the proposed allowable floor azeas for the lots be determined by the underlying zone district requirements. In establishing the dimensional requirements of a PUD, Land Use Code Section 26.445.050 B. notes: "the dimensional requirements of the tmderlying zone district shall be used as a guide in detenniriing the E ; appropriate dimensions for the PUD." By using the underlying zone district standazds as a guide, the floor area allowed by the underlying zoning for Lot SA (930 Matchless) developed with the HPC approved single- family residence would be 3,609 SF. If the Applicants, in this case the Dodaros are allowed to have a floor area that is slightly below what the R-6 zone district would allow, it will not be necessary for them to land the 500 SF floor area bonus on Lot SA because the underlying floor area is 500 SF in excess of what is necessary to build the development plans that the HPC has approved. The excess floor area could be turned into two transferable development rights, which the Dodazos have stated that they aze interested in creating. Lot SB, with the two free market traits would have an allowable floor area of 3,485.9 SF. As mentioned earlier, only one 500 SF bonus granted by the HPC is allowed for a designated property and/or fathering parcel. If the City Cotmcil allows both lots fo meet the underlying zone district standards-with regard to allowable floor area, the one bonus could be available to Lot SB in the future. Staff recommends followm~ Option 1 requirinz that the intent ofOrdinance 35 (series 1987) be mamtatned with retard to allowable floor area as all other properties wrthtn the Alpine Acres Subdivision are subtect to the floor area cap Lot SA would need to land the HPC floor area bonus to maximise the allowable floor area of the lot to 2 986 SF allowing for the development of the HPC approved addition The floor area for Lot SB would be 3 485.9 SF. SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATIONS FEE: Given that the proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicants either dedicate lands for school function or pay acash-in-lieu payment. The Applicants have proposed to pay acash-in- lieu payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.630. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that the Applicants pay the School Lands Dedications fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed development. PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE: A property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Struchires is not required to pay a Park Development Impact Fee for additional bedrooms added to the site pursuant to Ladd Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. Page 7 of 8 P122 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is generally consistent with the goals of the AACP as well as the applicable review standazds in the City's Land Use Code. Staff recommends supporting the minimum setback requests, but recommends that the allowable floor area meet the intent of Ordinance 35 (series 1987). Additionally Staff recommends approval of 1<lnding the 500 SF HPC bonus on Lot SA. Any futtue development on Lot SB will necessitate review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff recommends allowing the HPC to grant any firture setback and parking waivers as it deems appropriate. The proposed resohrtion is worded in the affirmative, reflecting a scenario where all of the Applicants' requests (including the floor area) are granted. If the Council were to deny any of the Applicants' requests, the ordinance would be amended to reflect the actual approvals. By way of example, if the Council were to deny the floor area request, the following changes would have to be made to the resolution: I. Section 5 of the ordinance would need to amend the allowable floor area for Lot $b~to read, "2,486 SF with the ability to land a 500 SF HPC floor azea bonus as granted by the HPC." 2. Section 5 of the ordinance would need to amend the allowable floor area for Lot 5$#0 read, "3,485.9 SF." RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No.~~, Series of 2006, upon first reading." MANAGER'S ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A -Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT B -Referral Comments ExxtalT C -Alpine Acres Anriexation Plat (1976) EXHIBIT D -Existing and Proposed Conditions for Lot 5 EXHIBIT E - P1aiuling and Zoning minutes of 2/28/06 (will be available at 2"d reading) ExHtBIT F -Application Page 8 of 8 ~_ , ..,~ ~. , P123 ORDINANCE N0. (SERIES OF 2006) A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL CITY APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE DODARO SUBDIVISION (LOTS ~A AND SB) AND PUD AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING DETACHED DWELLING AND VOLUNTARY GARAGE/ADU ON LOT 5A AND TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS ON LOT SB ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 920 AND 930 MATCHLESS DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. ParceLlD:2737-074-22-01 and 2737-074-22-02 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Christine Dodazo, Peter Dodazo, and Shirley Peterson, Tnistee -Shirley H. Peterson Living Trust, represented by Kim Raymond, requesting a combined review and approval of Subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment, for the development of two lots, Lots SA and SB; and, WHEREAS, an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a new garage/ADU is proposed for Lot SA and a total of two detached dwelling tuiits is proposed for Lot SB; arid, WHEREAS, the. subject property is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-6) with a PUD overlay; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission determined during the review of the application that the application was available for a combined review of the land use requests and a consolidated two-step review of the PUD Amendment; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 28, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application, and took public comment; and, WHEREAS, on February 28, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 6, Series of 2006, by a four to zero (4-0) vote, recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the proposed subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment for the development of two lots with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a new garage/ADU proposed for Lot SA (930 Matchless) and a total of two detached dwelling units proposed for Lot SB (920 Matchless); and, WHEREAS, daring a duly noticed public hearing on April 24, 2006, the City Cotmcil opened the hearing, took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Commtuuty Development Director, and referral agencies of the City of Aspen and adopted Ordinance No. _, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the subdivision and consolidated PUD .Amendment for the development of two lots with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a new garage/ADU proposed for Lot SA (930 Matchless) and a total of two detached dwelling traits proposed for Lot SB (920 Matchless); and, Page 1 of 7 P124 WHEREAS; the City Council finds that the development proposal meets many of the applicable development standazds and where the standards are varied, that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Commuiuty Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance fitrthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1• Purstu~uit to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby Cotmcil approves with conditions the Dodazo Subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment for the development of two lots with an addition to an existing detached residential dwelling unit and garage/ADU on Lot SA (930 Matchless Drive) and allowing an additional dwelling unit on Lot SB for a total of two detached dwelling units on Lot SB (920 Matchless Drive). Section 2: Plat and Agreement The Applicants shall record asubdivision/PUD plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval. the Applicant shall also enter into a sidewalk agreement to install a future sidewalk adjacent to Matchless Drive along the entire lot frontage if it is deemed appropriate by the City of Aspen to have a sidewalk in this location at some time in the future. Section 3: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. e. An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan, and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. Page 2 of 7 ., .., P125 f A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Envirommental Health Departrnent. g. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for review and approval by the City Engineer. h. The Applicants shall comply with Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 regarding the handling of any contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfirnd Site prior to any excavation on and/or prior to the application for building permits on both lots. All soils on Lots SA and 5B shall be considered contaminated unless determined otherwise through testing that adheres to the protocols that were established by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994. If, pursuant to said testing protocols, the soils are found to be uncontaminated, the following requirements shall not apply. However, to the extent that any contaminants are discovered, the following requirements shall apply: 1) All contaminated soils that are removed from the site shall be transported to the Pitlcin County Landfill and disposed of at the Smuggler repository. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be temporarily stored above ground or remain on site shall be securely contained on and covered with anon-permeable tarp or other protected barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching ~ of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil and to prevent windblown dust from disturbed dirt. 2) The owner and general contractor of any development on Lots 1 and 2 of the South and Gibson Subdivision shall submit a letter to the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department stating that they have read, understood, and will comply with the regtrlations for .handling contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site as set forth in Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 prior to any excavation and/or issuance of building permits for the property. 3) The owner shall complete a Soil Removal Permit and Affidavit for excavation prior to any excavation or disturbance of dirt and prior to any issuance of building permits for the properties. Section 4• Permitted Use of the Property As outlined in the Applicants' development application, Lot SA (930 Matchless) shall be developed with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling. and a detached garage/ADU, the design having been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Conunission. Lot 5B (920 Matchless) will contain the existing detached residential dwelling and an additional detached residential dwelling for a total of two detached residential dwellings. The design and alteration of the existing building and new building or structures shall be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Section 5: Dimensional Requirements Page 3 of 7 P126 The redevelopment of the lots as presented will vary the dimensional requiremehts of the Meditun-Density Residential (R-6) zone district. As a PUD Amendment, the dimensional requirements shall be set as follows: Lot SA -:PUD Dimensional ~ ; 1Eot SB -PUD Dimeusional w~ i Requirements ~Requrrement's .(930 Matchless) , (920 Matchless} ,"r m Minimum Lot Size 3,000 SF 3,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 30 30 Feet Minimtun Lot Area/Dwellin 3,000 SF 3,000 SF Minimum Front Yard Setback 23.8 Feet 21.6 Feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 2.5 Feet from west property line 3.92 Feet from the east property 15 Feet from east property line line as along as existing stnicttu-e is nat demolished or if an HPC variance is granted 5 Feet from the west property line unless an HPC variance is ranted Total Side Yazds 17.58 Feet NA - as long as there is ten feet between the two detached dwellin units lini-n~u-ri Rear Yard Setback 10 Feet -Principal Buiiding 10 Feet -Principal Building 5 Feet -Accessory Building 5 Feet -Accessory Building (unless a waiver is granted by the HPC) Maxnnum Height 25 Feet 25 Feet Allowable Floor Area 3,436 SF 3,485.9 SF with the ability to land a 500 SF HPC floor azea bonus granted by the Commission Section 6: Off- Street Parkins Requirements As part of the PUD Amendment the parking requirement for Lot SA shall meet the off-street parking requirement for the use of the property containing a detached dwelling trait and an accessory dwelling unit which requires three (3) off-street parking spaces. Lot SB shall meet the off-street parking requirements for the use of the property, tmless a parking waiver is permitted by the Historic Preservation Commission. Section 7: Enaineerina A CMP plan meeting the requirements of the City will be required as part of the approval process. Submission of this report should be before any building permit application to allow open discussion of phasing and traffic impacts. The Staff can provide a list of those CMP requirements inclusive of: construction traffic routing, erosion BMP's, soil stabilization, drainage impacts, and construction phasing plan for use in development of that plan. Section 8: Fire Mitieation Page 4 of 7 ^a l / P127 The Applicants shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal if a building is over 5,000 square feet in area. Section 9: Water Department Requirements Individual lots need sepazate services. If there is more than residence on a lot a common service agreement may be allowed. The Applicants shall vacate the city water well on Lot 5A. Any development shall comply with the -City of Aspen Water System Standazds, with Title 25, and with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen MLmicipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. The City must be presented an option acceptable to the State and City by the Applicants prior to the existing well on Lot SA being abandoned or relocated. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Old service line connections must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to ACSD requirements. 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 !ule. Permanent improvements aze 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. `It is recommended that the old 6" clay sanitary sewer service line be replaced by a new 8" PVC main line with two manholes, thereby. allowing 920, 930, 940, and 950 to have their own service line tied directly into a district maintained sewer line. Section 11: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. , Section 12: School Lands Dedication Fee Purstilnt to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicants shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicants shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 13: Impact Fees Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.420.020. B.4, Waiver of Fees, the Park Dedication Fees may be waived. All other impact fees, as applicable at the time of submission, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. Section 14: Parks An approved tree removal permit is required prior to submitting the building permit. The Pazks Department sign off will be contingent on the approved tree permit. A detailed tree protection Page 5 of 7 P128 ~~, plan is required as part of the building permit set and should include fence details and fence locations as well as the following language, "A construction fence shall be installed at the drip line of each individual or grouping of trees remaining on site. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and foot or vehicle traffic will be allowed within the tree protection fence. Contact the City of Aspen Parks Department for inspection of the fence, 920-5120 before any construction activities commence. After inspection and approval of the fence location the fence cannot be moved or removed without permission from the Pazks Department or tmtil the project receives the Certificate of Occupancy." Utility connections need to be designed in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. Root Pnming: The Applicants will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on call in order to address all roots greater than 1.5 inches in diameter. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service 'company or trained member of the contractor's team. Section 15: Vested Rights 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. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, faihire to properly record all plats and agreements. required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cattse 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, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 63, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lot SA and SB, Dodaro Subdivision Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run tmtil the Paoe 6 of 3 ,~~ _. P129 date of publication of the notice. of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendrun shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 16: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicants pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the City CoLmcil, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fiilly set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 17: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation grid 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 13: 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 jtuisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin Cotmty Clerk and Recorder. Section 19: - . A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 24~' day of April, 2006, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 27~' day of March, 2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor Page 7 of 8 P130 City Attorney Page 8 of 8 i ~. f ;. :` P131 Exhibit A SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.430.050 of the .City. Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding The future land use map in the AACP shows this property to be residential. The proposed use is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. Applicable policies and goals of the AACP. that the subdivision meets are: locating residential development within the city boundaries and locating development close to the commercial core and transit stops. Additionally, the historic resources. will be rehabilitated. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area: Staff Finding There ,are many residential uses .within the area including mobile homes, single family residences, duplex residences, and multi family residential development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Sta{{Finding As the application indicates, the surrounding properties are close to fully developed. All development associated with this application is internal to the site and will not encroach onto the public right-of--way or adjacent properties. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Sta{{Findirte The proposed development is in compliance with the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district requirements and meets all other land use regulation except for where the Applicants are requesting to vary from a standard. Staff finds this criterion to be met. $. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rocltslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other ~-~ P132 ,-,. condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public f~2cilities and unnecessary public costs. Sta{{Finding Staff believes that the property is suitable for subdivision. The site contains no steep topography and no known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed development. However, there may be contaminated soils and the resolution requires mitigation if contaminated soils ate found. In addition, Staff believes that there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the . subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Sta{{Finding The Applicants• have consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to Section 26.580. Staffftnds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requiremehts of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staf{Findin; The Applicants are not providing replacement dwellings units and are not subject to the Replacement Housing Program. Stafff:nds this criterion is not applicable to the proposal. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set Y'orth at Chapter 26.630. Sta{{Finding The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicants have proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing /"~ C+. u P133 land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Thus', staff finds this' criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without .first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, § 2) StaffFindin~ The Applicants' project, as• proposed, is exempt from GMQS Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. PLANNED UntT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS In accordance with Section 26.445.030(2) of the Land Use Code, due to the limited extent of the issues involved, the Applicant has requested a consolidated conceptual/fmal PUD. Tliis two-step process consolidates the conceptual and final development plan reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the -City .Council, with public hearings occumng at both. Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD outlines that a development application shall comply with the following review standards A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area .Community Plan. Staff Finding The future land use map in the AAUP shows this property to be residential. The proposed use is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. Applicable policies and goals of the AACP that the development meets are; locating residential development within the city boundaries and locating development close to the commercial core and transit stops. Additionally, historic resources will be rehabilitated as the lots are redeveloped. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. StaffFindin~ There are many residential uses within the area including mobile homes, single family residences', duplex residences, and multi family residential development. Staff finds .this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding 3 P134 As the application indicates, the surrounding properties are close to fully developed. All development associated rovith this application is internal to the site and will not encroach onto the public right-of-way or adjacent properties. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal tivi11 adversely affect the fidure development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds. this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to; or in combinatio^ with, final PUD development plan review. Stal`f'Findino The Applicants' project, as' proposed, is' exempt from GMQS Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Naturnl and man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parlting, and historical resources. StaffFindin~ The proposed dimensional requirements, with regard to proposed setbacks, complement and help maintain the integrity of the historic structures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Findin,; Staff believes the massing and scale of the proposal on 930 Matchless is appropriate for the site and the historic resource since it has received approval by the HPC Any future development of 920 Matchless will need to be reviewed for a Certificate of Appropriateness which will create a scale and massing appropriate to the neighborhood and the historic resource. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: 4 ~-, 1 a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities; including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding Proposed Lot SA (930 Matchless) meets the underlying zone district requirements with regard to off-street parking. The development of an additional residence has not been designed and is expected to meet the off-street parking requirements unless granted a waiver by the HPC. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Sta[{Finding Staff believes that sufficient infrastructure capabilities exist to accommodate the proposed development. The adjacent public right-of--way on Matchless Drive and the access eksement at the rear of the lots are suff cient to accommodate the required fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance for the proposed development. The City of Aspen Fire Marshal, Utilities Director, and a representative from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District have reviewed the proposal and have proposed conditions of approval to mitigate for any inszfficiencies. Staff finds' this criterion to be met. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due Yo runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Sta{{Finding P735 5 P736 ,.-. ,--~ Staff believes that the site is suitable for development and that this criterion is not applicable to the subject application. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through .such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. StaNFindin~ The Applicants are not requesting an increase in allowable density. Staff believes that the site is suitable for development and that this criterion is not applicable to the subject application. B. Site Design: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding - Both existing structures on the property are designated historic landmarks. Any new structures, additions, or alterations are required to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) which will ensure the integrity of the existing structures. The proposed setback variations, recommended by the HPC, will also contribute to maintaining the integrity and setting of the historic structures. Stafffinds• this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. StaffFindina As infill development, there are no significant open spaces to be preserved However, any placement o/'buildings have, or will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission to preserve the integrity of the historic resources. Stafffinds this• criterion to be met. 6 ,M~, w~ P137 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural contest where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding The existing historic resources are appropriately oriented towards Matchless Drive: Staff finds this criterion met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Sta{{Finding Staff believes that the proposal is appropriately arranged in a manner that allows for emergency vehicles to easily access the site. The site is served by both a public rights-of--way (Matchless and Heron Drive) and an access easement that acts like a service alley at the rear of the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Sta{{Finding d . g _r _...... The Applicants have propose ~o provide omits that nice[ the buildin d~*+~rr*~ent's accessibility requirements. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Sta{{Finding The Applicants will be required to submit a site drainage plan that was prepared by a licensed engineer. The proposed development shall not increase historic flotivs of the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately de- signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Sta{{Findinv The Applicants are not proposing to construct any non-residential structures on the site. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. C. Landscape Plan: The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of .the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The. landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Stn{{Finding 7 P138 The Applicants are proposing to maintain the significant trees that exist on the property. The Applicants shall submit ci landscaping plan for review by the Parks' Department with regard to tree protection, removal and planting prior to issuance of n building permit for the project. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. StaffFindin~ Mature trees are required to be preserved. The historic resources will be preserved and any future development must be designed in a way to maintain the integrity of the resources. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding, The Applicants• have proposed and are required to provide tree protection fencing around the drip line of any tree that is to be preserved on-site. Additionally, no construction activity or storage of construction materials shall be allowed within the drip Zine of any trees to be preserved on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Architectural Character: It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting .efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's .use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: I. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding As historic landmarks, any changes to the property with regard to buildings are required to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission is required to review projects so that new structures, additions, and alterations complement the historic sfructures•. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding 3 ,.. P139 The Applicants have stated that passive solar and natural ventin,;/cooling will play a significant part in the design of the building as well as efficient fixtures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water, in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. StaffFindine The proposed parcels have adequate areas for snow storage. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Lighting: The purpose of this standard into ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Sta{fFindin~ The development shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements and the Applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the Zoning Officer to review at the time of building permit submittal. -Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attenfion to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding The development shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements and the Applicants shall submit cr lighting plan for the Zoning Officer to review at the time of building permit submittal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area. Therefore, staff finds that this criterion is• not applicable. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation. areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to etch lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 9 r°~ P140 StaffFindine The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area. Therefore, stafffinds that this criterion is not applicable. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area Therefore, stafffinds that this criterion is not applicable H. Utilities and Public Facilities: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. StaffFindinp Staff believes that adequate public facilities exist to accommodate the proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. StaffFindine The affected utility agencies have reviewed the proposed plans and the concerns have been addressed as conditions of approval in the attached resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Sta{fFinding The Applicant is not proposing to install oversized utilities or public facilities .and it is not anticipated that the Applicant tivill be required by the City to provide oversized utilities. Staff does• not find this criterion to be applicable to this application. I. Access and Circulation (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to Minor PUD applications): The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 10 P141 I. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. StaffFindino The proposed development has adequate access from Matchless and Heron Drive and has additional access to the lots via an access easement. Srnfffznds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. StaffFindinP Staff believes that the access easement at the rear of the properties is appropriate for access. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the. development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: I. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding The Applicant is• proposing to redevelop Lot SA (930 Matchless) tinith an addition io the existing residence. Lot SB (920 Matchless) may be developed at a later date. However, no joint facilities or infrastructure is required and the proposal is not a phrased project. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. P142 F y ~ V911V' MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Erigineer Ddfe: November 2, 2005 Re: 920 & 930 Matchless, Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision Parcel #'s 2737-074-22-001 8~ 2F37-074-22-002 Attendees; Alex Evonitz, Com. ©ev. Eng.; Nick Adeh, Engineering; Jennifer Phelan, City Planning; Phil Overeynder, City Water; Brian Flynn, City Parks; Kim Raymond, Owners Representative ` The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Subdivision Request at their November 2, 2005 meeting and has compiled the following comments: Generdli - Tl1e Apj~iiCGiii t 'w"vviG'-like tO~SUhdlVide ~at #J ai t'r~e Aipine Acres SubjPUD in#o two lots. Currently the lot cohtains two detached residential dwellings both of which are historic landmarks. The proposal would allow one lot (930 Matchless] to contain an existing historic single-family residence and d voluntary accessory dwelling unit and the other lot (920 Matchless] would contdin the other existing single-family residence and be large enough to develop an.additional detached residehtiat dwelling. In order to develop the lots as proposed the existing PUD needs to be amended: The Applicant is requesting that the Floor Area Ratio.f FAR) alfowahde be incompliance with the underlying Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district, rather than being limited to 2,486 SF per dwelling unit. At a minimum, the applicant will need to land a 500 SF HPC bonus for 930 Matchless if the Applicant is not allowed to adhere to the underlying zoning with regard to FAR. Additionally; as a site specific developmerit plan, the Applicaht will need to amend the PUD to allow for an additional detached dwelling unit oh 920 Matchless. Building Department - No~Attendance; Fire Protection District - No Attendance; ' Engineering Department -Nick Adeh; - _ Matchless Drive needs to be wide enough for two-way traffic. • Easements will be required for lot access. • All encroachmehts need to be corrected. Housing Office - Nd Attendance; ~ ~:_. . L - > Page 3 of 4 November 2, 2005 - 920 and 930 Matchless Drive ~__ • Ingress /egress will need to be maintained at all times for the City. • The Owners need to present an option acceptable to the State and City before change in the existing well location and access is undertaken. Community Development Engineer-Alex Evonitz; • No comments at this time until the water issues are resolved. • All standard permit requirements must be met for issuance of building permits. Aspen Consolidated Waste District-Tom Bracewell; • Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the Districf office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage,plahs to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio. drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. • On-site utility plahs require approval by ACSD. • Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. • Currehtly, 920,930,940 and 950 Matchless ale served by a Gammon oid "' Clay sanitary sewer service line. ACSD would recommend that this old line be replaced by a approximately 170 feefi of new 8".PVC main line with .. ~ two manholes, thereby allowing each resident to have its own service line tied directly into a district maintained sewer line. • Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new development or the existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment, a line extension request and collection system ' agreement are required. Both are ACSD Board of Director's action items. • Applicant will be required to deposit funds with the district for engineering fees, construction observation fees, fees to clean and televise the new main sewer line extension into-the project. • The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stub outs before building permit. • Below grade, development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unif 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 impdcf public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid before 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 fihe planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additionalproporttionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time P143 ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~_- ~_ ~ ~ rr: y ~1'1 tigV~'• -~ V_ ~1[1d~RV JJ~~H~~.d l~ °~ a °` E~ S L a .5 Z a c y F N n U V T G 9 ^L a 9 `~ ^ aPaN iv N..jo~ '~~ E'=q~ ~ OO U~ p v ~ m J Q N y e0 q O v ~ j Ya '-; °a. ~e :.'~j a.3 a ~ ~~_w ~° O E u~ U Y .~ T u 9 p O Y a p v> q ~9 9 `o v q `o m a nm o° 7 a '^ g N u- ~.= °-a u ~ ~_ °_ ~_ °^ o y .~ c .]= °u~F °Z m ~Q- a v G ~ ° -~~ ~~=a~ T~~= ~~_~oo~v~ N ° 9 F~ Y. ~ 3 E H~ ~ O ~ G~ W pp N YO 00 nV u`LLL~ %m uK L Ou FL'~Oe~~1 9 z F+ d-".5 `AO na °_ L.. CI_QC u c' U a p F V A C r W ~n L pp vO j °~ = ur > o - -`arm a ~n .. .. iPm 3p~N °' o` o ~ L~ NCO .= m ~.c A~ a'` `d ~ S ~ n= m O U V O °_ w o e m m r W u~_ n~ T iFi GC qcLic 890. J a.c c~y,~m `n"~o C cy .` Zvi c_ La .7~°3 Z`UPty~Na a`,PO°^o`ca°.o°umo° CJ C .7°' a 4 O 22a Y `< '^ a 3 u x S u U~~ 'O n O O= .°. [a L1 L v'li °j > O 9 .~ -~ r 9 L a N uNi 6% u v W _ e o m ~°+ N a- N O O N a.L Y N g a" a O C r '~ U C K O C Q 9 H r a .L 6 E' ~~ ~-' v n~ P= ~ O O v ~ i p _ 9_ T O >~O O u 'V ; u L~~. O Y O la° .nJ S u JO O P ~ P' L N O 9 Q p 9 '3 M N N Y CYY ~~ Y.=.E L a 9 L ° ~N O _ _ n u r ~O U u X q ~ V O.V d U m r 3 O 2? T C L 9 9 r a ,`ten o ~ ~^~ ~ `"' °' 2 m u ' E c S .~ V m~ V T p L L C Y 'j i rri w Y o_~ =~ owo~oa"ooa~°"°° e~~~na Fy m; ~ 'S_ d'.-_ O x 9 O F ` N u `u L Y W QL. Q~ ° ~. >i Y F' ~° O 6~ .O v~ O .~i d V~ O L~ U Y Y 'Z (°,~_ o m eii my _6g~°m 6_.°=E'~~ Nr ~U c°' mym:S 3m'S. 'c-Q °L°n acc_v+E'p^o="o W _ _ :n '- P145 anzxa ssa7x~avw AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: F ~/ (~ /~/ /~'{R~ I1P1SS ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ~~z~J~/J , 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ~~ ~~ ~ S ~ - i ~ ~X r (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from~e Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, F waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wi~e and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of 200 to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) da~s prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class po tage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) ~et of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. afore The fore ing "Affi avit ofNofice" was acknowledged before mv~tl 's d y of 200, by ~~ Giy-/~,C,$ 1/L WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ~jlBWC NOTICE RE: DODARO ~~IBDIVISION AND ASSOCIATED es: ~ ~~ D `~ M i i fi fAND USE REQUfISTS comm ss on ex r Y P r NOTICE ~/e HEREBY GIVEN that a public 1'~ hearing will be Id on Monday, APril 24, 2006, at ~i _ ' ~ ~ 1 / '~ 1 / ~ F a meMing to In at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen ° 0 liV`.W _//~Cr/I(_ iV~~nV lvX~ City Council, Clty Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 5. Calena SL, Aspen, to consider an applica- Don submitted by Christine Dodaro Peter Do Notary Public ~ , ~,." daro and Shirley Peterson Living Trust, 920 Matchless Drive, Aspen, CO 8161 l and 1909 River f ~ ~ ~'I Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55414, who ere the owo- ~" 4' ° ° of the subi~t property. The applicants are ~ • ' ?-r° ` ~ proPOSinH to subdivide the one lot into two lots. S ~/ ~ ( ' In ordu to develop the property ae described dd C. F Y~ ° ~ previously, Me applicants are requesting the fok ~ . rv. • ' lowing development approvals: SubdiWSion ap- G proval for the creation of two lots and Planned {'j Unit Developmw[ approval to establish the d'r y! mensional regolrements for the lots and the o[4 °yyy ` ° street parAng regwremeots. The property Is le- ,. T ii1~,fL+ p y'. ~ AT AC NT r gaily descnbed as condom nium uNts 1 & 2, AI- ^ 1 11111G J. (` K pine Acres Townhouse Condominium No. 5 and is , 'l more commonly known as 920 and 930 Matchless ~ - '. ,j J ' Drive Aspen Colµµ~~ado 81611. tlon contact lennler Phelan For lurther mfo .~. :~> COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION ---- n et the C ty of As Community Development De m 130 G l St A CO (9]OJ l ~„ 5 ~l.>l. 2 par me , a ena spen , My ~~i!11Qlfuo .,I L,IN . 429.2]59.;ennile e, aapen.cn.na. C s/Helen K Klandemd, Mayor [2APH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIG11~ Aspen Qty ounce Published in Ne Aspen Times Weekly on April 9, zoB~ J. va--r~vm~cr AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL -~ ~ r Couuty of Pitkie } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE & } ss. MAILING PURSUANT TO State of Colorado } PTTKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE SECTION 4-90 1, ~F.~er W Douro ~. Chrts 1vt Ooclar~ ,being or representing an Applicant to the Pitkin County Development Permit, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requvements pursuant to Section 4-90 of the Pitkin County Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail at least 30 days prior to the public hearing to all owners pf property adjacent to the subject propeRy, as indicated on the attached list, on the ~.aay of -x--" 200~p(which is ~ 7 days prior to the public hearing date ofd. T'he names and addresses of the adjacent property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the public hearing. 2. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail at least 30 days prior to the public heazing to the owner(s) of the mineral estate underneath the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the _ day of , 200_ (which is _ days prior to the public hearing date of ). The names and addresses of the mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeazed no more than b0 days prior to the public heazing. 3. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could .be~~° from the nearest public way) and that said sign was post an v~s~ble continuously from the / ""' day of ~Qf1 ~ , 200~Oto thee' day of 200~j (Must be posted for at least Fifteen (15) full days before the heazing date). A photograph oft a posted sign is attached hereto. ~r w Oo~~.~v w ~.~ G' l.FrtS wt (~ p~o..r V Applicant's name Signature (Attach photograph here} Signed before me this~ay of, y200Jtby 1 ~~'~~ • l~riS ~d~~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires:~6~ n ~} ~itl cr~~~ otary Publi -~M ,u ~ o~ No Public s Signature •~• -~ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: DODARO SUBDIVISION AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REQUESTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, Apri124, 2006, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Christine Dodaro, Peter Dodazo and Shirley Peterson Living Trust, 920 Matchless Drive, Aspen, CO 81611 and 1909 River Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55414, who aze the owners of the subject property. The applicants are proposing to subdivide the one lot into two lots. In order to develop the property as described previously, the applicants aze requesting the following development approvals: Subdivision approval for the creation of two lots and Planned Unit Development approval to establish the dimensional requirements for the lots and the off-street pazking requirements. The property is legally described as condominium units 1 & 2, Alpine Acres Townhouse Condominium No. 5 and is more commonly known as 920 and 930 Matchless Drive, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. For further information, contact Jennifer Phelan at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena 5t., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2759, jennifepL7a ci.aspen.co.us. s/Helen K, Klanderud, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on April 9, 200b City of Aspen Account ~~ Free Printing ~ ~y ® 8160*'~ Tr ~~ tY ANDERSON BRETT $ ALLISON 226 COTTONWOOD LN ASPEN, CO 81611-2183 ASPEN BASE OPERATION INC 69 E AIRPORT RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ATKINSON JOHN L 935 GIBBON AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 BECKER AL.AId K 950 MATCHLESS DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CAIN JOHN J TRUST GO JOHN J CAIN 620 FOUNTAIN AVE REDLANDS,CA 92373 COSTELLO STEPHANIE TRUST 328 OAK LN ASPEN, CO 87611 BOYLE JOHN R 121 MAPLE LN ASPEN, CO 81611 CARSON BARBARA PO BOX 10298 ASPEN, CO 81612 CUNNINGHAM JAMES MURRAY PO BOX 9333 ASPEN, CO 81612 BREBNER RICHARD CRAVEN ELLYN KATHLEEN 124 MAPLE LN ASPEN, CO 81611 CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL 130 MAPLE LN ASPEN, CO 81611 CURTiS DEBRA 142 MAPLE LN ASPEN, CO 81611 DUNAWAY WILLIAM R FlSHER MORGAN FONTANA WILLIAM FARR TENA D 228 COTTONWOOD LN ~ PO BOX 3313 PO BOX E ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 ! FUNK WILLIAM E I GALLUCCIO VINCENT GOODMAN RAYMI COATES 123 MAPLE LN PO BOX 8085 PO BOX 9671 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 GRAHAM WILLIAM & GERALDINE GREENWOOD KRYSTINA GREENWOOD WILLIAM S HARPER 1050 MATCHlE33 DR #2 ~ PO BOX 4778 PO BOX 1455 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81812 ASPEN, CO 81812 HATANAKA HOWARD H HESSELSCHWERDT MARK P HIGHT NEIL C $ SEWEI.L KATHRYN 980 KING ST PO BOX 2522 520 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 JANE TAYLOR KASpgACH JACQUELYN A - KIRKWOOD JUNE $ CYNTHIA TRUSTEE HANEK LINDA S PO BOX 4166 ! 318 OAK LN 231 COTTONWOOD LN' ASPEN, CO 81812 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LANG DONALD W ~ LEMLEY EVA PO BOX 4166 222 COTTONWOOD LN - 9~E ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEM; 69-648'H Free Printing ~ 5160s I~q~A!!lf~E1AA~ifS~TM ^ ~ 8160TM . ~ LINDENAU BEYRON R 8 SCOTT A 320 OAK LN ASPEN, CO 81611 LOEWENSTERN CAROL TRUST 910 GIBBON AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 MAGILL REBECCA N 227 COTTONWOOD LN ASPEN, CO 81611 MAPLE CHARLES A 8 BRYCE M 927 GIBBON AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 MICKEY JAMES 8 MARLENE 931 GIBBON AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 PADDEN KEVIN J 8 NINA K 224 COTTONWOOD LN ASPEN, CO 81611 MCCROSKEY PAMELA 2260 S COOK DENVER, CO 80210 MILLER THOMAS F 40% 227 COTTONWOOD LN ASPEN, CO 81611 PATTERSON KAREN 8 CHARLES 129 MAPLE LN ASPEN, CO 81614 METCALF F MEAD PO BOX 32 ASPEN, CO 81612 NICHOLS GARY T 8 LUCINDA C PO BOX 8116 ASPEN, CO 81812 i PERKINS WENDY PO BOX 9825 i .ASPEN, CO 81612 PETERSON ANNE BYARD PffCHFORD BARBARA REYNOLDS THOMAS S t ANNE PETERSON RICHAROS BYARD 980 GIBBON AVE 228 COTTONWOOD LN r GO ASPEN, CO 81811-2173 1 ASPEN, CO 81811 880 GIBBON AVE \ ASPEN, CO 81611-2112 RICKENBAUGH ANNE RUGGIERI LISA ANN RYAN MARTHA PO BOX 2342 136 MAPLE LN 127 MAPLE LN ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAGAL PATRICK SCHLUNDT SUSAN SHEEBERAIMEE 104 ASPEN VILLAGE 326 OAK LN KNIGHT ERIC B ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 10845 , ASPEN, CO 81612 SMALLS RAY SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB SNOW ORCHID LLC PO BOX 3197 GO SUE COOK ~ BOX 8788 1125 SAN MATEO DR ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81812 MENLO PARK, CA 94025 STOOPS CAROL L 8 ROBERT A TEUSCHER JONATHAN W TOLAND RAY 4301 BERRY FARM RD 12B MAPLE LN PO BOX 10478 NORMAN, OK 73072 ASPEN, CO 81611 i ASP.EN, CO 81612 VAN METER FAMILY LIVING TRUST VANHOY DONNA 8 JERRY VON RENKL KALLEN 1352 BAY ST 323 OAK LN 221 COTTONWOOD LN ALAMEDA, CA 94501 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 Impression 8 sEd~age rapids et a ~ !An /S6rE~O UINRClRR 8160'K ~~ 1 ~y ~e TEMPLATE 51600 WAGAR RICH 533 E HOPKINS #101A ASPEN, CO 81811-2937 WALDRON K BRENT COATES REID & WALDRON GO 720 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81811 WARMING SOLVEIG PO BOX 5177 ASPEN, CO 81812 ZIRBEL NANCY PO BOX 8998 ASPEN, CO 81812 i~0 SKVKdS x.861 Ta.ttl~cc~ee~ t3L_.iP1 pAu.+~s, -rx np~E o~r/rE~s Q~iD(-~I(3S~'iN 14v~ {~~QErv ~GV g l~l ~ 3$ a ~: r ~ u~ __ { f ~ :5~ ~~ ~ r : ~~ ~_i 4 ~' 4. s ` • ,~ ~ :~~~ rye... ~". _ 1 , ~; . F ~"'~' -'.`~~ °' P ~;. +&; e ~, s e ~; ~ . si `~~` ! ~ ~"• ~-, u~„ ~ „~ } ~~ «:: f `~w _ +~_Y~ ~,~f,: ~_.~, z' . _ Y :~ 4. :: A +, . , i ~~ :y's".'. r . .' ~~. ` ' , !'~ + ~ _ -. a _ - _ ~ - $' ~~.c,,~~ ! ~;-~ ~~a. ~~, :~ . :, .~_ ea.~ ~, ~ ~ ~. +4 ': ti~ t~~• Y6 ~y~lfr ~• 4} ,~~ t l <^ q ~ Peter and Christine Dodazo 920 Matchless Drive Aspen, Co. 81611 970-544-3784 Deaz Neighbor, January 12, 2006 This letter is to inform you of our decision to abandon the well located at Alpine Acres subdivision, Lot 5, Unit 1. We have plans to build in spring of 2006, but the existing well is located in the center of our properly and interferes with our overall building plans, thus we need your signature to abandon the well. Please sign and have your signature notarized (notary available in City Hall) and return this agreement to us by January 25, 2006. If you have any questions regazding this matter, please feel free to contact us or our architect, Kim Raymond at 970-925-2252. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Peter and Christine Dodazo Brent Waldron 1040 Matchless Dr Unit # 1 Agree to abandon well located at Alpine Acres -a h~~ 3 ~- ~~~;~- a ~~ 11 ~ ~ `f Subdivision, Lot 5, Unit 1, 930 Matchless Drive Aspen, Co. 81611 b V N~ '•. ~~ :A~B F F ~F... ~ ~~/Q^ .- ~... January 12, 2006 Peter and Christine Dodazo 920 Matchless Drive Aspen, Co. 81611 970-544-3784 Deaz Neighbor, l ~ ~ C7 ~ Y~5 c~/~I ~~~~ ~) This letter is to inform you of our decision to abandon the well located at Alpine Acres subdivision, Lot 5, Unit 1. We have plans to build in spring of 2006, but the existing well is located in the center of our property and interferes with our overall building plans, thus we need your signature to abandon the well. Please sign and have your signature notarized (notary available in City Hall) and return this agreement to us by January 25, 2006. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact us or our azchitect, Kim Raymond at 970-925-2252. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. ~~~.~, Peter and-C~h-ris~t"ire Dodaro vRN,r,~~r,~t~ru~t ~~~~~ 3~~,~y~tx.~:~) ggo,r~aTeH~.~rs~ art L~ Agree to abandon well located at Alpine Acres Subdivision, Lot : Aspen, Co. 81611 State of California County of Alameda Subscribed and sworn to (c me on this 1$'~" day of_ ;7GpHGnl~1 A n~ Ma orally known ro me or s of satisfactory eviden appeared be ore me. lahu~c JURAT affirmed) before qrV 20 Olo czn-+t SW I~Ry; roved to me on th MURSHAD BOBBYKHAN a COMM. # 1484931 W NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA ~ ALAMEDA COUNTY M Comm. Expires A ri120 2008 ~~ Peter and Christine Dodaro 930 Matchless Drive Aspen, CO 81611 1/12/06 RE: Alpine Acres Subdivision, abandonment of well Dear Neighbor, . , As you may know, we have been working on the master plan for our property located at 920 and 930 Matchless Drive. The process has involved planning sessions, meetings and site visits with members of the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning and we move next to the City Council. The last hurdle we need to make is the abandonment of the well that is located just behind our house at 930 Matchless Drive. The location of this well makes an addition to our house virtually impossible. As part of the Subdivision, your signature is required for the abandonment to be completed. Please take this letter and have your signature notarized on the lines provided below, date it and send it back to us. We can come by and pick it up if that would be easier for you. We need to have these signatures to the city before the end of the month. We really appreciate your help in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at 544-3784 or contact our Architect, Kim Raymond at 925-2252. Thank you. Sincere) THOMAS TRAN THAI y, Notary Public -Minnesota /~ ~~ t~/~ ,1~~~~~ My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2070 _ I ~ ~ l2A Pete and Christine Dodaro ~~~,~~~~ >~:~„~ t _.L ~ I, the undersigned, agree to abandon the well located at 930 Matchless Drive, loca~ the Alpine Acres Subdivision, Aspen, CO. r ~_~ /~23~v~ Signature Date Signature Date ,.~ -,. Peter and Christine Dodaro 930 Matchless Drive Aspen, CO 81611 1/12/06 RE: Alpine Acres Subdivision, abandonment of well Dear Neighbor, .. As you may know, we have been working on the master plan for our property located at 920 and 930 Matchless Drive. The process has involved planning sessions, meetings and site visits with members of the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning and we move next to the City Council. The last hurdle we need to make is the abandonment of the well that is located just behind our house at 930 Matchless Drive. The location of this well makes an addition to our house virtually impossible. As part of the Subdivision, your signature is required for the abandonment to be completed. Please take this letter and have your signature notarized on the lines provided below, date it and send it back to us. We can come by and pick it up if that would be easier for you. We need to have these signatures to the city before the end of the month. We really appreciate your help in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at 544-3784 or contact our Architect, Kim Raymond at 925-2252. Thank you. Sincerely, ~~~~.~~~ ~~` t--~E ~ Pete and Christine Dodaro I, the undersigned, agree to abandon the well located at 930 Matchless Drive, located in the Alpine Acres Subdivision, Aspen, CO. Si ature Date ly~~o- /j~s/y~ Signature Date State of~,t.ounty of " Signed before me on thiss~° -daY ~Y Notary P Il ~a ~.~~. Peter and Christine Dodaro 930 Matchless Drive Aspen, CO 81611 1/12/06 RE: Alpine Acres Subdivision, abandonment of well Dear Neighbor, .. w~ ~~~~~ As you may know, we have been working on the master plan for our property located at 920 and 930 Matchless Drive. The process has involved planning sessions, meetings and site visits with members of the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning and we move next to the City Council. The last hurdle we need to make is the abandonment of the well that is located just behind our house at 930 Matchless Drive. The location of this well makes an addition to our house virtually impossible. As part of the Subdivision, your signature is required for the abandonment to be completed. Please take this letter and have your signature notarized on the lines provided below, date it and send it back to us. We can come by and pick it up if that would be easier for you. We need to have these signatures to the city before the end of the month. We really appreciate your help in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at 544-3784 or contact our Architect, Kim Raymond at 925-2252. Thank you. Sincerely ~ ~~~, P~~~... Pete and Christine Dodaro I, the undersigned, agree to abandon the well located at 930 Matchless Drive, IgCated in thg./~11p~e Acres Subdivision, Aspen, GO. /~~ 8~7,~°9 I a$/0 !~ r Peter and Christine Dodaro 930 Matchless Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Aga ~ t~~cx+~ ~ ~ X73 ~ o7y o ~.o0 3~ ~5o nnv+rc~t~.ESS ~,~ (,~rce 1 /12/06 RE: Alpine Acres Subdivision, abandonment of well Dear Neighbor, As you may know, we have been working on the master plan for our property located at 920 and 930 Matchless Drive. The process has involved planning sessions, meetings and site visits with members of the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning and we move next to the City Council. The last hurdle we need to make is the abandonment of the well that is located just behind our house at 930 Matchless Drive. The location of this well makes an addition to our house virtually impossible. As part of the Subdivision, your signature is required for the abandonment to be completed. Please take this letter and have your signature notarized on the lines provided below, date it and send it back to us. We can come by and pick it up if that would be easier for you. We need to have these signatures to the city before the end of the month. We really appreciate your help in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at 544-3784 or contact our Architect, Kim Raymond at 925-2252. Thank you. cer ca,..,~ Pete and Christine Dodaro ~i ~ ~'1~-~~55 ~a2-~~ tZ7~ c7Z~u~'., ~~~ ~~~ I, the undersigned, agree to abandon the well located at 930 Matchless Drive, to ated in the Alpine Acres Subdivision, Aspen, CO. ~ - z5 - d~ ~ -w - _-- ~-=--~ Signature Date I~'ji-"~' '" ~~~'' ' ~''`~" t~ ` Y Signature Date ~T~".,f~ V` __, _, before me on Noteq- Feb 15 06 02: 03p.~- Peter Dodaro 970-5% '4 p.l January 12, 2006 Peter and Christine Dodaro 920 Matchless Drive Aspen, Co. 81611 970-54A-3784 Dear Neighbor, This letter is to inform you of our decision to abandon the we111ocated at Alpine Acres subdivision, Lot 5, Unit 1. We have plans to build in spring of 2006, but the existing well is located in the center of our property and interferes with our overall building plans, thus we need your signature to abandon the well. Please sign and have your signature notarized (notary available in City Hall) and return this agreement to us by January 25, 2006. If you have any ques5ons regarding this matter, please, feel free to contact us or our architect, Kim Raymond at 970-925-2252. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Peter and Christine Dodaro 1~1D1LI.C °IFto Gi~SaN/~'/~-. Agree to abandon well located at Alpine Acres ' Subdivisioq Lot 5, Unit Matchless Aspen,Co.8i61 ._ /~~y/'; ~~~~ ~~~ a~~~~~ ~ -.T}-.,. ° D ~~p: Poo .a Arco ~i'~'0 ~ ~~"~ r L.,, Peter and Christine Dodazo 920 Matchless Drive Aspen, Co. 81611 970-544-3784 ~.. February 15, 2006 Deaz Neighbor, This letter is to inform you of our decision to abandon the well located at Alpine Acres subdivision, Lot 5, Unit 1. We have plans to build in spring of 2006, but the existing well is located in the center of our property and interferes with our overall building plans, thus we need your signature to abandon the well. Please sign and have your signature notarized (notary available in City Hall) and return this agreement to us by Febrnary 20th, 2006. If you have any questions regazding this matter, please feel free to contact us or our architect, Kim Raymond at 970-925-2252. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Pete and Cahn a Dodam Neil Hight 8c Kathryn Sewell 1040 Matchless Dr # 3 Agree to abandon well located at Alpine Acres Subdivision, Lot 5, `,r," ~ . ~~o;~~~an~~~ _+~,~e~ 'pi .~ I/.V 10 's~N 1\'1~ ' Aspen, Co. 81611 ~a~~o~-~I-t I c~1 On this 17th day of ebruary, 2006 appeared I Sewell and Neil Hight, `' ~;s~ both known to me nd who signed the above statement. My commis ' expires: 3/29/06 NOTARY P~JBLIC v Gail Huser, 520 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO ,.._ 1.,.. Peter and Christine Dodazo 920 Matchless Drive Aspen, Co. 81611 970-544-3784 Deaz Neighbor, .- Febniary 15, 2006 This letter is to inform you of our decision to abandon the well located at Alpine Acres subdivision, Lot 5, Unit 1. We have plans to build in spring of 2006, but the existing well is located in the center of our property and interferes with our overall building plans, thus we need your signature to abandon the well. Please sign and have your signature notarized (notary available in City Hall) and return this agreement to us by February 20th, 2006. If you have any questions regazding this matter, please feel free to contact us or our azchitect, Kim Raymond at 970-925-2252. Thank you for your time and consideration in this ma/~'er~`. ~ /~ Peter and ChnsUne Dodam ~~~ Krystina Crreenwood 1Matchless Dr #2 Agree to abandon well located at Alpine Acres Subdivision, Lot 5, Unit I, 930 Matchless Drive Aspen, Co. 81611 ~~ U~hJ~- Uf 4[2 P`~ ~~ ~ ~~'~ QP~'~ SET T •~G COLOAP ~••• eLiG••: o Vhi~CDlnlrrn~~SSrD~t~'~(p~/'es Ill)'/d ~~%~~~'~7~~ ~~~ ~~~3~ Mar 08 06 02:24p Pe ~ Dodaro 970-' „"-3784 ..o March 08,2006 Peter and Christine Dodaro 920 Matchless Drive Aspen, Co. 81611 970-544-3784 Deaz Neighbor, This letter is to inform you of our decision to abandon the well located at Alpine Acres subdivision, Lot 5, Unit 1. We have plans to build in spring of 2006, but the existing well is located in the center of our property and interferes with our overall building plans, thus we need your signature to abandon the well. Please sign and have your signature notarized (notary available in City Hall) and return this agreement to us by March 10, 2006. If you have any questions regazding this matter, please feel free to contact us or our azchitect, Kim Raymond at 970-925-2252. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. p.l ~ D~k ~ N~~c,~C,<~~ ~ ~L+ Peter and Christine Dodazo ~~ ~~ ~~~ I I(~ Barbara Carson 1040 Matchless Dr Unit # 4 Agree to abandon well located at Alpine Acres Subdivision, Lot 5, Un(it~1,,930 Matchless Drive Aspen, Co. 81611 J~-~ ~'h ~ ~-~' ~~`~~~ 1„ttt8 V'.~ ^ , htokary f'~,G~eO IiBP'~7 1-~aPll ao e~ e~Q D~~IS ~~~ `-' faurroD' p~ to e1g1S ~,+ ~tplyd3 1a1l~4l~OG7 ~t1e4oN w -o ,~, w r~ w r~ a ~ ~ w ~ m o o o ~ ~ °' ~ frl Crl M ~ fh O ~ ~ U] 7. M N O ~ U .~. O ~ cN ~ ~' ~ ..~. aQ w ~ i ~ ~ M w ~ v i ~ ~ ~ o `^ w ~ N o 0 0 ~ ~ ~ M M ~ rrl ~„~ O O O O ~ w ~ w ~ w ° ~ ~ 'o ° ~ ~ -a N •o ~ '~ ~~ o r~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ~ ° '~ ~: ~ o O o O w ~ ~ O .~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ N y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i 'd . ~ ~ ~ v O O . ~ j;, ~ r. l y a 0. y a G1. 'O p ~ o ~ ~ ~ w w N A. ~ ~ C /] C /] ~ V] V] N ~ .~ k C% w ~ .~ N ~, O O ,-• O C4 00 cC a~ N O V1 O ~ V1 l0 s.. O O N~ 7 y, a 'O GL b ~ ~ - ~o V 7 m frl w ~ . .. ¢, w o M~ ~, 0o as o Iw o Iw o 9D 4° ~°~' m ~ ~ °o -o ~ .-. -ti -. ~ o ~? r~ o ~ v~ o ~" ~,, o ;~ '. O.-~ c C: Q ~ ~ N ~ N N N M Vl 'O O~ y ~ ~ ~ , ° z Z Z ~ 3 . ~a ' e Q ~ ~ ~ ev ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ rn z ~ ~' : '. a r. ~i .~ °: ~ v .. w o ~~ o •~ N ~ ' ~ O ~ i ~ ~ c-o N ~ ~ v N ~ ~ ~, '~_ - U. Y •--~ ,! ~• o O O o w ~ Vi o .~ rn CG r. ~ y CG O ~ ' ~ ~ O ~ ~ L. ' ~ ,~ ~ I~ ~ in O O O y ~ . a ~ a ~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ .r ~ ~ Lr ~ ~ Ul ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ti Q~ w X b w ~.. o o ~, v~ oo ~ ~ ~ ° ' ~ w ~ II ~ ~ .-. ~. 0 O 0 v'1 O 0o vi c~ 01 .~ ~ ,.-. ~ O O N~ M cd ~ N ~" ~ ~O 7 ~ V fr1 a Ti L~. ~ ~ ~. M ~ O O +~r s. y ~ N N N ~ ~ ~ O ~ N ~ , y ~ 3 ~ ~ 0 °' o~ oa G 3 -~ y " y Y ~ O ~ N O Y y O ~ O o ° 0 a 0 a c ~ O a ~ w Q~ ~ w o o w Q a a ~' ~ on ~ ~ p„^ p~w p~ w _~ °: '~ cc ° ° ~ ~ r i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ o o o .. - ~ ~(~ ~ ~w° ~ ~wco dw ~ Z~ b O O N H 0 0 w >~ ~: q t~ J ~ UJ .~ ~~ ~. ,.. ~~ MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Developme~nt7Deputy Director FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Long Range Planner/ RE: Dodaro Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Amendment (920 & 930 Matchless Drive) Resolution 2006 -~ -Public Hearing MEETING DATE: February 28, 2006 APPLICANT/OWNER: Christine Dodaro, Peter Dodaro, and Shirley Peterson, Trustee -Shirley H. Peterson Living Trust REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Raymond, Kim Raymond Architects LOCATION: 920/930 Matchless Drive, Condominium Unit 1 and 2, Alpine Acres Townhouse Condominiums No.S (formerly known as Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision) CURRENT ZONING & USE Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district with a Planned Unit Development Overlay, consisting of two detached residential dwellings on the lot. Both structures are Historic Landmazk Properties. PROPOSED LAND USE: 920 Matchless is proposed to accommodate two detached residential dwellings, while 930 Matcless is proposed to accommodate a detached residential dwelling and accessory dwelling unit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. SUMMARY: The Applicants request Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Amendment to subdivide the one lot into two and set the minimum or maximum dimensional requirements. PHOTO: 920 Matchless Drive PHOTO: 930 Matchless Drive PxoTO: 920/930 Matchless Drive ~ ,.., '. LAND USE REQUESTS: The Applicants have asked the Community Development Director to combine the review procedm~es for the multiple land use requests (Land Use Code (LUC) Section 26.304.060 B.l., Combined Reviews). Also, the Applicants aze requesting to consolidate Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development (LUC Section 26.445.030 B.2., Consolidated Conceptual and Final Review). Staff believes that the combination of reviews will reduce duplication in the amount of review time and will ensure the clarity of the final decision. Therefore, the Community Development Director has allowed for the combining of reviews and atwo-step consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD) process on this particulaz proposal. The Applicants are requesting the following land use approvals for the site: • Subdivision for the division of land into two or more lots pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Planned Unit Development Amendment to establish the minimum or maximum Dimensional Requirements for the minimum side yard setback, minimum front yard setback, and the maximum Allowable Floor Area for each lot pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development. (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicants have requested approval to subdivide the existing lot into two lots (Lot SA - 930 Matchless and Lot SB - 920 Matchless) so that each existing detached dwelling is located upon its own lot. Both buildings are designated Historic Landmarks and as such are allowed certain reduced dimensional standards in the underlying Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district for minimum lot size, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum lot width. Lot SA (930 Matchless) is proposed as an 8,636.5 SF lot to be developed with an addition to the existing residence and a detached garage with a voluntary accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above the garage. Any development involving designated historic property requires review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The design of the addition to the existing residence and the detached garage/ADU building has been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission with recommendations for granting variances to the minimum required side yards. Dimensional variances from the underlying zone district should be set through the PUD Amendment. Additionally, the HPC granted a 500 SF floor area bonus for an "outstanding preservation effort" for 930 Matchless which may or may not be necessary to apply on proposed Lot SA. Lot SB (920 Matchless) is proposed as a 7,756.7 SF lot containing the existing residence and be developed in the future with a second detached residence. The following table compares the proposed development dimensions with the dimensional requirements of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district: Page 2 of 8 ~,. r core r: ~.om arrson or rro o sea vs. xegmrea r~rmensronat xe urrements ..~~'~13.. ~ ~'4~Y3' - ~3.~ ,~"5 ,~q ~~:Pa'~.-,~-'~~aw.j ~ ~'~~~5'.~~a1L~+R'fl(~I1~YI1".tS y~~ ~% ' ~ ~' ~~--yµ~.~~v~c. '~4 r S.1ii'yl' "' .~,~4 k -~ -r- ~. € l '~ ~ ~ C ~ '~ ~ • '¢ e- S siti ,.°' ,ti's ~, rte, ~ x ~ f" ~ t # a ~ 3 , ` ' f ~ . c, q t5 ~'+~F ~ t 7` 5... ~ r k.ut 2 4 c t ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~~ E ~'~' LA.g: n r vj~ ~~l~~ aiSF 2~H t~ i~ '/q9 w ~~ t ~. ~ m~ '~~ ~ '*~~'~ 4 BSI d~ :4A i~~ha M~ ~ } , ' M ~I j~ ~ ..° T f v`{a ~ ~ ~ eC~ i ~~myR ~ ~ Minimum Lot 8,636.5 SF 7,756.7 SF 3 000 SF Size Minimum Lot 52 Feet 31.85 Feet 30 Feet Width - Mimmum Lot 8,636.5 SF 3,878.35 SF 3,000 SF Area/Dwelling Minimum Front 23:8_ Feet 23.6 Feet 25 Feet Yard Setback Minimum Side A miiumuiim;. i'A r~rinimum Lot SA Lot SB Yard Setback of 2.5 Feet ! 0#'3.92 Fee# Min. Side Yard: 10 Feet Min. Side Yard: 5 Feet Total Side Yards3: 28.18 Total Side Yazds3: NA Minimum Rear 10 Feet and 10 Feet and 10 Feet -Principal bldg. Yard Setback 5 Feet 5 Feet 5 Feet -Accessory bldg. Maximum Height 25 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet Floor Area Ratio 3,669 SF ~ 3,485.9 SF A maximum of 2,486 SF per dwelling unit (FAR) ~ ? / ~ ~~ Minimum Off- 3 Spaces 4 Spaces Residential -Single-family and duplex: lesser of Street Parking (2 for free (2 each for one space per bedroom or two spaces per unit market unit free market Residential - Accessory Dwelling Units and & 1 for units) Carriage Houses: One space per unit ADU) Notes: Shaded blocks indicate a difference from the underlying zone district or Ordinance 35 (Series 1987) and where the PUD Amendment would allow deviation, if approved 1 -For Historic Landmark Properties. 2 -Conditions imposed upon the property by ordinance 1987-35. 3 -The R-6 zone district requires a total side yard setback of both side yards in addition to a minimum for each. Additionally, two detached residential units on one lot (as proposed for Lot SB) aze not required to meet the total side yard setback, provided there is a minimum often (10) feet between the two detached buildings. 4 -Total floor area for multiple detached dwelling units on a lot less than nine-thousaz~d square feet listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling. History of Alpine Acres Subdivision and the effect of Ordinance 1987- 35 To better inform the Commission of the land use history on the subject property, the following summary is provided: • The City annexes Alpine Acres Subdivision, Block 1, Lots 1-5 in 1976 (Ordinance 33). Three of the lots (1, 4, & 5) have a duplex building on them. Both Lots 4 and 5 have two small Victorians on each lot that are connected by a garage, therefore considered a Page 3 of 8 ,.> ,~., duplex. Two lots aze unimproved (Lots 2 & 3). Ordinance 1976-69 zones the armexed land Moderate-Density Residential (R-15). • As part of the annexation, a domestic well is conveyed to the city that serves Lots 1, 4, and 5 as part of an annexation agreement. The agreement allows the lots within the subdivision to use the well water for irrigation/decorative purposes once Lots 1, 4, and 5 eotmect to city water. The well is currently located on Lot 5 and due to its close proximity to the proposed addition to 930 Matchless, is proposed to be abandoned or relocated. • In 1977 Lots I, 4, and 5 are condominiumized. • In 1986, the owners of condominiumized Lot 4 (Bishop & Dunn) which contains two detached residential buildings, submit a request for subdivision exemption for a lot split to subdivide Lot 4 into two sepazate lots. During review of the application Staff determines that there is a clerical error on the Official Zone District Map as Alpine Acres Subdivision is shown as Medium-Density Residential (R-6) rather than Moderate- Density Residential (R-15), as it was originally zoned. The minimmn lot size requirement in 1986 for a R-15 zone district does not allow Lot 4 to be subdivided into two lots. As a result, all of the lot owners in Alpine Acres apply for rezoning to R-6 and Lot 4 requests a iot split. The property owners within the subdivision propose a voluntary allowable floor area cap of 2,500 per dwelling unit, which is similar to the per dwelling unit allowance for a duplex in the R-15 zone district for the existing lot sizes within Alpine Acres. The cumber is negotiated to a maximum of 2,486 SF in Ordinance 35 (series 1987). In conjunction with the rezoning of the property from Moderate-Density Residential (R- 15) to Medium-Density Residential (R-6), a PUD overlay is placed upon Lots 4 and 5 which sets the minimum front yard setback for Lot 4 (subsequently Lot 4A and 4B) and Lot 5 at twenty-five (25) feet. The PUD overlay also sets the minimum lot width for Lots 4A and 4B. • In 2002, a PUD Amendment is submitted by the owner of Lot 4A to allow his property to be eligible fora 500 SF floor area bonus for an outstanding preservation effort. The amendment is approved which allows Lot 4A a maximum floor azea of 2,986 SF. In order to create the two lots as proposed by the Applicants, the PUD needs to be amended in the following ways: 1) The minimum setbacks for the side yards will need to be allowed to be less than what is allowed in the R-6 zone district; and, 2) The existing PUD minimum front yard setback should be amended to accommodate the existing location of both historic structures; and, 3) The PUD will need to allow the floor area to be calculated using the underlying (R-6) zone district stazldards; and, Page 4 of 8 . -, 4) Finally, with the future development of Lot SB, the Applicants would like to request that the PUD ordinance allow for the HPC to grant any necessary variances from required minimum setbacks or pazking standards and to have the ability to allow Lot SB to be eligible fora 500 SF floor area bonus if the future development proposal is deemed an outstanding preservation effort by the HPC in the future. STAFF COMMENTS: SUBDIVISION: The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval to create two lots (Lots SA and Lot SB) from one lot (Lot 5) which requires approval of subdivision. In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Review Standards. Staff feels that the proposal is consistent with the infill development Qoals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). PUD Amendment: A Planned Unit Development is a process in which a site specific development plan is created which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of the land and promotes objectives outlined in the LUC and goals of the AACP by allowing the variation of the underlying zone district's di~..ensional requirements. The parcel currently exists w2'dr a PUD overlay, however, based upon the new development proposal the PUD must be amended and dimensional requirements established. The applicant is requesting that minimum setbacks and allowable floor azea be varied. _ Minimum Setbacks: The Applicants have requested to reduce the minimum side yard setback requirement for proposed lot SA and SB. Due to the existing location of the two residences, an amendment to the required minimum front yard setback should also be considered. Based upon the proposed lot size, the underlying zoning requires Lot SA (930 Matchless) to have a minimum side yard setback of ten 10 feet and a combined setback of 28.18 feet. Both the proposed addition to the single-family residence and the new detached gazage/ADU have been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the HPC is recommending approval of the reduced setbacks. As approved by the HPC, the single-family residence requires a 2'- 6" minimum setback from the proposed west property line and a minimum combined setback of 17'-7". The detached garage/ADU requires a S- 4" minimum setback from the proposed west property line and a 6'-2" minimum setback from the east property line. A combined minimum setback of 11'-7" is necessayy for the gazage/ADU. Additionally, the existing PUD overlay requires a minimum front yard setback of twenty-five feet rather than ten feet as allowed by the underlying zone district. The present building sits at 23.8'. Lot SB (920 Matchless) requires a minimum side Yazd setback of five (5) feet, based upon the proposed lot size, but will not require a combined setback if developed with two detached residential dwellings as long as the buildings are a minimum of ten feet apart. The existing structure is proposed to be 3-11" from the proposed property line. The current PUD overlay requires a minimum fiont yard setback of twenty-five feet which is not met by the existing structure which sits at 21.6'. Page 5 of 8 Sta eels that the historic desi nation o both existin buildin s ahd the re wired review and approval of any exterior alterations by the Historic Preservation Commission to maintain the historic integrity of the property warrants the rantin~of the proposed setbacks and any future setback variances er'anted by the HPC Allowable Floor Area As noted previously, Ordinance 35 (series 1987) restricts the floor area allowed per dwelling unit in the subdivision. The ordinance states that, "Each Dwelling Unit in Alpine Acres shall be restricted to a maximum countable floor area of 2, 486 square feet. " It is Staffls interpretation that the language in the ordinance imposes a maximum floor azea of 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit. When determining the floor area, i#'the calculated floor area is less than 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit, the floor azea allowed would be the lesser number. If, in calculating the floor area, the number is greater than 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit, the allowable floor area would be capped at 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit. The Applicants are requesting that the Plazming and Zoning Commission recommend the allowable floor area be in conformance with the underlying Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district. There are a number of options that the Plamiing and Zoning Commission may consider in determining the allowable floor area for both lots. The two options are identified below: 1) The Comrission may determine that the allowable floor area voluntary cap included in the rezo:urg ordinance (1987-35) should contirce to run with Lhe land. In 1987, there :vas concern over the larger floor area that would be allowed with rezoning the property to R- 6 and its impact on the existing Victorians. The property owners at the time of the rezoning voluntarily offered and agreed to the cap. Under this scenario, Lot SA's allowable floor area for the single-family residence would Ue capped at 2,486 SF. The HPC approved design for the residential addition .and detached garage/ADU requires an allowable floor area of 2,986 SF. If the Commission recommends that Lot SA be limited to 2,486 SF of allowable floor area, the Applicants will need to secure the 500 SF floor area bonus granted by the HPC for Lot SA. Only one HPC bonus can be granted from a parent parcel. Lot SB (920 Matchless) is proposed to have two free market units on it at some point in the future. With a 7,756.7 SF lot, the underlying zoning would allow a floor area of 3,485.9 SF. 2) The Commission could determine that the proposed allowable. floor areas for the lots be determined by the underlying zone district requirements. In establishing the dimensional requirements of a PUD, Land Use Code Section 26.445.050 B. notes: "the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD." By .using the underlying zone district standards as a guide, the floor area allowed by the underlying zoning for Lot SA developed with the HPC approved single-family residence would be 3,609 SF. If the Applicants aze allowed to have a floor area that is in conformance with the R-6 zone district, it will not be necessary for them to ]and the 500 SF floor area bonus on Lot SA because the underlying floor area is 623 SF in excess of what is necessu-y to build the development plans that the HPC has approved. The excess floor area could be turned into transferable development rights. Page 6 of 8 Lot SB, with the two free market units would have an allowable floor area of 3,485.9 SF. As mentioned earlier, only one 500 SF bonus granted by the HPC is allowed for a designated property and/or fathering pazcel. If the Planning and Zoning Commission allows both lots to meet the underlying zone district standards with regard to allowable floor area, the one bonus could be available to Lot SB in the future. Staff recommends that the requirements of Ordinance 35 (series 1987) be maintained with regard to allowable floor area as all other properties within the Alpine Acres are subject to the oor_area cap. Lot SA would need to land the HPC floor area bonus to maximize the allowable floor area of the Zot to 2,986 SF allowing,for the development of the HPC approved addition. The floor area for Lot SB would be 3 485.9 SF. SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATIONS FEE: Given that the proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicants either dedicate lands for school function or pay acash-in-lieu payment. The Applicants have proposed to pay acash-in- lieu payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.630. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that the Applicants pay the School Lands Dedications fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed development PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE: A property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures is not required to pay a Park Development Impact Fee for additional bedrooms added to the site pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Department, and the Parlcs Departrnent have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is generally consistent with the goals of the AACP as well as the applicable review standards in the City's Land Use Code. Staff recommends supporting the minimum setback requests, but recommends that the allowable floor area meet the intent of Ordinance 35 (series 1987). Additionally staff recommends approval of landing the 500 SF HPC bonus on Lot SA. Any future development on Lot SB will necessitate review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff recommends allowing the HPC to grant any future setback and parking waivers as it deems appropriate. The proposed resolution is worded in the affirmative, reflecting a scenazio where all of the Applicants' requests (including the floor azea) aze granted. If the Commission were to deny any of the Applicants' requests, the resolution would of course be amended to reflect the actual approvals. By way of example, if the Commission were to deny the floor area request, the following changes would have to be made to the resolution: Page 7 of 8 1. Section 5 of the resolution would need to amend the allowable floor azea for Lot SB to read, "2,486 SF with the ability to land a 500 SF HPC floor azea bonus as granted by the HPC." 2. Section 5 of the resolution would need to amend the allowable floor area for Lot SA to read, "3,485.9 SF." RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE: "I move to approve Resolution No. ~, Series of 2006, granting a subdivision and Planned Unit Development Amendment approval, with conditions, for the creation of Lots SA and SB, and recommending that the City Council approve with conditions, the Dodazo Subdivision and PUD Amendment." ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A -Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT B -Referral Comments EXHIBIT C -Application ~~ IC~c,~ 6~~~ ~~ -~~~ Page 8 of 8 ~, .. RESOLUTION N0. ~i (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS THE DODARO SUBDIVISION (LOTS SA AND SB) AND CONSOLIDATED REVIEW OF THE PUD AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING DETACHED DWELLING AND VOLUNTARY GARAGE/ADU ON LOT 5A AND TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS ON LOT SB ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 920 AND 930 MATCHLESS DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-074-22-OI and 2737-074-22-02 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Christine Dodaro, Peter Dodazo, and Shirley Peterson, Trustee -Shirley H. Peterson Living Trust, represented by Kim Raymond, requesting a combined review and approval of Subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment, for the development of two lots, Lots SA and SB; and, WHEREAS, an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a new garage!ADU is proposed for Lot SA and a total of two detached dwelling units is proposed for Lot SB; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-6) with a PUD overlay; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission determined during the review of the application that the application was available for a combined review of the land use requests and a consolidated two-step review of the PUD Amendment; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 28, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application, and took public comment; and, WHEREAS, on February 28, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Conunission approved Resolution No. ~, Series of 2006, by a L-~ vote, recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the proposed subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment for the development of two lots with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a new garage/ADU is proposed for Lot SA (930 Matchless) and a total of two detached dwelling units is proposed for Lot SB (920 Matchless); 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 many of the applicable development standards and where the standazds are vazied, that the Page 1 of 6 r^ .,-~. 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 fmds that this resolution fiuthers 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 recommends that City Council approve with conditions the Dodaro Subdivision and consolidated PUD Amendment for the development of two lots with an addition to an existing detached residential dwelling unit and garage/ADU on Lot SA (930 Matchless Drive) and allowing an additional dwelling unit on Lot SB for a total of two detached dwelling units on Lot SB (920 Matchless Drive). Section 2: Plat and Agreement The Applicants shall record a subdivision/PUD plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval. The Applicant shall also enter into a sidewalk agreement to install a future sidewalk adjacent to Matchless Drive along the entire lot frontage if it is deemed appropriate by the City of Aspen to have a sidewalk in this location at some time in the future. Section 3: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage rmprovements. e. An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan, and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Enviromnental Health Department Page 2 of 6 iA a ~.b ~ g. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for review and approval by the City Engineer. h. The Applicants shall comply with Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 regarding the handling of any contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site prior to any excavation on and/or prior to the application for building permits on both lots. All soils on Lots SA and SB shall be considered contaminated unless determined otherwise through testing that adheres to the protocols that were established by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994. If, pursuant to said testing protocols, the soils are found to be uncontaminated, the following requirements shall not apply. However, to the extent that any contaminants are discovered, the following requirements shall apply: 1) All contaminated soils that are removed from the site shall be transported to the Pitkin County Landfill and disposed of at the Smuggler repository. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be temporarily stored above ground or remain on site shall be securely contained on and covered with anon-permeable tarp or other protected barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil and to prevent windblown dust from disturbed dirt. 2) The owner and general contractor of any development on Lots 1 and 2 of the South and Gibson Subdivision shall submit a letter to the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department stating that they have read, understood, and will comply with the regulations for handling contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site as set forth in Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 prior to any excavation and/or issuance of building permits for the property. 3) The owner shall complete a Soil Removal Permit and Affidavit for excavation prior to any excavation or disturbance of dirt and prior to any issuance of building permits for the properties. Section 4: Permitted Use of the Property As outlined in the Applicants' development application, Lot SA (930 Matchless) shall be developed with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling and a detached garage/ADU, the design having been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Lot SB (920 Matchless) will contain the existing detached residential dwelling and an additional detached residential dwelling for a total of two detached residential dwellings. The design and alteration of the existing building and new building or structures shall be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Section 5: Dimensional Requirements The redevelopment of the lots as presented will vary the dimensional requirements of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district. As a PUD Amendment, the dimensional requirements shall be set as follows: Page 3 of 6 .~- ,-~. Lot SA'-PUD.Damensiortal LotSB -PUD Ditnensional' Requirements Requirements (930 Matchless) (93.0 Matchless) Minimum Lot Size 3,000 SF 3,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 30 30 Feet Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling 3,000 SF 3,000 SF Minimum Front Yazd Setback 23.8 Feet 21.6 Feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 2.5 Feet from west property line 3.92 Feet from the east property 15 Feet from east property line line as along as existing structure is not demolished or if an HPC variance is granted 5 Feet from the west property line unless an HPC variance is granted Total Side Yazds 17.58 Feet NA - as long as there is ten feet between the two detached dwelling units Minimum Reaz Yard Setback 10 Feet -Principal Building 10 Feet -Principal Building 5 Feet-Accessory Building 5 Feet- Accessory Building (unless a waiver is granted by the HPC) Maximwn Height 25 Feet 25 Feet Allowable Floor Area 3,609 SF 3,485.9 SF with the ability to land a 500 SF HPC floor area bonus if granted by the Commission Section 6: Off- Street Parkine Requirements As part of the PUD Amendment the parking requirement for Lot SA shall meet the off-street parking requirement for the use of the property containing a detached dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit which requires three (3) off-street parking spaces. Lot SB shall meet the off-sheet pazking requirements for the use of the property, unless a parking waiver is permitted by the Historic Preservation Commission. Section 7: Eneineerint A CMP plan meeting the requirements of the City will be required as part of the approval process. Submission of this report should be before any building permit application to allow open discussion of phasing and traffic impacts. The Staff can provide a list of those CMP requirements inclusive of: construction traffic routing, erosion BMP's, soil stabilization, drainage impacts, and construction phasing plan for. use in development of that plan. Section 8: Fire Mitieation The Applicants shall install a fire sprinkler system and alazm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Mazshal if a building is over 5,000 square feet in area. Section 9: ~'Vater Deaartment Requirements Page 4 of 6 . ., ~.. ~ _ .~ Individual lots need separate services. If there is more than residence on a lot a common service agreement may be allowed. The Applicants shall vacate the city water well on Lot SA. Any development shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Mmiicipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. The City must be presented an option acceptable to the State and City by the Applicants prior to the existing well on Lot SA being abandoned or relocated. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Old service line connections must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to ACSD requirements. 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. It is recommended that the old 6" clay sanitary sewer service line be replaced by a new 8" PVC main line with two manholes, thereby allowing 920, 930, 940, and 950 to have their own service line tied directly into a district maintained sewer line. Section 11: Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 12: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicants shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicants shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 13: Park Develonment Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.420.020 may be waived. B.4, Waiver of Fees, the Park Dedication Fees Section 14: Parks An approved tree removal permit is required prior to submitting the building permit The Parks Department sign off will be contingent on the approved tree permit. A detailed tree protection plan is required as part of the building permit set and should include fence details and fence locations as well as the following language, "A construction fence shall be installed at the drip line of each individual or grouping of trees remaining on site. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and foot or vehicle traffic will be allowed within the tree protection fence. Contact the City of Aspen Parks Department for Page 5 of 6 ~--. inspection of the fence, 920-5120 before any construction activities commence. After inspection and approval of the fence location the fence cannot be moved or removed without permission from the Parks Department or until the project receives the Certificate of Occupancy." Utility connections need to be designed in a manner that does not encroach .into the tree protection zones. Root Pruning: The Applicants will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on call in order to address all roots greater than 1.5 inches in diameter. Root trenching will be required aromid all trees with excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. Section 15: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicants pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Platming 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 16: Tlus 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, a;.d the same shall be conducted and concluded ander such prior ordinances. Section 17: 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 jwisdiction, 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 28th day of February, 2006. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair Page 6 of 6 .,., ~; Exhibit A SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Findine The future land use map in the AACP shows this property to be residential. The proposed use is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. Applicable policies and goals of the AACP that the subdivision meets are: locating residential development within the city boundaries and locating development close to the commercial core and transit stops. Additionally, the historic resources will be rehabilitated Stafffznds this criterion to be met. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Findin¢ There are many residential uses within the area including mobile homes, single family residences, duplex residences, and multi family residential development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding As the application indicates, the surrounding properties are close to fully developed All development associated with this application is internal to the site and will not encroach onto the public right-of--way or adjacent properties. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the .future development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Sta Finding The proposed development is in compliance with the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district requirements and meets all other land use regulation except for where the Applicants are requesting to vary from a standard Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other ~~ condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding Staff believes that the property is suitable for subdivision. The site contains no steep topography and no known geologic hazards that nsay harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed development. However, there may be- contaminated soils and the resolution requires mitigation if contaminated soils ate found In addition, Staff believes that there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for-the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Pian, the existing, neighboring development areas, andior the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Sta ff Finding The Applicants have consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to Section 26.580. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision. which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding The Applicants are not providing replacement dwellings units and are not subject to the Replacement Housing Program. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable to the proposal. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding Th.e proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicants have proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing 2 land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Thus, staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, § 2) Sta Finding The Applicants' project, as proposed, is exempt from GMQS. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS In accordance with Section 26.445.030(2) of the Land Use Code, due to the limited extent of the issues involved, the Applicazit has requested a consolidated conceptual/final PUD. This two-step process consolidates the conceptual and final development plan reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, with public hearings occurring at both. Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD outlines that a development application shall comply with the following review standards A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staf{Finding The future Zand use map in the AACP shows this property to be residential. The proposed use is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. Applicable policies and goals of the AACP that the development meets are: locating residential development within the city boundaries and locating development close to the commercial core and transit stops. Additionally, historic resources will be rehabilitated as the lots are redeveloped. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. StaffFindinQ There are many residential uses within the area including mobile homes, single family residences, duplex residences, and multi-jamfrly residential development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The. proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Sta ff Finding As the application indicates, the surrounding properties are close to fully developed. All development associated with this application is internal to the site and will not encroach onto the public right-of-way or adjacent properties. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding The Applicants' project, as proposed, is exempt from GMQS Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of-the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding The proposed dimensional requirements, with regard to proposed setbacks, complement and help maintain the integrity of the historic structures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. StaffFindinQ Staff believes the massing and scale of the proposal on 930 Matchless is appropriate for the site and the historic resource since it has received approval by the HPC. Any future development of 920 Matchless will need to be reviewed for a Certificate of Appropriateness which imill create a scale and massing appropriate to the neighborhood and thehistoric resource. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: 4 ,, 3. a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Findin¢ Proposed Lot SA (930 Matchless) meets the underlying zone district requirements with regard to off-street parking. The development of an additional residence has not been designed and is expected to meet the off-street parking requirements unless granted a waiver by the HPC. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Sta Findin Staff believes that sufficient infrastructure capabilities exist to accommodate the proposed development. The adjacent public right-of--way on Matchless Drive and the access easement at. the rear of the lots are sufficient to accommodate the required fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance for the proposed development. The City of Aspen Fire Marshal, Utilities Director, and a representative from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District have reviewed the proposal and have proposed conditions of approval to mitigate for arty insufficiencies. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding 5 s^ Staff believes that the site is suitable for development and that this criterion is not applicable to the subject application. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) .The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Sta( Finding The Applicants are not requesting an increase in allowable density. Staff believes that the site is suitable _for development and that this criterion is not applicable to the subject application. B. Site Design: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding Both existing structures on the property are designated historic landmarks. Any new structures, additions, or alterafions are required to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) which will ensure the integrity of the existing structures. The proposed setback variations, recommended by the HPC, will also contribute to maintaining the integrity and setting of the historic structures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding As infill development, there are no signiftcant open spaces to be preserved. However, any placement of buildings have, or will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission to preserve the integrdty of the historic resources. Staffftnds this criterion to be met. 6 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. StaffFindinQ The existing historic resources are appropriately oriented towards Matchless Drive. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. StaffFindinQ Staff believes that the proposal is appropriately arranged in a manner that allows for emergency vehicles to easily access the site. The site is served by both a public rights-of--way (Matchless and Heron Drive) and an access easement that acts like a service alley at the rear of the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Sta fFlndinQ The Applicants have proposed to provide units that ,meet the building department's accessibility requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding The Applicants will be required to submit a site drainage plan that was prepared by a licensed engineer. The proposed development shall not increase historic flows of the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately de- signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Sta fFZndinQ The Applicants are not proposing to construct any non-residential structures on the site. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. C. Landscape Plan: The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. StaffFindinQ .-. The Applicants are proposing to maintain the sign cant trees that exist on the property. The Applicants shall submit a landscaping plan for review by the Parks Department with regard to tree protection, removal and planting prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding Mature trees are required to be preserved The historic resources will be preserved and any future development must be designed in a way to maintain the integrity of the resources. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding The Applicants have proposed and are required to provide tree protection fencing around the drip line of any tree that is to be preserved on-site. Additionally, no construction activity or storage of construction materials shall be allowed within the drip Zine of any trees to be preserved en the site. Staffjvnds this criterion to be met. D. Architectural Character: It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: I. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Sta Findi~ As historic landmarks, any changes to the property with regard to buildings are required to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission is required to review projects so that nem structures, additions, and alterations complement the historic structures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding 8 r~~ •., The Applicants have stated that passive solar and natural venting/cooling will play a significant part in the design of the building as well as efficient fxtures. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding The proposed parcels have adequate areas for snow storage. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Lighting: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed sous to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding The development shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements and the Applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the Zoning Officer to review at the time of building permit submittal. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents: Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residenfial development. Staff Finding The development shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements and the Applicants shall submit a lighting plan for the Zoning Officer to review at the time of building permit submittal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. Staf Findin The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area. Therefore, stafffinds that this criterion is not applicable. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. ~ ~-. Sta Findin The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area. Therefore, staff fznds that this criterion is not applicable. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area. Therefore, staff finds that this criterion is not applicable A. Utilifies and Public Facilities: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Sta Findin Staff believes that adequate public facilities exist to accommodate the proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2._ Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. StaffFindinQ The affected utility agencies have reviewed the proposed plans and the concerns have been addressed as conditions of approval in the attached resolution. Staff finds this criterion r~ ho met. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to install oversized utilities or public facilities and it is not anticipated that the Applicant will be required by the City to provide oversized utilities. Staff does not find this criterion to be applicable to this application. L Access and Circulation (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to Minor PUD applications): The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 10 arch w. b e 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding The proposed development has adequate access from Matchless and Heron Drive and has additional access to the lots via an access easement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staf Findin Staff believes that the access easement at the rear of the properties is appropriate .for access. Staff finds this criterion to be met. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each-phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. StaffFindinQ The Applicant is proposing to redevelop Lot SA (930 Matchless) with an addition to the existing residence. Lot SB (920 Matchless) may be developed at a later date. However, no joint facilities or infrastructure is required and the proposal is not a phased project. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. 11 MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Engineer Date: November 2, 2005 Re: 920 ~ 930 Matchless, Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision Parcel #'s 2737-074-22-001 & 2737-074-22-002 Attendees; Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Eng.; Nick Adeh, Engineering; Jennifer Phelan, City Planning; Phil Overeynder, City Water; Brian Flynn, City Parks; Kim Raymond, Owners Representative The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Subdivision Request at their November 2, 2005 meeting and has compiled the following comments: General: The Applicant would like to subdivide Lot #5 of the Alpine Acres Sub/PUD into two lots. Currently the lot contains two detached residential dwellings both of which are historic landmarks. The proposal would allow one lot (930 Matchless) to contain an existing historic single-family residence and a voluntary accessory dwelling unit and the other lot (920 Matchless) would contain the other existing single-family residence and be large enough to develop an additional detached residential-dwelling. In order to develop the lots as proposed the existing PUD needs to be amended. The Applicant is requesting that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) allowance be in compliance with the underlying Medium-Density Residential (R-b) zone district, rather than being limited to 2,486 SF per dwelling unit. At a minimum, the applicant will need to land a 500 SF HPC bonus for 930 Matchless if the Applicant is not allowed to adhere to the underlying zoning with regard to FAR. Additionally, as a site specific development plan, the Applicant will need to amend the PUD to allow for an additional detached dwelling unit on 920 Matchless. Building Department - No Attendance; Fire Protection District-No Attendance; Engineering Department -Nick Adeh; • Matchless Drive needs to be wide enough for twd-way traffic. • Easements will be required for lot access. • All encroachments need to be corrected. Housing Office - No Attendance; __ Page 3 of 4 November 2, 2005 920 and 930 Matchless Drive • Ingress /egress will need to be maintained at all times for the City. • The Owners need to present an option acceptable to the State and City before change in the existing well location and access is undertaken. Community Development Engineer-Alex Evonitz; • No comments at this time until the water issues are resolved. • All standard permit requirements must be met for issuance of building permits. Aspen Consolidated Waste District-Tom Bracewell; • 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 (rdof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. • On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. • Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. • C:,~rrently, 920,930,940 and 950 Matchless are served by a cam,;,o;, old 6" Clay sanitary sewer service line. ACSD would recommend that this old line be replaced by a approximately 170 feet of new 8" PVC main line with two manholes, thereby allowing each resident to have its own service line tied directly into a district maintained sewer line. • Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new development or the existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment, a line extension request and collection system agreement are required. Both are ACSD Board of Director's action items. • Applicant will be required to deposit funds with the district for engineering fees, construction observation fees, fees to clean and televise the new main sewer line extension into the project. • The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stub outs before building permit. • Below grade, development may require installation of a pumping system. • One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may 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. - • Alf ACSD fees must be paid before 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 ATTACHMENT? AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: -~-~ ~ ~S ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ~ , 200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, \ I ~f hV( ~'S L-) V'1GI (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation' in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (2b) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inoh in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-govemmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more an sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners nd governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public heazing on such amendments. ignature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before e his ~ day of ~t»./ , , 2003, by~~~5 ~„I WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL J~uc nonce RE: 920 ANy 930 MATCHLESS DRNE SUBDIVI- SION AND AS' CIATED LAND USE REQUESTS NOTICE IS HEREBY C,IVEN [hat a pubbc hearing wi0 be held on Tuesdeg November 22, 2005, at a meeting to hegio et 4:30 p.m. belore the Aspen Planting and Zoning Commission, Sisters City Room, City Hell, 130 S. Galena SL, Aspen, to coo- eider an application submitted by Christine Do dero and Shirley Peterson Living Trust, 920 Mamhless Drive, Aapeq CO 81611 and 1909 River Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55414, who are the own- ees of the sublect property. The applicants are pmposmg m subdivide [he ooe lot into two lots. to order to develop [he properly as described previously, the applicants are requesting the Iol- lowing development approvals: 8ubtlivision air pmval lo. the creation of two lots and Plannetl Unit Development approval to establish the dF 'anal requirements entl otistreet parking ra qulrements. The property is legally described as nntlominlum units 1 & 2, Alpine Acres Towo- house Condominium No. 5 antl is more common- ly known as 920 and 930 Matchless Drive, Aspen, Colorado, 8161 L For further inlormation, contact Jennifer Phelan at the City o[ Aspen Community Uevelopment Department 130 3. Galena SG, As pen, CO, (9]U) 429.2]59, jennilep®cl.aspeaco.us. s/ S. Jasmine Tygre Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission My commiss'io~-n~exypires: ~` L Q ~.'' Notary Public S~ : ~~,~ N'•_ OATES •. ;'j F . ••............•`' P Op COL ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION )GRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) 2S AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL Published in the Aspen Times on November i[ 20U6 1 City al Aspen Acc junt (3200) CPAXLP INOV-00-2005 12:12 PM KIM RRYMOND RRCN ITECTS 9709252252 P. 01 '.,. ,~~ 5~~( ~.».~ \yr~ ATTACHMENT? REQUIRED BY SEC ION 26. 04,080 E), AS EN LAND USE CODE ADDRES!i OF PROPERTY; _~at~ ~ q,3~ I ~ 1~TC F(IrE.ss ~ R Mpee, CO SCHF.DU'.ED PUBLIC HEARING DATE; ~_ z~~C STATE OR COLORADO ) es. CosatyotPftkln ) I> ~~-r_~C (~1/t Y_~"(W C. ~ .~OC~,~, t-(~ __ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify th tt I have cemplled with rho public notice requirements of Section 26,304.Oti0 (E) of the Aspen Land tJse Code in the following manner: P~~sting of notlre: Hy posting of notice, which form was obtained from the G~mmunity De~'elopment Department, which was made of suitable, w stetproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide ar d twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not lets then one inch in height, Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the Z day of ~if~~1 ~F..~,, 200 5, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph ajthe posted »ntice (sign) is attached hereto. P:~6lieation of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official pt~per or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (t S) dt:ya prior to the public hearing. A copy ojthe publication it attached hereto. ,,~ Malltng of notice. Hy the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community D;vclopment Department, which contains the information described in Section 2t~.304.060(Ex2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to tha public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A cc py ojthe owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attacked hereto. (continued on next page) NOV-88-2005 12:13 PM KIM RAYMOND RRCHITECTS 9789252252 P. 02 d/+~. r~A Rezoning ar text amendment. Whenever the official rAning district map is in ~Y way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to he amended, whether such rovision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use mgWation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other autlicient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed cheoge shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available fo:public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for SReett (1 S) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. L~~ . ~.~._ .- 1~JrJ'~i~--~ signature. The fornl;ein "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me tiiixX-¢day of ~_, 200b, by _('1~rt dpi r. ~da,ca WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL, M~~y/t,,cto~m~m~ is_sion expires: ~.j~_ Notary Publt I~~r_ ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF TXE PUB,L/CATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIG11~ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL ''~ ,, ~P 3• {' 4, 7.. :;t2 ~~~: Yl r,. .. MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Engineer Date: November 2, 2005 Re: 920 & 930 Matchless, Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision Parcel #'s 2737-074-22-001 ~ 2737-074-22-002 Attendees; Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Eng.; Nick Adeh, Engineering; Jennifer Phelan, City Planning; Phil Overeynder, City Water; Brian Flynn, City Parks; Kim Raymond, Owners Representative The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Subdivision Request at their November 2, 2005 meeting and has compiled the following comments: General: The Applicant would like to subdivide Lot #5 of the Alpine Acres Sub/PUD into two lots. Currently the lot contains two detached residential dwellings both of which are historic landmarks. The proposal would allow one lot (930 Matchless) to contain an existing historic single-family residence and a voluntary accessory dwelling unit and the other lot (920 Matchless) would contain the other existing single-family residence and be large enough to develop an additional detached residential dwelling. In order to develop the lots as proposed the existing PUD needs to be amended. The Applicant is requesting that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) allowance be in compliance with the underlying Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district, rather than being limited to 2,486 SF per dwelling unit. At a minimum, the applicant will need to land a 500 SF HPC bonus for 930 Matchless if the Applicant is not allowed to adhere to the underlying zoning with regard to FAR. Additionally, as a site specific development plan, the Applicant will need to amend the PUD to allow for an additional detached dwelling unit on 920 Matchless. Building Department - No Attendance; Fire Protection District - No Attendance; Engineering Department -Nick Adeh; • Matchless Drive needs to be wide enough for two-way traffic. • Easements will be required for lot access. • All encroachments need to be corrected. Housing Office - No Attendance; ..~ Page 2 of 4 °'~ November 2, 2005 920 and 930 Matchless Drive Zoning Officer - No Attendance; Environmental Health - No attendance; Parking - No attendance; Parks -Brian Flynn; • Tree Transplanting: An approved tree permit is required before submission of the building permit set. Contact the Parks Department for permit, 920- 5120. (If the applicant plans on mitigating for the lose of trees with on site planting, Parks will require a landscape plan submitted with the tree permit) • Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for tree removal (transplant) and protection. • Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. • No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. • Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Construction staging, Access and Demo. This plan shall detail how the construction will take place with staging, storage of materials and locations of vehicles so that trees remaining on site will not be impacted and remain protected. • Utility connections: Parks is concerned with the future connections made for the new development. These connections will need to be designed on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. • Root Pruning: The applicant will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on call in order to address all roots greater than 1.5 inches in diameter. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. Water/Electric -Phil Overeynder • Residences need separate services or a common service agreement. Potentially there could be 3-services required with the ADU. • Sprinklers may be required. • There is an existing City water well located on lot 5a as shown in the package. The City owns the rights and needs to maintain those rights in the future. This could present several issues for the Owners regarding State regulation and future City access and use. The water is currently used for irrigation use. Page 3 of 4 November 2, 2005 920 and 930 Matchless Drive .~ .. Ingress /egress will need to be maintained at all times for the City. The Owners need to present an option acceptable to the State and City before change in the existing well location and access is undertaken. Community Development Engineer -Alex Evonitz; • No comments at this time until the water issues are resolved. • All standard permit requirements must be met for issuance of building permits. Aspen Consolidated Waste District-Tom Bracewell; • 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. • Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. • Currently, 920,930,940 and 950 Matchless are served by a common old 6" Clay sanitary sewer service line. ACSD would recommend that this old line be replaced by a approximately 170 feet of new 8" PVC main line with two manholes, thereby allowing each resident to have its own service line tied directly into a district maintained sewer line. • Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new development or the existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment, a line extension request and collection system agreement are required. Both are ACSD Board of Director's action items. • Applicant will be required to deposit funds with the district for engineering fees, construction observation fees, fees to clean and televise the new main sewer line extension into the project. • The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stub outs before building permit. • Below grade, development may require installation of a pumping system. • One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may 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 before 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 ,.. ,.,,. Page 4 of 4 `~-1 ..y November 2, 2005 920 and 930 Matchless Drive 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). The glycol heating and snowmelt system 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. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above or in close proximity below ASCD main sewer lines. ,,,,, ~~, ..,. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Paul Smith * Chairman Michael Kelly * Vice- Chair John Keleher * Sec/Treas November 4, 2005 Jennifer Phelan Community Development 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 920/ 930 Matchless Subdivision Dear Jennifer: 7 2005 } _..~ Frank Loushin Roy Holloway Brace Marherly, Mgr A copy of our comments on this application is attached. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~W~~~~ Bruce Matherly District Manager attachment 565 N. Mill St., Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 /FAX (970)9Z5-2537 .~.~, .,,., , , ACSD Requirements: 920/930 Matchless Sub. 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 plaru to assure that cleaz water connections (roof; foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system On-site utifity plans require approval by ACSD. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Currently, 920,930,940 and 950 Matchless are served by a common old 6" Clay sanitary sewer service line. ACSD would recommend that this old line be replaced by a approximately 170 feet of new 8" PVC tnairr line with two manholes, thereby allowing each resident to have its own service line tied directly into a district maintained sewer line. Where main sanitary sewer lines are requrred to serve this new development or the existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment, a line extensron request and collection system agreemant are required. Both are ACSD Board of D'irector's action items. Applicant will be required to deposit funds wiUr the district for engineering fees, construction observation fees, fees to clean and televise the new main sewer line extension into the project, The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stubouts prior to building permit. Below grade developmenrt may require installation of a pumping system One tap is allowed for each building. Shazed service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Pemranent 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 districK. All ACSD foes must be paid prior to the issuance of a budding 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 constrairrt. Additional proportionate fees would be collected overtime from all development in the azea 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. 'Ihe District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for lazger line). ,-.., ~., . , The glycol heating and snow melt system 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. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above or in close proximity below ASCD main sewer lines. is.y MEMORANDUM TO: Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planner FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning OfficerS~ RE: 920/930 Matchless Drive Subdivision and PUD Request DATE: September 15, 2005 920/930 Matchless Drive is located in the R-6 zone district with a Planned Unit Development overlay for the Alpine Acres Subdivision. The setbacks and floor area for the Alpine Acres Subdivision PUD differs from the underlying zone district requirements as follows: LOT SA Allowable FAR Front Yard Setback R-6 Zoning 3609 sq. ft. ] 0 feet Alpine Acres 2486 sq. ft. 25 feet LOT SB ~ FAR ~~'~y=~~->` Front Yard Setback R-6 Zoning ` ~ 34_8 sq. ft.** 10 feet Alpine Acres 2486 sq. ft. 25 feet **This number is incorrect in the land use application Changes to the FAR and setbacks will need to be established by the PUD. This does not require a variances as dimensional requirements are established per the PUD. The drawings provided in the packet are not to scale and compliance with dimensional requirements will be reviewed and approved at the time of building permit review. Park Impact Fee The applicant will be not required to pay a Park Dedication Impact Fee as the parcel is listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Residential Design Standards Based on drawings submitted with the application, the project complies with the Residential Design Standards. The RDS will be reviewed at the time of building permit revtew. ,.., . Outdoor Lighting The applicant must comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Accessory Dwelling Unit The Accessory Dwelling Unit appears to comply with the design standards in Section 26.520. The unit must have separately accessible utilities and a deed restriction will be required prior to building permit issuance. . , Page 1 of 1 ,.~. ... r Jennifer Phelan From: Amy Guthrie Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 5:01 PM To: (kim.raymond@comcast.net) Cc: Chris Bendon; Jennifer Phelan Subject: 920/930 Matchless Hi Kim- sorry I haven't gotten back to you faster about 920/930 Matchless. I've had a lot on my desk, plus I needed to discuss it in further detail with Chris Bendon and Jennifer Phelan. I am attaching a letter describing what needs to be done to move this project forward. I will be out of town at a conference for the rest of this week, but you can call Jennifer if needed. Amy Guthrie City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 (p) 970-429-2758 (f) 970-920-5439 www.aspenpitkin.org 9/27/2005 ,,... September 26, 2005 Kim Raymond Architects 412 N. Mill Street THt~ Gw or Asi>>N Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 920/930 Matchless Drive Dear Kim; Over the last couple of weeks, the Community Development Department staff has had a number of conversations regarding the proposed project at 920/930 Matchless Drive. As you know, there are some complex relationships between the historic landmark designation and the PUD status of this neighborhood, plus there are a number of possible redevelopment scenarios. It appears that there have been errors on both of our parts in terms of identifying the correct setback variances presented to HPC, and the correct review processes for the whole project. Our department has been informed by the City Attorney's Office that when a property has a PUD zoning overlay, HPC can only make a recommendation for variances to P&Z and Council, who will ultimately consider amending the PUD. This is how the 500 square foot FAR bonus was handled on the Becker project and, as it turns out, setback variances require the same treatment. As a result, it appears that two actions are necessary to get this project on track. First, a meeting is needed with HPC so that they can make a recommendation for setback variances with accurate numbers in front of them. This does not need to be a public hearing since they are not taking formal action. Space is available on either the Oct. 12~~' or 26°i agenda, although we will have to coordinate that meeting no later than Monday, October 3rd. After the HPC recommendation, the ability to use the variances will have to be confirmed through the PUD review. You will continue to work with Jennifer Phelan on that phase, and she has indicated that a number of documents aze still needed in order to make the file complete and ready for board review. Unfortunately these steps will likely prevent your client from building this season, if that was still their intention. The Community Development Director, Chris Bendon, feels strongly that there is not an alternative to the PUD process described above. Please contact either .Tennifer or myself with questions. Sincerely, Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer .~ MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below: X ..... ...... City Engineer X .... ..... Community Development Engineer 0..... .... Police Department X ..... ...... Zoning Officer O ..... ...... Housing Director X ..... ...... Parks Department X ..... ...... Aspen Fire Marshal X ..... ...... City Water X ..... ...... Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District X ..... ...... Building Department O ..... ...... Environmental Health O ..... ...... Electric Department O ..... ...... Holy Cross Electric O ..... ...... City Attorney 0...... ..... Streets Department O ..... ...... Historic Preservation Officer 0......... City Parking Manager O ........... Pitkin County Planning FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planner Community Development Department CCC...JJJ 130 S. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611 Phone-429.2759 Fax-920.5439 RE: 920/930 Matchless Subdivision and PUD Amendment and Associated Land Use Requests ParcellD #2737-074-22-001 #2737-074-22-002 DATE: October 26, 2005 COMMENTS: Please review the attached application for a Subdivision and PUD Amendment request. A DRC Meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 2, 2005, in the City Council Chambers, Basement of City Hall. Please have your comments ready. DRC Meeting: November 2, 2005 Thank You, Jennifer Phelan ,, .. July 1, 2005 Ms. Chris Dodaro 920 Matchless Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Dodaro, ~.. r~~ ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNRY DEVEIAPMENT DEPARTMENT I wanted to follow our telephone conversation with this letter that outlines the additional materials which are necessary for staff to review your development requests. A number of items were not included or were not provided in sufficient detail for staff to consider the application complete. The following information is necessary to proceed with the request for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) amendment: Disclosure of ownership of the property in the form of a current (within one year of the application date) certificate from a title insurance company or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages judgments, liens, easements, contracts, and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the development application (L.U.C. Section 26.304.030 B.3.). As the sgbject property is part of a previously approved P.U.D., any amendment to the P.U.D. requires that the owners of more than fifty (50) percent of the property subject to the development application approve of the application (L.U.C. Section 26.304.040, Initiation of a development order). A notorized letter from another property owner within the P.U.D. stating his or her consent to the application would be adequate proof of consent. Written description of how the application complies with the review standards relevant to the application (L.U.C. Section 26.304.030 6.7.) are necessary for both Subdivision Review Standards and P.U.D. Amendment (Minor PUD Process). Included with this letter are both relevant sections of review standards. The submitted application did not address many of the standards. Application materials as outlined in L.U.C. Section 26.445.060 B., Final, Consdlidated, and Minor Development Plan and L.U.C. Section 26.480.060, Application. The most important component of both requirements is the proposed plat/survey. As we discussed on the phone, it would be great to meet with both you and your architect so that we can go over all of these requirements and discuss how they apply to your project.. With more .information provided by both of you, I will be able to better assist you in accomplishing your desired goals. Please be aware that other submission Page 1 of 2 13O SOVTH GALENA STREET ~ ASPEN, COLORAOO HS6S1-1975 ~ PHONE 970.92O.SO9O ~ PAX 97OBZO.S499 1 P~mrea un ae~ya:d raPe~ ,~ _. . -., items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Sincerely, ' ~l ~ ~~ ~~~~ Jennifer Phelan Long Range Planner CC: Kim Raymond Page 2 of 2 ,. , ~~ ••,. i PUD shall comply with the following standazds and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with Conceptual Reviews and properties eligible for Minor PUD Review, certain 21-30 % 50% 31-40 % 23% slope > 40 % 0% Notes: a) There shall be no density credit allowed for lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope. b) Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be determined by calculating the net lot area, after the reductions for each slope classification have been subtracted, divided by the squaze footage per dwelling unit necessary in the underlying zone district regulations. c) For parcels resting in more than one (1) underlying zone district, the slope reduction and maximum density calculation shall be performed sepazately on the lands within each zone district. C Dimensional Requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall be established with the adoption of a final PUD development plan. The underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in detemuning the appropriate dimension for each provision. The final development plan shall clearly define all dimensional requirements for each lot within the PUD. In the absence of a final development plan, a single detached or duplex residential dwelling, if listed as a perv^utted use :n uhe underlying zoning, maybe developed in conformance with the provisions of the underlying zone district. L Muumum Lot Size. 2. Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit. 3. Maximum allowable density. 4. Minimum lot width. 5. Minimum front yazd. 6. Minimum side yard. 7. Minimum reaz yard. 8. Maximum site coverage. 9. .Maximum height (including view planes). 10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot. 1 L Minimum percent open space required for the building site. 12. Trash access area. 13. Allowable Floor Area. 14. Minimum off-street pazking spaces. 15. Other dimensions determined necessary to establish through the PUD process. (Ord. No. 25-2001, § 8) 2 :445 OSOs. ;Revre~Standards „Concep~tual~, F~m„al,eConsohdated, and 1Vhn PUD,.' /~1~~ A development app ication o~ nc~ep al, Final, Consolidated Conce~ p~ ~~at and Final, or rnor ///"' City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005. Part 400, Page 91 -~, . ~ _. ., standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application, and .its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the chazacter of existing land uses in the surrounding azea. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely .affect -the future development of the surrounding azea. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. B. Establishment ofDunensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall .establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shail be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PL1D. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses grid existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The chazacter of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding azea such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, pazking, and historical resources. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the chazacter of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding azea. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cazs used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. ` b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005. ~.__. .~~ ..___ n~ ~~ ,,,~,, c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage .capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced i£ a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious .effect on air quality in the surrounding azea and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD maybe increased i£ a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical chazacteristics of the site, as identified in subpazagraphs 4 and 5, above, those azeas can be avoided, or those chazacteristics mitigated. c) The. increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and chazacteristics. Notes: a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established aY a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying zone district as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective zone district or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a Final PUD Development Plan. City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005. Part 400, Page 93 -,. b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which-are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and'nandicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings aze appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. D. Laudscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual chazacter of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, aze preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. E., Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standazd is to encourage architectural interest, variety, chazacter, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural chazacter is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the chazacter of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005. p~~r ann v~..o oa r^~ ,,,.r development plan an azchitectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a chazacter suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of neazby historical and cultural resources. 2. incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. F. Lighting. - The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glaze or hazazdous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in complia:.ce wi'u ~e Outdoor Lighting Standazds unless ' otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common pazk, open space, or recreation azea for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of yeazs) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similaz manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas; and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden: The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005. Fart 460, ?age 95 ~. ,,,,, 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements aze provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. I. Access and Circulation. (Only standazds 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standazd is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other azea dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and pazking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system; and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. ,= { 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regazding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase aze mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. A11 phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to ;' be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005. ~~~ c~~~;, ~l~Yt~'~~~I 1. Step one -Public Hearing before Planning and Zoning Commission. a. Purpose: To determine if application meets standazds for subdivision. b. Notice requirements: Publication, posting and mailing. (See section 26.52.060(E)(3)(a)(b)&(c)). c. Standards of review: Section 26.480.050. d. P&Z action: Resolution reconunending approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of subdivision. 2. Step two -Public Hearing before City Council. a. Purpose: To determine if application meets standazds for subdivision. b. Notice requirements: Publication, mailing and posting in addition to the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. c. Standards of review: Section 26.480.050. d. City Council action: Ordinance approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving subdivision. (Ord. No. 21-2002 § 8, 2002; Ord. No. 27-2002 §§ 18 and 19, 2002) ;26 ~$0 QU . Revie Standard A development applrcation for subdivision review shall comply .with the following standards and requirements: A. General requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the chazacter of existing land uses in the area. o. The proposed subdivision. shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. d. The proposed. subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. B. Suitability of land for subdivisiorx. City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005. Part 4110, Page 143 r'1 a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfaze of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.5$0 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standazds may be vaned by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standazds would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area , Comprehensive Plan, the .existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. Tlie applicant shall specify each desigr. standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standazds set forth at Chapter 26.630. F. Growth Management Approval Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, § 2) City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005. ,. and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. ,~~45 8~ _~~~ p'plcati no Material ~ ~ ~' v A. Conceptual Development Plazz. The contents of a development application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in Common Procedures, Chapter 26.304. 2. A Site Improvement Survey depicting: a) Existing natural and man-made site features. b) Existing topography and categorization of site slopes falling within the thresholds described in General Provisions, section 26.445.040. c) All legal easements and restrictions. 3. A conceptual description and site plan of the proposed development including a statement of the objectives to be achieved by the PUD and a description of the proposed land uses, densities, natural features, traffic and pedestrian circulation, off-street pazking, open space areas, infrastructure improvements, and site drainage. 4. A conceptual architectural character plan generally indicating the use, massing, scale, and orentatioi of uie proposed buildings. 5. A conceptual landscape plan generally -describing the type, location, and size of exisfing and proposed landscape features. 6. A general description of the dimensional requirements being considered. 7. A written response to each of the PUD Review Criteria contained in section 25.445.050. The contents of the development applicatiori'for a Fi Minor development plan shall include the following: Conceptual and Final; and- 1. The general application information required in Common Procedures, Chapter 26.304. 2. A Site Improvement Survey depicting: a) Existing natural and man-made site features. b) Existing topography and categorization of site slopes falling within the thresholds - described in General Provisions, section 26.445.040. c) All legal easements and restrictions. 3. A detailed description and site plan of the proposed development including a statement of the objectives to be achieved by the PUD and a description of the proposed land uses, densities, natural features, traffic and pedestrian circulation, off-street pazking, open space areas, infrastructure irriprovements, and site drainage. 4. An architectural chazacter plan indicating the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's .use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the proposed development. 5. A landscape plan depicting: City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005. Part 400. Page 47 --., a) The type, location, and size of all existing plant materials and other landscape features. b) The proposed method of protecting vegetation through construction. c) The type and location of all proposed plant materials, other landscape features, proposed treatment of ground surfaces and erosion control, and a plant material schedule with common and botanical names, sizes, and quantities. 6. A statement specifying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the proposed development, and what specific assurances will be made to ensure the public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development. 7. A statement specifying the method of maintaining any proposed common areas on the site, including but not limited to common pazking areas, walkways, landscaped azeas, and recreational facilities, and what specific assurances will be made to ensure the continual maintenance of said areas. 8. A description of the dimensional requirements requested to be established through the review. 9. A description of any proposed project phasing detailing the specific improvements proposed for each phase. 10. A written response to each of the PUD Review Criteria contained in section 26.445.050. 11. A proposed plat which depicts the applicable information required 'by section 26.48^v."v60(A}(3) and (B). 12. Proposed PUD Plans and a proposed PUD Agreement. .26.445.070 Recording a Final PUD Development Plan. ~ A. General. Unless. otherwise specified in the City Council ordinance granting final approval of a PUD development plan, all necessary documents, as applicable, shall be recorded within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the adoption date of the final ordinance. Failure to file these documents within this time period shall render null and void the approval of a final development plan. The Community Development Director may extend the recordation deadline if the request is within the vesting timeline and if there is a community interest for providing such an extension. The Community Development Director may forward the extension request to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Reconsideration of the final development plan and PUD agreement by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council may beYequired before its. acceptance and recording. The final development plan, which shall consist, as applicable, of final plats, drawings, and agreements as described below shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and shall be binding upon the property owners subject to the development order, their successors and assigns, and shall constitute the development regulations for the properly. Development of the property shall be limited to the uses, density, configuration, and all other elements and conditions set forth on the final development plan and PUD agreement. City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005. . r°~ \. _/ 2G .66 "~. Appl~ac hori.'':..,:~.~~~~-~"' "~~~~ A. Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The contents of a development application for a subdivision approval for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in Common Development Review Procedures set forth at Section 26.304.030. 2. One (1) inch equals four hundred (400) feet scale city map showing the location of the proposed subdivision, all adjacent lands owned by or under option to the applicant, commonly known landmarks, and the zone district in which the proposed subdivision and adjacent properties aze located. 3. A plat which reflects the layout of the lots, blocks and structures in the proposed subdivision. The plat shall be drawn at a scale of one (1) equals one hundred (100) feet or lazger. Architectural scales aze not acceptable. Sheet size shall be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six (36) inches. If it is necessary to place the plat on more than a one (1) sheet, an index shall be included on the. first sheet. A vicinity map shall also appeaz on the first sheet showing the subdivision as it relates to the resi of the city and the street system in the area of the proposed subdivision. The contents of the plat shall be of sufficient detail to determine whether the proposed subdivision will meet the design standards of this Chapter and this Title, and shall contain the following-itemized information a. The name of the proposed subdivision, which shall not be the same or similaz to any name used on a recorded plat in Pitkin County, Colorado. b. The name, address, and te]ephone number of the owner/applicant, designer of the proposed subdivision, and the licensed surveyor. c. The location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision. d. A map showing the existing and proposed contours of the land in the proposed subdivision at two-foot intervals, where the slope is less than ten (10) percent, and five-foot intervals where the slope is ten (10) percent or greater, and the designation of all azeas with slope greater than thirty (30) percent. e. The location and dimensions of all existing streets, alleys, easements, drainage areas, imgation ditches, public and private utilities, and other sigriificant manmade or natural features within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision. f. The location and dimensions of all proposed streets, alleys, easements; drainage improvements, utilities, lot lines, and areas or structures reserved or dedicated for public or common use tin the proposed subdivision. City of Aspen Land Use Code. June; 2005. Part 400, Page 145 "~ --,. g. The location, size, and type of existing vegetation and other natural landscape .features, and the proposed limits of any excavation or regrading in the proposed subdivision, including the location of trees with a trunk diameter of six (6) inches or more measured four and one-half (4 1/2) feet above the ground, and an indication of which trees are proposed to be removed. Where lazge groves aze to remain undisturbed, single trees need not be located. h. The designation of all areas that constitute natural hazard areas including but not limited to snowslides, avalanche, mudslide, rockslide and the one- hundred-year floodplain. i. Such additional information on geological or soil stability, avalanche potential, projected traffic generation, air pollution and similar matters as may be required by the planning agency or other reviewing agency. j. Such other information as may be required by the planning agency or other reviewing agency in order to adequately describe proposed utility systems, drainage plans, surface improvements, or other construction projects contemplated within the proposed subdivision in order to assure that the proposed subdivision is capable of being constructed w.out an adverse effect upon the surrounding azea. k. Site data tabulation listing acreage of land in the proposed subdivision, number, type and typical size of lots, structures ancUor dwelling units; number of bedrooms per dwelling unit; ground coverage of proposed structures and improvements including pazking azeas, streets, sidewalks and open space, and the amount of open space that is being provided pursuant to Section 26.480.040(C)(5)(a). 1. In the case of a division of land into condominium interests, aparhnents or other multi-family or time-shaze dwelling units, the location of all proposed structures, pazking areas, structures and/or azeas for common use. m. Where the proposed subdivision covers only a part of the applicant's adjacent holdings, a sketch plan for such other lands shall be submitted, and the proposed streets, utilities, easements, and other improvements of the tract under review shall be considered with reference to the proposed development of the adjacent holdings. n. Letters from the public or private utility companies that. will service the proposed subdivision with gas, electricity, telephones, sanitary sewer, water, and fire protection facilities stating they can service the proposed subdivision. 4. GIS Data. All subdivision applications shall submit the requirements specified in section 26.480.040(C) ahd section 26.480.040(D) in a digital format acceptable to City of Aspen Land Use Code. Tune, 2005. Sao ~{'l~A.~C;II~~S'S'25~.91/~' --~~~'4'l, X08,6„ June 15, 2005 James Lindt City of Aspen Planner 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 920, 930 Matchless Drive Dear James 1 We are working on the development and subdivision of our property. We have hired Kim Raymond to be our architect and representative in this process. Kim can be reached at 925-2252 or 379-8938. We are living in one of the houses that we want to remodel, located at 920 Matchless. Our phone number is 544-3784. The legal description for our property is Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision. The parcel id #s are as follows: 920 Matchless 2737-074-22-001, 930 Matchless 2737-074-22-002. Please feel free to contact either Kim or myself for questions or comments regarding this project. We look forward to working with the Historic Preservation Commission on the upgrade of these buildings. Sincerely, Chris Dodaro BILL & SHIRLEY PETERSON 1909 E.RIVER ROAD MPLS. MN. 55414 October 10,2005 RE: 920,930 Matchless Drive To Whom it may concern, We are working with our daughter and her husband (Pete and Chris Dodaro) on the development and subdivision of our property. We have hired Kim Raymond to be our architect and representative in this process. We authorize Chris and Pete to act on our behalf in the matter of the subdivision of 920 &930 Matchless Drive. They have the complete authority to make all decisions and file all applications on behalf of Shirley H. and William G. Peterson. We live at 1909 East River Road, Minneapolis, Mn. Our phone number is 612-332-8484. The legal description of our property is Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision. The pazcel id#s are as follows: 920 Matchless 2737-074-2201, 930 Matchless 2737-074-22-002. Please feel free to contact either Kim, Chris or Pete or myself for questions or comments regazding this project. We look forward to working with the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Department of Aspen on the upgrade of these buildings. Sincerely, Shirley_ William Peterson w Land Title WMANI[[ LOMY~INT CUSTOMER Date: 07-05-2005 Our Order Number: 389752 Property Address: 930 MATCHLESS DRIVE ASPEN, CO 81611 /f you have auy inquiries ar require further assistance, p/ease contact one of the numhers be%w: For Title Assistance: Aspen Title Dept. Arne Simonsen 533 E. HOPKINS 1102 ASPEN, CO 81611 Phone: 970-925-1678 Fax: 970-925-6243 EMaH: asimonsen@Itgc.com For Closing Assistance: 533 E. HOPKINS $102 ASPEN, CO 81611 Phone: Fax: 970-925-6243 EMa>7: carterJohnson@Itgc.com WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE 119 S MILL ST ASPEN CO 81fi11 AOn: Karen Crepps Phone: 970-544-0925 Fax: 970-544-0311 EMail: karen.e.crepps@welisfar8o.com Sent Via EMail LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY 533 E. HOPKINS 6102 ASPEN CO 81611 Phone: 970-925-1878 Fax: 970-925243 CHRISTINE M DODARO 09.22.03 Land Title uun[nx[[[[orvvrt Property Address: 930 MATCHLESS DRIVE ASPEN, CO 81611 Owner: CHRISTINE M. DODARO AND PETER W. DODARO Dale: 07-05-2005 Our Order Number: 384752 or directions for your upcoming cbsing? Check out Land Title's web site at www.itgc.com s to any of our 54 office loratinnc ESTIMATE OF TTI'LE FEES Alta Loan Polity 10-17-92 (Reissue Rate) $406.00 Endorsement Alta 6 (110.7) (i.ender) 530.00 Endorsement Alta 9 (115.1) (Lender) 5101.00 Endorsement Alfa 8.1 (bender) $90.00 Endorsement 100 (Lender) $40.00 Deletion of Standard Exception(s) (Lender) $0.00 Tax Certificate 515.00 TOTAL $632.00 l rea mmva.. unoom THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER! ALTA COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B-1 (RMuirements) Our Order No. 384752 The Following are the requirements to be complied with: Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Proper iustnunent(s) creating the estate or interest to 6e insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to-wit: 1. RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST DATED JUNE 24, 1999 FROM CHRISTINE M. DODARO AND PETER W, DODARO TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITICIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF NORWEST MORTGAGE, INC. TO SECURE THE SUM OF 5166,000.00 RECORDED JUNE 30, 1999, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 932849. 2. DEED OF TRUST FROM CHRISTINE M. DODARO AND PETER W. DODARO TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF WELLS FARGO HOME MTG TO SECURE THE SUM OF 5161,300.00. NOTE: ITEMS 1-3 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ARE HEREBY DELETED FROM THE MORTGAGEE'S POLICY. ITEM 9 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED UPON RECEIPT OF A SATISFACTORY LIEN AFFIDAVIT. FORM 100 WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE MORTGAGEE'S POLICY WHEN ISSUED. NOTE: ALL PARTIES WILL BE REQUIRED TO SIGN THE LIEN AFFIDAVIT AT CLOSING. ""'*""* NOTICE OF FEE CHANGE, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2002 Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute 30-10-421, "The county clerk and recorder shall collect a surcharge of 51.00 for each document received for recording or filing in his or her office. The surcharge shall be to addition to aay other fees permitted by statute." ALTA COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B-2 (Eacceptions) Our Order No. 389752 The policy or poBdes to be issued will rnotain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, contllcts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any fads which a correct survey a~ inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 9. Any lien, or right to a Ben, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public recerds. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, B' any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior fo the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value We estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by tltis Commitmem. 6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special assessments not yet certified fo the Treasurer's office. 7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land. 8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any. 9. THE EFFECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER CONSERVANCY, FIRE PROTECTION, SOIL CONSERVATION OR OTHER DISTRICT OR WCLUSION IN ANY WATER SERVICE OR STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA. ]0. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNTfED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNTTED STATES PATENT RECORDED AUGUST 29, 1958, IN BOOK 185 AT PAGE 69. 11. DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN FOR PUBLIC USE RECORDED DECEMBER 21, 1976 IN BOOK 321 AT PAGE 759. 12. GRANT OF RIGHT OF WAY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED DECEMBER 21, 1976 IN BOOK 321 AT PAGE 761. 13. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ORDWANCE NO. 33, SERIES OF 1976 RECORDED FEBRUARY 09, 1977 W BOOK 324 AT PAGE 653. 14. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ANNEXATION AGREEMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 09, 1977 IN BOOK 324 AT PAGE 657. ALTA COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B-2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. 384752 The policy or policies to he issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 15. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN UNLESS AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT SAH) COVENANT (A) IS EXEMPT UNDER CHAPTER 42, SECTION 3607 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE OR (B) RELATES TO HANDICAP BUT DOES NOT DISCRBNWATE AGAWST HANDICAPPED PERSONS, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED APRIL 26, 1977, W BOOK 327 AT PAGE 887. 16. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF CERTIFICATE AND ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF ALPINE ACRES SUBDMSION PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION RECORDED MAY 19, 1977 IN BOOK 328 AT PAGE 990. 17. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND OTHER MATTERS AS SET FORTH ON PLAT OF ALPINE ACRES SUBDMSION RECORDED JULY 6, 1964 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 2. 18. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF SUBDMSION RECORDED AUGUST 04, 1977 IN BOOK 333 AT PAGE 9. 19. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY FOR THE ANTHONY WELL, AND APPURTENANCES AS GRANTED THE CITY OF ASPEN IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 21, 1977 IN BOOK 321 AT PAGE 760 20. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF CITY COUNSEL OF ASPEN MINUTES RECORDED DECEMBER 30, 1977 IN BOOK 391 AT PAGE 946. 21. THOSE PROVISIONS, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS, EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS, WHICH ARE A BURDEN TO THE CONDOMINIUM UNIT DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER O6, 1985, IN BOOK 494 AT PAGE 920. 22. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND OTHER MATTERS AS SET FORTH ON THE CONDOMINIUM MAP OF SUBJECT PROPERTY RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17 AT PAGE 75. . „1 1 ~.- -- LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: A) The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district. B) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained from the County Treasurer's authorized agent. C) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Rernrder, or the County Assessor. Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall rnnfain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VII requires War "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to We time of recording whenever We title entity comlucis We closing and is responsible for rernrding or filing of legal docwnents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company conducts We closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording We legal documents from We transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on We Owner's Title Policy and We Lenders policy when issued. Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for We Owner may tie available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 9 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from We Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance wiW We following conditions: A) The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on We land described in Schedule A of this Commitment wiWin We past 6 months. C) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and material-men's Bens. D) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. E) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on We property to be purchased within six months prior to We Date of the Commitrnent, We requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded Bens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to We seller, We builder and or We contractor, payment of the appropriate premium fully exewted Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to We company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by We Company. No coverage wBl be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which We insured has comtracted for or agreed to pay. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given: This notice applies to owner's poBcy commitrnents containing a mineral severance instroment exception, or exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2. A) That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or oWerwise conveyed from We surface estate and Wat Were is a substantial Bkelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and B) That such mineral estate may include We right to enter and use the property without We surface owner's permission. Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate We company to provide any of the coverages referred to herein unless We above conditions are fully satisfied. FoYm DISCIggO[tE 09/01/02 (' JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY OF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY AND LAND TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Title V of the Cramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) generally prohibits any financial institution, directly or through its affiliates, from sharing nonpublic personal information about yon with a nonaffiliated third party unless the instilution provides you with a notice of its privacy policies and practices, such as the type of information that it collects about you and the categories of persons or entitles to whom it may 6e disclosed. In compliance with the GLBA, we are providing you with this document, which notifies you of the privacy policies and practices of Land Title Guarantee Company and Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Titie Insurance Company. We may collect nonpublic personal information about you from the following sources: Information we receive from you such as on applications or other forms. Information about your transactions we secure from our files, or from our affiliates or others. Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Information that we receive from others involved in your transaction, such as the real estate agent or lender. Unless it is specifically stated oWerwise in an amended Privacy Policy Notice, no additional nonpublic personal information will be collected about you. We may disclose any of the above information that we collect about our customers or former customers to our affiliates or to nonaffiliated third parties as permitted by taw. We also may disclose this information about our customers or former customers to the following types of nonafiillated companies that perform marketing services on our behalf or with whom we have joint marketing agreements: Financial service providers such as companies engaged fn banking consumer Finance, securities and insurance. * Non-financial companies such as envelope staffers and other fulfillment service providers. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY NONPUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED BY LAW. We restriM access to nonpublic personal information about you to Wore employees who need to know that information in order to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply wiW federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. Foan PRIV. ~L.OkT r i r U8/ZZ/ZUVO VH: VV hl1R yfUHZ0EZ93 LIB-flSYtN 3p465B B-791 D~APITKIN2CWNTY9CLERKpt RECODRDER gILV IR ORV 15 ~l'IC.'I.AIAd DERD ,19 9S ,HIS DEED.Mdc dr6 22nd ~nl AUGUST rtnen •••NILLIAN G- PETERSON •AND•••••• SNIHL~T N. PETEESON ~~ d ><de '~~aaueoo NENNEPIN IINp~Bg1~i1~ •••SHIRLEY H. PBTERSON LIVING TRUST DATED AUGUST lr :99 ~•:~d any amendments thereto wl,emlgl dmm.r 1909 E. RIVER PA-xNAY NINNg~yIaI BRLNNEPIN414 aed gloved CdNM•. anwcol of rAc WITNtSSEilI, nm1 the Nnrortrl ra mnl iw eaniaemVen •rve mwr or pdrrs Ten (f30.001 and other Good. and Y91vae>m1~n~i~~~IAIMtR ed aY nx rneriil and marieec7 ~meA+S ralmn. Wl ~ONTCMYD{.do vaP~~'l Choir ~^'a1°p10f Wrdw• enmp.,.ar V• r4iidr reeeunw(ddYe indu)le nw pme•TF WEmN~d lwe•ec ea rYe n/n. rla. Immea ~.ea r Ca.evd PITRIN fmpo,emem4 ge•F raeele.Ar•t ~~. Carne. drs+nelm fe9ew~~ r ~••••CondoNlnium Unlt TYO, Alpine Acres Tovnhones CnndoalDihna No. eceorain9 to the Condiainieo Nap appearing 1n !ha records OS the t7vatypa9a '7geandgeeodeE! ad andkdeaCrlbed~intheaCondoai e:mg•ak•• Declaration thereeY recorded So Hook 494 at page a20. •Ir yierobr srnq erawurneH m: eewmfr K•dnrwgastme•tac .yt eg ed r•erwweooa^~•*n'ew MreWmd~°beleeraw:w Ip N4YE AND TD NO3D da mm4 rF~r ~mmap,arde yemm()1. dWer in rw ar aaaira orwlRJeweleaW.~~e.enAW dReae. ^aM.V ~~iv4~ ewgne (wwm, m Vt •Wr wnoN wt tewepa~mMda<I~t~+~rd IMr dai aer~sden N+ rnnh.ama i~N w,LrOtNU//1~wxfxF~.f vN~"°'r`'~ N1111 ne 6. Peterson C 'U Sh Lap 4 arson '~ ATF W CDLDA4DD. n _-~. CemY Ot Pltkln dqd Au ueC ile~M~ry~•,,.,3nayaad rdse meat 22nd 9 wr ~ p y x111iam G. Petnreon and Shirley N. Peterson ~,c= ~ d MY dfmmlell•a C)elrtl MT CO~~ ~~' Mmsa 7. 31la Yfrnw Iq hmAmM e1Ftid mv. •lfie OerlW.iwgl'"C'ny•d-_ wew•mimdr.~ Cwt Mi a REC ~ NI G. ee ~ VVC/VUC Nov Ul ae>. Ne. QVrlnMmaare ryyyf yyydy Il.)•.r~?.nn.c. ~ N101-I1Wf i)belm-M1 1 _.. . e ~~ . Ck'`\• • ~ `. ~` :~ ti ~, ~, .\ ~\ i a `. ~ ~, \`` \ ~ '~ ~ ~, > ~' wr ~ '~, ~ r ~~ ~,`• ~ ~~ , r- ~,AS ,,~! ~.~ \ ~; ; , J /: y~\ i / I~ //! ~~ i ~ __ `~\ ,~, o-.'1~~.~\ .,.~ r ~- `. ~' ~ r .,~~-,N'' -~..`_ .,~~ ~, ,. ;~. s ~:~.... ,,~ ~ Vicinity Map = ~,~~ Alpine Acres Lot ~. ~,. ,. ,~ ~, ~~ ~~ ' i ~~; •_`~. ~- Lot 5 T.,\ ` . i / ~Ir4 ,. ~~ -~ ice. yr~'V `l ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ , ,~ ~~ , ~ ~~. ~: ti~ ~: ~,\\ Lat 4b ~,; , Lot ~ a ., /, ~,` ~`~ ~ ~~/ ~ ~~ ~__, Lot 3/~ ~3~ ' Lot 2 ~~ ~; ~~ ~,; ~:~~ ~ Md ALAN BECKER 950 Matchless Drive Aspen, CO. 81611 USA TEL. 970-925-1462 FAX 970-925-7224 CELL 970-948-6688 September 1, 2005 Planning and Zoning 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 re: 920/930 matchless drive Dear Members of the P&Z, As way of introduction, my name is Alan Becker and I reside at 950 Matchless Drive. My neighbors, Pete and Chris Dodaro have been going through the HPC process and are now coming to you for the final approvals they need to remodel their cottages. As a neighbor and a member of the same PUD, I would like to give my support and consent to the Dodaro's and their proposed renovation. I encourage the P&Z to grant the necessary approvals to split the lot at 920 and 930 Matchless Drive into two separate parcels. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, ^ ~~~~ Alan Becker 0'f ~Q (OYGtC~ u ~c~c, ~; ~f ~Itktif~ ) ~Jc~-at~'I ~~~, ~ .N~noovw.c . ~,~-~ . 9/30/05 920 8 930 MATCHLESS DRIVE RENOVATION, ADDITION, AND SUBDIVISION OF AN HISTORIC .~ LAND MARK SITE The project, located at 920 and 930 Matchless Drive (aka. Lot 5 Alpine Acres Subdivision) consists of two small miner's cottages; both of which are designated as Historical. The cottages were moved to this location and altered from their original state in the sixties. The cottage on 920 has had numerous additions tacked onto the back, and the one at 930 has just a simple addition to the back, but was then covered in plaster. We are seeking to not only renovate both of the cottages to the standards set by the Historical Preservation Commission, but also to subdivide the single lot into two separate lots. Each of the new lots would then have a single family dwelling and a smaller dwelling unit, one of which would be a voluntary ADU. The addition to the building located at 930 will include putting a basement under the existing building and adding atwo-story element to the rear of the building. The only part of the original building that will be changed is at the back of the cottage, where there was an addition made after the cottage was moved to this new site. We are planning on removing the 8 foot section of addition, exposing both of the rear corners of the original cottage and then putting a modest addition to the rear. The proposed _ renovation and new construction has recently been approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. This parcel will also receive a detached garage with an ADU above. The existing pump house for the subdivision's well will be relocated during the construction. At the time of our meetings with the HPC, we sought and were granted the 500 square foot bonus for a great design. Under the current zoning for the lot, we needed the bonus to have enough FAR to accommodate the construction of the ADU. The cottage located at 920 will be getting a different type of renovation. Conceptually, we are planning on removing all of the various additions that have been added to the back of this very small cottage and replacing them with a small, single story addition. We will try to bring this cottage back to it's original state. At the rear of the lot, we are seeking to build a modest, single family residence, with a large yard between these buildings. All of the proposed work on this parcel still has to go before the Historic Preservation Commission for approvals. The strict guidelines for mass, scale and design that are required of historic buildings will also be enforced on the new building, as it is on an Historic site and relates to the other historic buildings. We will y also be asking the HPC for the square footage bonus on this lot. As these two parcels are currently restricted by a PUD that voluntarily limited the allowable FAR to 2486 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, the ability to design a home that meets the needs of a modern family are very limited. Additionally, the square footage of an ADU has to be deducted from the 2486, since it is not considered a separate dwelling unit. ADUs must contain between 300 - 800 net livable sq. ft. The ADU approved by the HPC for Lot 930 is 800 sq. ft., which leaves only 1686 sq. ft. of FAR for the main house. In opening the existing PUD, we would like to propose that the lots, after being split, be returned to the underlying R-6 zone district. This would be consistent with the density and character of the surrounding neighborhood. As the underlying R-6 zoning allows for more FAR on both of these lots, there is concern about the mass and scale on such long, narrow parcels. As can be seen from the design approved by the HPC for 930 Matchless, the mass and scale of anything added to these lots will have to be consistent and in character with the existing small cottages. The guidelines set forth by the HPC are very restrictive in this regard, thus assuring an appropriate mass and scale on both of the newly created parcels, now and in the future. These guidelines will also be governing the design of the new single family residence proposed for the rear of lot 920. We are asking for the FAR that is allowed by the R-6 zoning, plus the approval of the 500 sq. ft. bonus already approved by the HPC on lot 930. Within the R-6 zoning, we will no longer need the 500 sq. ft. for the construction of the project on 930. With that in mind, we would like to ask that the P&Z approve, with this amendment, the ability to accept the bonus for lot 920 at such time that it goes before the HPC for approvals. Currently the code will only allow for the bonus for the fathering lot or for just one of the newly created lots. In keeping with the intent of the benefits of Historic Landmark parcels, we would like to create TDRs to help offset the cost of renovating the cottages. By creating and selling the TDRs, the size of the buildings on these lots will be further limited. This will also fill the need for others that are allowed to purchase these TDRs for their projects. The side yard setback is the main issue that needs to be addressed as a variance from the underlying R-6 zoning. The locations of the existing buildings are not in compliance with the current PUD side yard setback requirements (which are the same as the underlying R-6 requirements). As the fathering lot is rectangular, the new lots would be long and very narrow. The HPC has already granted variances for these setbacks, based on the lot before it is split. We investigated moving the cottages during the renovation to try to mitigate this problem. After meeting with the house mover at the site, we were informed that to move the house on 930 in any direction, other than straight up, would destroy and/or kill most of the mature trees on the lot. (Neither the HPC nor the Parks department will approve the loss of these trees.) The cottage on \ _~ 920 will be in compliance with all the setbacks after the renovation by removing all the additions, which are in the existing setbacks. In addition, the HPC wants to see the cottages remain where they are in relationship to the other two cottages on Matchless. As for the addition to the cottage located at 930, which is encroaching into the required setbacks, the HPC has given approval to it's size and location. Moving it to one side or the other will only help the setback on one side, and then the addition will become more visible from the front facade, which the HPC will not approve. Since the lots are so narrow, the combined side yard setback would only allow for a house that is twelve feet wide. The setback problem arises from the lots being long and narrow. Since the cottages are designated as Historical, the Historic Preservation Commission will be reviewing the redevelopment of these parcels regardless of how the PUD is amended. As the guidelines set forth by the HPC are very strict and limiting, we propose that the HPC be the body to review the design of the buildings for both of these lots. This will include the renovation/addition_to the cottage and the new construction at the rear of the lot, located at 920. (930 has already been reviewed and approved). We are asking that the Planning and Zoning commission approve the setback variances needed for these lots and the return to the underlying R-6 zone district. We have already discussed the setback variances with Amy Guthrie of the HPC. She assured us that they appear to be in compliance with the intent of the HPC guidelines. Following is how this project complies with all the standards for a subdivision and for a PUD amendment as required in the pre-application conference. COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS Section 26.304.060(8)(1) We met with James Lindt and Jennifer Phelan for the pre- application conference and again to clarify our questions. It was determined that we could proceed with a combined review for the PUD amendment and the Subdivision application. Section 26.415.070(D) We have been through the HPC design review process, receiving approval for our project, the 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus and a certificate of appropriateness for a Major Development. (See attached resolution). Section 26.420.020(6)(1) (a)The project received a variance from the HPC to the front yard setback to allow the existing front porches to remain where they are, and not require that the houses be moved back on the lot a couple of feet, as required by the current PUD. (If the parcels are returned to the underlying R-6 zoning, the existing front yard setbacks would be in compliance and the need for this variance would be eliminated.) The side yard setback variance was granted to 930 Matchless for the encroachment of a window well for life and safety reasons. (b) n/a (c)The 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus was also awarded to 930 Matchless. (d) n/a (e) A parking space waiver was also granted for 920 Matchless. (fl na. Section 26.445.050 A-J Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD. A development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated Conceptual and Final, or Minor PUD shall comply with the following standazds and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with Conceptual Reviews and properties eligible for Minor PUD Review, certain standazds shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application, and its conformity to the standazds and procedures of this Chapter and this title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The additional density created by this subdivision is consistent with the In-fill program: it is walking distance to the center of town, on a bus line and in a section of town that has mutts family as well as single family homes. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the chazacter of existing land uses in the surrounding azea. The new development on this parcel will maintain the street scape of Matchless Drive, as required by the HPC. The cottages will be renovated with additions to the rear and additional buildings at the back of the new lots. This is the same as the recent redevelopment of 950 Matchless Drive and the Connor cabins. Also the neighborhood just to the west is high density, so this moderate density will fit into the area. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding azea. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments aze available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. The proposed development is exempt from GMQS. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: -~ ~~ 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property aze appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The chazacter of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding azea. The four cottages that were moved onto Matchless Drive in the Sixties / created their own, unique neighborhood. The proposed development on 920 and 930 Matchless will be compatible and in character with the _ other miner's cottages that have been renovated with additional buildings to the rear of the properties. The surrounding area is already residential, with only the Smuggler Racquet Club left to be redeveloped _ into another residential neighborhood. b) Natural or man-made hazards. _ There are no natural or man made hazards that will affect either of the newly created parcels with this subdivision of an existing lot, as they are both already developed parcels. c) Existing natural chazacteristics of the property and surrounding azea such as ' steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. _ There are no natural characteristics on the property or the surrounding area that will be affected. A few small trees will be transplanted. d) Existing and proposed man-made chazacteristics of the property and the surrounding azea such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, pazking, ^ and historical resources. ^ The proposed man made characteristics will only be adding two bedrooms to the existing parcel, (there are 6 bedrooms currently on the fathering parcel and 8 are proposed), thus the impacts to traffic, circulation, etc will be negligible. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of .. open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the chazacter of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding azea. The proposed dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district and the strict guidelines of the HPC keep the mass and scale smaller so as not to overwhelm the small miner's cottages; in keeping with the character of the rest of Matchless Drive. We are preserving large yards L~ between the buildings on both new parcels, to preserve the open space. The FAR allowed on the sites is also a limiting factor to the size of the buildings on the parcels. As mentioned, we are seeking some of the additional FAR, through the HPC bonus, to create TDRs to help offset the cost of renovating the cottages. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cazs used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. The HPC has granted a variance for parking spaces on the lots in keeping with the character of other historic parcels in the area. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. N/A c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. The parcels are on a bus line and within walking distance to the gondola and the center of town. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. See above. (c) 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced iL a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. N/A b) There aze not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. The roads to the parcel are existing and adequate, and the spacing between the buildings meets the code requirements for fire protection. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazazds or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. There are no natural hazards on or near the proposed development. It already has residential structures on it. b) The effects of the proposed development aze detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. As we are leaving over 50% of the parcel as open or landscaped space, we will have no detrimental effect on the natural watershed. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. N/A d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. N1A 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific azea plan to which the property is subject. The proposed development is creating a voluntary ADU to house a local employee. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical chazacteristics of the site, as identified in subpazagraphs 4 and 5, above, those azeas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate the additional density, as we are only adding two bedrooms. See above for subparagraphs 4 and 5. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and chazacteristics. The development is compatible and complimentary to the surrounding and expected future development patterns as the neighborhood to the west is zoned for high density and the rest of the neighborhood is zoned for moderate density, which is what we are seeking. Notes: a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying zone district as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective zone district or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a Final PUD Development Plan. b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. Please see the attached site plan to see the proposed dimensions for the parcels. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standazd is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which aze unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town aze preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. There are no natural features on or near the site that are of any significant interest. The man-made features consisting of two historic miner's cottages will be renovated and added onto in a manner that preserves the character of "Old Aspen', with the approval from the HPC. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. New structures are being arranged according to the historic pattern of the cottage at the front of the lot and carriage houses (or other structures) to the rear of the lot. Garages will be accessed from the rear of the lots. The location of the cottages will remain unchanged, with the new developments added to the back. This will preserve large front yards and back yards between the buildings. 3. Structures aze appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehiculaz and pedestrian movement. The miner's cottages will remain where they are currently, maintaining the streetscape of four cottages in a row, facing the street. 4. Buildings and access ways aze appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. The houses and the garage are arranged to allow for emergency access from both the front and rear of the lots. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. N/A, as this is not public space. There is adequate space for the intended residential use. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. The drainage from the buildings will be contained on the parcels, as there is adequate green space to accommodate all roof and hard surface drainage. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings aze appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. N/A ~~ '•4 D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standazd is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding pazcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The .landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen azea climate. The landscape plan will preserve most of the trees on the existing lots, removing/transplanting only a couple of trees to allow for the expansion of the house at 930 Matchless. There will be typical mixture of yard and gardens as found throughout the neighborhood. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, aze preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. There are no significant, unique features on the lot. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. The protection of the existing trees will insure that they are protected from construction traffic/work by either fencing around the trees individually or around the construction area, whichever is most appropriate. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standazd is to encourage azchitectural interest, variety, chazacter, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural chazacter is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the chazacter of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an - azchitectural chazacter plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed azchitecture of the development shall: 1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed azchitecture of the property, represent a chazacter suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of neazby historical and cultural resources. The proposed development will be very much in character with the historic nature of the miner's cottages, as the design has been through the strict review process of the Historic Preservation Commission for lot 930. The addition to the cottages will respect the scale and massing by incorporating smaller architectural features that will not dominate the original homes. These strict guidelines will apply to the renovation of the cottage and the new construction proposed on the rear of lot 920 also. 2. incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. Passive solar (and possibly active solar) and natural venting/cooling will play a significant part in the design of the buildings. The use of energy and resource efficient fixtures and mechanical systems will also be used. 3. accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. The roof design will address the safe shedding of snow and water with minimal maintenance. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standazd to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standazds shall be accomplished: I. All liglrting is proposed so as to prevent direct glaze or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. The only exterior lighting will be lights at each exterior door on the buildings spot light in the case of emergency. There will be not direct glare. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. All the exterior lighting will be in accordance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards. See cut sheets of exterior lights. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common pazk, open space, or recreation azea for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common pazk, open space, or recreation area enhances the chazacter of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. N/A 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common pazk and recreation azeas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of yeazs) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similaz manner. N/A 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent Gaze and maintenance of open spaces, recreation azeas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. N/A, there are no shared facilities. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue M burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: M 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. The proposed development will only be adding one bedroom to the lots, so the existing public infrastructure is more than adequate. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. There will be no adverse impacts on public infrastructure. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements aze provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. N/A I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1&2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standazd is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other azea dedicated to public or private use. Each of the two proposed lots will have both pedestrian walkways to the main street and will have vehicular access to the rear of the lots via an existing access easement behind the houses at 940 & 950 Matchless Dr. 2. The proposed development, vehiculaz access points, and pazking an•angement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. The proposed development will have very little, if any impact on the existing roads and access points, with no adverse affect. (The following criteria are not applicable to this minor PUD application) 3• Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and aze proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regazding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation aze proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, aze minimized to the extent practical. J Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase aze mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. The only "phasing" of this proposal is that the development on 930 Matchless will be completed first, and 920 Matchless will be undertaken at a later date, as a completely different residential project. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. The lots to both sides of 930 will be insulated from the construction activities; and when 920 is started, 930 will be insulated from those construction activities by construction fencing. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessazy or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures aze realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. N/A Section 26.445.100(6) Amendment of PUD development order. Other Amendments. The proposed amendment to the current PUD is to return the parcels, when split, back to the underlying R-6 zone district. This mainly affects the allowable FAR as the setback requirements are the same in both the current PUD and the proposed. Setback variances will be needed on the newly created lots, which are very long and narrow and have the existing historic cottages, which are currently nonconforming. The house on 930 will remain nonconforming as far as side yard setbacks, ass it can not be relocated on the lot. 920 will become conforming with the renovation of the cottage. The Historic Preservation Commission has already given the approval to setback variances for the current large lot, since the existing buildings are nonconforming within the current PUD and has suggested the P&Z grant the setbacks necessary for the lots after the split. The requirements for Historic Landmark Properties will be applied to these lots as they both have an Historically Designated cottage. The zoning as proposed under the R-6 zone district, for each lot separately, is as follows: 920 Matchless Drive Minimum lot size: 3000 sq. ft. required: 7756.7 sq. ft. proposed. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: detached dwelling unit, 3000 sq. ft: for 2 detached dwelling units, (3750 historic landmark) 6000 sq. ft. Minimum lot width: 30 feet Minimum front yard: Principal building: 10 ft, accessory building: 15 ft. Minimum rear yard: Principal building: 10 ft., for the portion of a principal building used soley as a garage: 5 ft. Accessory buildings: 5 ft. Minimum side yard: 5 ft. Combined side yard: 23.78 ft. not required. 'Two detached residential dwellings located on one lot shall not be subject to the combined side yard setback requirements, provided that the minimum setback between the two detached dwellings on the lot shall be ten feet. Site Coverage: 44.15% of 7756.7 = 3424.58 sq. ft. Maximum height: 25 feet Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot: 10 feet. Floor Area Ratio: 3881.07 sq. ft. plus 500 sq. ft. HPC bonus, which shall be requested at the time of HPC approvals for redevelopment. The existing and proposed setbacks are as follows: Front yard: 21'-7" (existing) Rear yard: 5'-0" Side yard: 5"-0" (existing 3'-11 '/." to be adjusted to a min. of 5'-0" at the time of redevelopment) Combined Side yard: not subject to combined side yard requirement, (see above) The variances needing to be created by this PUD from the underlying R-6 zoning are as follows: Side yard variance of 12'/<'", until such time as the property is redeveloped, with HPC approvals. A minimum distance of 10' will be maintained with the proposed buildings on 930 Matchless. 930 Matchless Drive l~ Minimum lot size: 3000 sq. ft., Proposed: 8636.5 sq. ft. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: detached dwelling unit, 3000 sq. ft for 2 detached dwelling units, (3750 historic landmark), 6000 sq. ft. Minimum lot width: 30 feet Minimum front yard: Principal building: 10 ft, accessory building: 15 ft. Minimum rear yard: Principal building: 10 ft., for the portion of a principal building used soley as a garage: 5 ft. Accessory buildings: 5 ft. Minimum side yard: 10 ft. Combined side yard: 28.18 ft. Site Coverage: 41.2% of 8636.5 = 3558.2 sq. ft. Maximum height: 25 feet Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot: 5 feet Floor Area Ratio: 3613.8 sq. ft. (We will give up the 500 sq. ft bonus already awarded by the HPC for use on Lot 920) The existing and proposed setbacks are as follows: Front yard: 25'-2" (existing) Rear yard: 100'-4" existing (30'-0"; 2'-7" for garage/ADU). Side yards: West side yard: 2'-6'/=" as approved by the HPC. East side yard: 6'-2" as approved by the HPC. Combined Side yard: worst case area 11'-6" The variances needing to be created by this PUD from the underlying R-6 zoning are as follows: Side yards: West side yard: 7'-5 ''/2" variance (for a distance of 5'-6" along the side of the building. 4'-7'/:' variance for existing building, and 3'-9" variance for addition. 4'-6" variance at the new garage/ADU is needed on the west. 9'-0" variance for a light well on the west. East side yard: 3'-10" variance at the new garage/ADU. Combined Side yard: 10'-9" variance at the house 17'-5" variance at the garage/ADU The side yards are nonconforming as they exist now, under the current zoning. The fathering lot is large enough to require the side yards to be 15 feet on each side with a combined side yard setback of 50 feet. The setbacks required for the new, smaller lots will allow Lot 920 to be completely conforming when it is redeveloped and the existing additions are removed from the original cottage. The side yards on Lot 930 will still be nonconforming, as the existing cottage is driving the location of the house. The encroachments into setbacks will not be as severe w/ the new lot size and requirements. We did investigate moving the house located at 930 closer to the center of the proposed lot to help mitigate the need for the variance. Our meetings with the house mover showed that it would be impossible to move the house over without destroying much of the mature landscaping. As for the new addition to the back, the HPC worked with us over the course of the summer and many meetings to come up with a design they could approve. This approved design limits the addition to the rear of the cottage to having only 3'- 0" visible from the street behind the front fagade, so we are limited in where we can put new building elements. We would like to be able to keep the proposed house, so as not to be required to go back to the HPC for further approvals. Section 26.470.040(A)(4) GMQS exempt development. Single family and duplex development on Historic Landmark properties. As this proposed development includes the renovation of two historic miner's cottages, it is exempt from the GMQS restrictions. Section 26.480.050 Review Standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standazds and requirements: A. General requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The additional density created by this subdivision is consistent with the In-fill program: it is walking distance to the center of town, on a bus line and in a section of town that has multi-family as well as single family homes. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the chazacter of existing land uses in the azea. The new development on this parcel will maintain the streetscape of Matchless Drive. The cottages will be renovated with additions to the rear with additional buildings at the back of the new lots. This is the same as the recent development of 950 Matchless Drive. Also the neighborhood just to the west is high density, so this moderate density will fit into the area. o, The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding azeas. The proposed development will have NO affect on the future development of the surrounding parcels, as it is a minor addition to what already exists in the neighborhood. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with all the applicable requirements of this Title. B. Suitability of [and for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfaze of the residents in the proposed subdivision. The location of the proposed subdivision is on a flat parcel at the base of Smuggler mountain which already has structures on it, so there will be no hazard to the welfare of the residents. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. As the property is already developed in a residential neighborhood, and this proposal is only adding one bedroom to the parcels, there will be no premature extension or public cost and the spatial patterns will be effective. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standazds may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standazds would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development azeas, and/or the goals of the community. N/A 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. N/A D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. As this is an historic property, and arenovation /remodel of existing dwellings, we are exempt from the GMQS. We are also adding a voluntary ADU. E. Section 26.630 School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standazds set forth at Chapter 26.630. As this proposal is only adding one bedroom to the fathering parcel, it would be subject to the one bedroom/studio equation: $500,000.00 x .0012 x .33 = 198.00 F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a pazcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created pazcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, § 2) This historically land marked parcel is exempt from the GMQS per Section 26.470.040(A)(4). Section 26.520 Accessory Dwelling Units The voluntary ADU that is proposed meets all the design criteria set forth in this section, the IBC, the HPC and all other local agencies or requirements. Section 26.610 Park Development Impact Fee The proposed development is located on an Historic Landmark Site, with iw~ buildings, therefore it is exempt from the Park Development Fee. In summary, we feel that the subdivision of this one, large parcel in the Alpi Subdivision, into two smaller parcels will help preserve and enhance the feeling o1 little corner of miner's cottages in Aspen. It is consistent with the lot split that occ Lot 4, when 940 Matchless and 950 Matchless became two separate parcels. The proposed PUD amendment is consistent with the surrounding neighbo it will return to the same moderate density, R-6 zoning. This allows the owners to P the cottages and enhance the historic character of the lots by maintaining the existing ~ streetscape and mature landscape while putting additional buildings to the rear of the lots. Thus we are requesting an amendment to the existing PUD as follows: 1. Return to the underlying zone district of R-6, along with the setbacks as outlined above. 2. The ability to accept from the HPC the 500 sq. tt. bonus for Lot 920 when the lot goes through the approval process. 3. Subdivision of Lot 5, Alpine Acres, creating two separate parcels, and dissolving the current condominium plat and it's association. 4. Give the HPC the authority to grant any variances for setbacks, parking and the FAR bonus for the redevelopment of Lot 920, so no further PUD amendments will be necessary at the time of redevelopment of 920. The TDRs that will be created for the parcels will be used in compliance with the intent of the Historic Preservation Commission, to be sold to offset the costs involved with the renovation of the two miner's cottages. Thank you for your consideration of this project. We look forward to working with the Historic Preservation Commission on the design for the renovation of 920 Matchless Drive. Attachments: 1. Letter of authorization for Kim Raymond to represent owner's and proof of ownership. 2. Land Use Application 3. Dimensional Requirements, for each new lot 4. Pre-application conference summary 5. Fee agreement 6. Vicinity Map 7. Improvement survey 8. Draft subdivision plat 9. Prior approvals from HPC 10. Current PUD 11. Existing and proposed elevations 12. Existing and proposed floor plans 13. Existing and proposed site plan 14. CD of this document 15. List of adjacent property owners. 16. Letter of support from neighbor at 950 Matchless 8 C`' ~, .~ N Q ~o ~~ ~~ z ~Q W~ 0 i~ ~~j o ~ o W ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~MM W, z ~, oz FF ~~~ ~~~ ~~z ~w~ z QaA z ~~~° 0 ~. 0 NN ej O r S r D L ~~a~~ ~~~'~~~.~~~ I ~.~. .a N C1 C' y z Y 0 W H W fl a U 0 W 5~ Y~ 4~ ~ $ ~~~ a U ;~ P 'i ~` ~m ~~ ~ s •~ a ~~~ $E~d e~g~ 6~~ F! ~t ~}g: ;i3a ~~st ~~€~ ~~_ $i~~ $€. RIE~€ b ^~^ ~ i"~ v/'~ I~ ^~ /^^ /^^ /^^ 11 ~~ b g ~ - ~~ 4 ~ag~a - 4 ffiNmR _~ - oD$~; o ~~ \1 y® W h W W e ;~ e ~~ z~ =o a 4~ 8 ~~ en~~ 1~4Bb.~@~~° _g ~~ pit iy ,ic s~ ~ W ~~ ~J do~ i i ® ~~ I I B ~~ ~~®®4m®®® o ~~ m r sQ ~a Q LL d~~ ~ ~ v N ~~~ ~~~ ~ a O ~ ~ ~~ 4w O `o ..~ ~ ~ ~~o ?zs~ J ~ ® ~^^Z -~W QQ? ® ® ~W ~Q~ ~ ® ~Q~ J ® 521 ~~ 3n~ba SS31HJlb'W I 0 a ~ I W ~ Q ~ 8 ~ s ~~ ~8 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~< 8 ~s ~~ ;Q Q 8 ~ 3 ~ ~~ z '~ ~g ~ i~ ~~ ~0 s~ ~~ ~~ 3Z ~F g ~, ' LL 3 j g o `T oQ ~~ I ~ I i '~ ~ ~e ~ ~ '~ ~ '.0 ~o zQ ~~ v I~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ Ir ~ o° ~ ~ i ~ ~~i W~ ~o ~~ ~~ E ~~ `~~ ~3 I !~ ~~ ,o Iz b'~1~~®BI~NS ' I I I o ~~jF LL W~ I o~ ~ ®® ~ I I ~~ I I ~ ~ I I ~~ ®® I I I I v® i ®~ I I I I I I I I I \ W \ ti ' I y. I I I I ~ I I I i Z a ~ ~ I OC I W I I I i I w~ ~~ LL ~~~~ S ~~ 'n ~~ I ~Q f~ ~~ ~,9 ~ i ~W I ? I [~ S W~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i d ~~ i~ ~~ o ~o i ~ ~ i9 ~° J Qg 3~ ! ~~, SI <~ ~~ ~J ~ 39 3 Ili ~ ~W ~ ~S µ w o~ o d $ ~o ~~ y ~ ~ ~~ ~v ~I ° 8~ ~ 89 ~o o~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~Z W ~~ 9~ ~ ~' ~ ~'~ ~~ ~~ f3 ~ ~o ~ ~o i IW 'W ~WQ ~~ Z I W J d d o W zi LL i ~O ~,~ ~~ wl Z. aQ ~~ ~, ~~ ~8 £~ ~a `o_ °~~ ~~s~~ ~ oa~g ~~~'~o z °> d~' d m <~ o ~zoz g ~~~ v QQV~ Y N YTI ~ 0 ~ ~m m ~m N u n C ~~w '~ n ~o 'a 82a ~#~ ~~~~ t$~ €FE ~~E; 3€y~'j z @~~I pp€~i 6F{j5 •Et~ "FVe --------L--- ------------- ---- --r--------- ]au'i%vavooaip rnv6ei'~ac ii Z52Z 526'0[6 'del/a eV~ ~ 3nI214 SS3NH~1`dW 0£6 U N F N~ Ti9i8 OOtlllOIW N3d5tl ~~H ~n 311N3Atl %tl[Y SS „° 51~31IH~Ntl QNOWAtlN WIN 3~N34IS321 021tfa04 as HAI2IQ SS3~H~SKFI r ~. a ~ 3 g 8 s ~a 5 c ®o O~~Q M m 9 F O ~w ~ gy ~ ~T .g w ova LL ANN ~ jW''w WF~ e OfF o g r ~ ~aa a ''_' O a"'1 H Q 9 a aev-aeeamoo pvomSV -aT [xeaS LSL~ SZb'OGb ~3/~oV TT918 OOYlMIIW N3dST 31Nt3~tl Y.MLtl SI Sll31IH~Ntl dNONAtlN NIM O~ ~N3dSt/ 3/~I2i4 SS3lH~lt/W 0£6 3~N34IS321O21daOQ wZ W --1 J d W Q Q O J W e-i e`-1 Q ~.~. \. .Z/l OL-SZ ~., ~:, 1~' iseamooiimovSO G 6~3 / ~~9~ ZZ IT8i8 OOV8Ul0J N3ditl 31W3~tl %tl(Y ST S1AlIH)Ntl ONOWAtlL WIC O~ 'N3dSd 3/~I2l4 SS3lH~1bW 0£6 3~N34IS321 O21tlaOa J Z wQ J ~ z °C H ~ ~ N r.~ Q ~., \., d/t 9-.E d/l OL-.SZ fir. A..- w,:. 1aa'~aeamoai4S~OL6~~a3~~ a$I LTI9S8 OOY80lOJ N3d5tl 3R9Atl 1(tlLY SL Sl)31IHJNtl OHOW.ItlN WIC O~ ~N3dS1~1 3nRla SS3lH~1dW 0£6 3~N34IS321021ddOa -- ~I ~ i , I L ~~ ms WU MlY N r~onn~ ..~ Fm Am I °° I I ~- ,- ~ ~ '~~ i - ~ go U tl° o> i u; .W o--,. _._- _n- _.-__ '~' -- - J j j M jd O w o `~" d ~ Q ~~ r^^ ~. ~,.,. ~. ,°°~°°aamZiQvool6'~ULb~~a,fa ~~ L O~ 'N3dSd 3/1I2~4 SS3lH~l`dW 0£6 u M °~ ~~ TS8T8 OOtlIM1lOJ N3dStl 31W3Atl %tl[tl SS rN o s~aue~av arrauva wia 3~N34IS321O21tf4Oa ~m Z d O ~ ~ a a f~~ ~vs ~µ~ `~_.. °a°°°'~~tl5°i6cOL6°~~a3a ~~ O~ ~N3dStf u ••~ 3/~I2i4 SS3lH~l`dW 0£6 ST9TB ONMOl00 N3Mtl 31W3Atl %tlCtl SI NU Ntl1 c si~auN~av armruva wig 3~N34IS321 O2i`daO4 H^ Oa 9 S_ • ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ d ~~ ~• i° ~= a~ r~ <o f~ 0 s de j~~ Yq b b `S g 8 o m ~ ~ 0 0 .-, u O ~ Q N W J w ~g ~Oa u 11 _- II I ICI fi it ~i u ~ ~~ _ 1 iI I f I f -ice --l~ lV it i \~~ i - .f' ~~I F _ JII ~ I 1 A__=`_._ _ I - _ L ~1 i II I t ' ~1 4 1 :J b ~° ~a sa ,~ 1lV1C~/1 J b t F ~~1I J11 i. L _. -1 I I - II I.L_~ C~ - __ J I I ~ , LI ,~. _L Z{ ~d Yy~ Z~ d 8° ~~ pp 8o S~ ~ Ed °C Z N 0 N W J Q w r ~L r 3 '~... ~. aea-aae~~p°si~'o'<sm"~fes3ovon~ Y 3~ ~S'S3lH~ dW 0£6 U N N TT9TB OOtlNUTUJ N3d5tl ~~ 31W3~Y XtlCtl S[ ~n n~3lie~av aeowAVa wry 3~N34IS321 021t/a0o ~; Om t ~ o ; s b Cg ~_ : 8 e 5e Spp ~€ de ~~ Kd 2 ~4 ~o ~~ E9 •,. aaa•aeoisz~es°~QOis"~sja~c$ TT9T8 Wtle0107 N3Mtl 31W3~tl %Y[tl SI Sll31IH)Ntl UNOWAtl21 WIN 0 ~ 8 Z O H a w W F N W 3 Z O I- W Z O F w J F N ow W6 „U W ~o Er a~ ao, Z O Z Q J a z ~- ~_ X W Z O F a w J I- a w © _ ~ ~ 7 O m N NI W Z Z O O W W J ,~ W f' Z N E- a W ~ ~ ~ Z zw ~ H j H = N W Q ~~., ~h. - ~,°° ~~-°a~srt~s3a~~ O~ 'N3dStf 3flI21a SS3lH~1dW 0£6 U --. •• ~ Slr[t WYrOl07 N3d5r mnr nn n NU ~"~ ••o s~3innar aowAVa wir 3~N3aIS321 O21daOa 4c am ~~ o'° 9 m z ~ ~ d n 6 ~' 6 o ~ o ~ ^ i 4 4 s ~~ ~3 ~d w> ~a go ~~ ~~ Q F 4 8 ~~ a;' 6 ~~ DI ~, ro III 4 8 ~~ <~ ~d ~~ 4 8 4 ~ 4 $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ e ~ ~ o < ~ ~ ~ o ~ Z M O ~~ O <> N ~ w Q J W I! '••' ,_, ,..-,r EMe ~& Rerord yavgate F4ttn RaDorLs Fadat Tab Hab _. _. .........~. L' Hab . r~ ..________.... ......... ...__.. ,___ .______..._.. ,,. .. '~ Ya '...:t _7 '. . l:orditbna ~_._ 5ub Qermis ~...... Yam..... i P~6c CamnaN. ~ Attacjlmntts ~iahr ~ flo,{Rmp Status ~ ArchlErg ~ Pnce}a ~ Cwtom F,tdds' Fes; ~ F~S~nmaiy ~ Acticna ~ Rout~g ~(istmy i Parnet TyPa a~ Land 4ae!2004 PemuY p 0048.2~5.ASLU ~ Address 930 MATCHLESS DR ~ ApVSWe 1 Cdy ASPEN ~ SMIe I~~ ~:3 Zip 81617 Masld Panmt ~ ~ ~ Rwtbg 0uaue ~isMt APDbad 06/16/25 Rte,'... _J Status Ayprovad ~ i Detagkian 0920 MATCHLE55 DR Irwed ~°'`~-`'-'~-`'''JI Fad i S~ndted KIM RAYMOND 925.2252 Clack Runrrg Days i Ex~es t$11120~ (- Vubb on tha web? Pxmd 10' ~~ 34615 - Oarar ..._. _.. ..__ .... _ ..._ Lad Nana DODAAO CHRISTINE M ~ Fest Nanm ~~ MATCHLESS DR u PEN CO 81611 ('hors ~.-~~~~ v. t~ mrk RacaQ 1 of 1 ..... ~1/~N~FVI~~P{~W~~.n' I~GCVnD