The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.217 3rd St.0013.2012.ASLU0013.2012.ASLU ~19 ~. THIRD ST 46 273512 4 65 005 . , I: â€¢t ,/ Â· E ./.'-I./Â£/Â£.Ik ....;I - -Cl- - . wrN-r.~"4**z-1 - .i--11 -_w, -1 ~~ -1-U-1.I -~fidal--A;â€¢-,- ~ -L"/AL hivw-*AQIET'il@'11~29,1/Â·""i~ to is ~1%91 03(/1 M 5 * 3 111 55 qr THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0013.2012.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBERS 273512 4005 i 1 1-1 7 < PROJECTS ADDRESS 219 S THIRD ST PLANNER CHRIS BENDON CASE DESCRIPTION APPEAL - PRE-DEVELOPMENT SLOPE REPRESENTATIVE PAUL YOUNG 111 4 LF Wit,2 1 UL DATE OF FINAL ACTION 3.13.12 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 3.21.12 2-3 35-<2-'-4 - 69- 005- ODIS -20 [ 1 -ABLU 21#~W//1/Id.=5#&746n#itbA~M/:-.i;~:i~/21*1#Â·'.4, : -16 4 .~.. 4 -m/,El:*il'id#/0/illim:*4766:d'O-eHI' illinlol Elle Edit Record Navigate Fgrm Reports Format Iab Belp 1@ @,X b ,/ 4*Ii Qj 6 -3 dd'~ 1 14 1 , 4 0 ji Rlip 1 : *~i olo~ 19*1@330 4 133% a 14 ~ RNing Status ~ Fees I Fee 5ummarY ~ Â¥tions |Attachments ~Routing tlistory | Yaluation | ArchiEng ~Custom Fields ~ 5ub Eermits 4 I ~' -Â¥Â·;4ulâ€¢4~-Â·0. .190,7% I .*Â»p.400:pÂ¥ 23.*. -,râ‚¬ ~ L 1 rmE type ~aslu Aspen Land Use Permit # 0013.2012,ASLU ~ Address 219 STHIRD ST AptiSuite ~ City ASPEN state @-1 Zip 81611 Permit Information L Master permit Routing queue aslu07 Applied 3/7/2012 - Project Status P .14 Approved * 13 a ~ Description APPLICATION FOR AN APPEAL - Issued aosedfinal f ~ Submitted KLIEN,COTE,EDWARDS,LLC 9258700 dock ~ning~ Days |~-0~ Expires 3/2/2013 i Submitted via Ir 4 1 Â·Â» 1 Owner 42*f.> Last name YLRNEST, LLC First name SUZANNE FOSTER 219 S THIRD ST ASPEN CO 81611 Phone () - Address ft 4- - Applicant Il Owner is applicant? l Contractor is applicant? 4% G. *biÂ®7. Last name YOUNG PAUL 111 First name Phone () - Cust# 23638 ' Address r Lender Last name First name Phone () - Address - Displays the permit applicant's phone number AspenGold5 [server] angelas 111~ foff ,: 2 CLUL 321- 61 5 9 A:*04-4 \ 2 Go >Â« ~64Â» F-~_ 3 f z %*_ rse:o N.40!noll -,coq'oof.J L.-m90,9 RESOLUTION N0.22 (SERIES OF 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REGARDING TOPOGRAPHY OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 217/219 SOUTH THIRD STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director received a request from YLP, LLC. owner of a property located at 217/219 South Third Street, to accept an estimation of pre-development topography prepared by a professional land surveyor registered with the State of Colorado; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.575.020-1 (table) - Calculations and Measurements, the Community Development Director is authorized to accept an estimation of pre-development topography prepared by a registered land surveyor in instances where the grade of a property has been modified by prior development; and,, the Director rendered a decision and the applicant sought an appeal; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.575.020-1 (table) - Calculations and Measurements, the Director did accept such estimation by issuance of an administrative determination dated February 21, 2012; and, WHEREAS, neighbors Paul and Angela Young, aka Paul Young and Staspen, LLC, represented by attorney Jody Edwards, appealed the administrative decision; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and verbal testimony from the appellant, the Community Development Director, and has found that the Director provided due process and neither exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his authority in rendering the administrative determination; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the Community Development Director's administrative determination regarding pre-development topography of the 217/219 South Third Street property. This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. 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 thereo f. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on March 12. 2012. ATTEST: Up W <*tÂ· 441 4 'jwd al UN ovE de,L Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: James R. True, City Attorney Resolution No. 51, Series of 2012. Page 1 Dka- MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council COPY: Jim True, City Attorney FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 041 -- j RE: Appeal of Pre-Development Slope Determination - 219 So. 3rd St. DATE: March 12,2012 SUMMARY: A property's development rights are based on the size and characteristics of the property. The presence of steep slopes reduces the "net lot area" upon which allowable tloor area is determined. Many properties contain slopes which are man-made. The City's Land Use Code permits the Community Development Director to accept an estimation of pre-development topography of a parcel in cases where the grade of the property has been affected by development. The estimation must be prepared by a professional surveyor or civil engineer. The Community Development Director accepted an estimation of pre-development topography for the 217/219 property. An administrative decision was issued February 21, 2012. The owners of the neighboring property, Paul and Angela Young represented by Jody Edwards, have appealed the decision. There are three criteria upon which the City Council has to decide an appeal of an administrative decision. Based solely upon the record established by the decision, the City Council shall consider whether: 1) There was a denial of due process; 2) The administrative body exceeded its jurisdiction; or, 3) The administrative body abused its discretion. These standards ask whether the Director's actions were ethical. The City's code states that the decision or determination made by the administrative officer shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a positive finding on one of these criteria. (Please see Exhibit C for the entire code section.) STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 1. Due Process - The code permits the Community Development Director to accept an estimation of pre-development topography. The Director did accept such an estimation for the 219 property prepared by a professional land surveyor. Tthe Director informed the Youngs and their attorney of the determination so as they may avail themselves of this appeal process. The appellant is not claiming there was an abuse of due process. 1 2. Jurisdiction - The Director's jurisdiction to accept an estimation of predevelopment topography is set forth in the City's Land Use Code, Section 26.575.020-1 (a table). "In instances where the natural grade of a property has been affected by prior development activity, the Community Development Director may accept an estimation of pre-development topography prepared by a registered land surveyor or civil engineer. The Director may require additional historical documentation, technical studies, reports, or other information to verify a pre-development topography. Staff believes this language is clear and the appellant is not questioning the jurisdiction of the Director. 3. Discretion - With respect to abuse of the Director's discretion, the code does allow the Director to use discretion. The code allows the Director to accept a pre-development slope estimation which has been prepared by a registered land surveyor or civil engineer. The estimation was prepared by John Howorth, a professional land surveyor registered with the State of Colorado. In his commentary, Howorth cited similar site conditions along the Midland Railroad right-of-way and concluded the condition of the 219 property to be man-made along with his estimation of the grade prior to development. The language of the code goes on to permit, but not require, the Director to require additional documentation as may be necessary to make a decision. The Director consulted with the City Engineer Tricia Aragon, a professional civil engineer also registered with the State. After reviewing the Howorth estimation, she reported that the site grade was not natural and agreed with Howorth's pre-development grade estimation. Based on the Howorth information and the clarity o f the City Engineer' s response, the Director determined additional information was not necessary to verify the pre- development topography and did not require additional studies, reports, etc. The Director did need to use his discretion in rendering the decision. The question is whether the Director abused that discretion or acted unethically. The decision was based on the professional opinion of both a registered land surveyor and a civil engineer. At some point, the Director must make a decision that sufficient information has been provided to render a decision. In his discretion, the Director determined that the information provided by two qualified professionals was sufficient. The Director believes that his discretion was applied appropriately and that the decision was based on sufficient information. PRIOR HEARING: The appellant cites minutes from a prior appeal concerning this property. This information is simply not part of the record for this determination of pre-development topography. The minutes and documentation of the prior appeal are not part of the decision. In addition, the prior hearing addressed an interpretation of a prior version of the land use code, which is no longer in effect. The code now provides a very clear process by which the City can recognize man-made slopes and accept a pro fession estimation of pre-development grade. 2 TWO RESOLUTIONS: Attached are two Resolutions. One finds that the Director acted correctly and affirms the decision. The second finds that the Director abused his discretion and reverses the decision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the Director's decision was rendered correctly. Staff recommends City Council uphold the Director's decision by adopting the proposed Resolution affirming the decision. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions must be made in the positive) '1 move to approve Resolution No...24~z Series of 2012, [affirming or reversing.] the Community Development Director's decision regarding topography of the 219 property." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Administrative determination of slope dated February 21,2012, with attachments Exhibit B - Appeal letter from Jody Edwards, with attachments Exhibit C - Land Use Code Section Regarding Appeals Exhibit D - Affidavit of notice rn RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REGARDING TOPOGRAPHY OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 217/219 SOUTH THIRD STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director received a request from YLP, LLC, owner of a property located at 217/219 South Third Street, to accept an estimation of pre-development topography prepared by a professional land surveyor registered with the State of Colorado; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.3575.020-1 (table) - Calculations and Measurements. the Community Development Director is authorized to accept an estimation of pre-development topography prepared by a registered land surveyor in instances where the grade of a property has been modified by prior development; and,, the Director rendered a decision and the applicant sought an appeal; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.3575.020-1 (table) - Calculations and Measurements, the Director did accept such estimation by issuance of an administrative determination dated February 21, 2012; and, WHEREAS, neighbors Paul and Angela Young, aka Paul Yound and Staspen, LLC, represented by attorney Jody Edwards, appealed the administrative decision; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and verbal testimony from the appellant, the Community Development Director, and has found that the Director provided due process and neither exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his authority in rendering the administrative determination; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and wel fare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the Community Development Director's administrative determination regarding pre-development topography of the 217/219 South Third Street property. This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. 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 thereo f. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on ,2012. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: James R. True, City Attorney Resolution No. , Series of 2012. Page 1 RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REVERSING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REGARDING TOPOGRAPHY OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 217/219 SOUTH THIRD STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director received a request from YLP. LLC, owner of a property located at 217/219 South Third Street, to accept an estimation of pre-development topography prepared by a professional land surveyor registered with the State of Colorado; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.3575.020-1 (table) - Calculations and Measurements, the Community Development Director is authorized to accept an estimation of pre-development topography prepared by a registered land surveyor in instances where the grade of a property has been modified by prior development; and, , the Director rendered a decision and the applicant sought an appeal; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.3575.020-1 (table) - Calculations and Measurements, the Director did accept such estimation by issuance of an administrative determination dated February 21, 2012; and, WHEREAS, neighbors Paul and Angela Young, aka Paul Yound and Staspen, LLC, represented by attorney Jody Edwards, appealed the administrative decision; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and verbal testimony from the appellant, the Community Development Director, and has found that the Director abused his discretion in rendering the administrative determination; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council reverses the Community Development Director's administrative determination regarding pre-development topography of the 217/219 South Third Street property. The current grade of the property shall be the basis for development allowances on this property. This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. 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 thereo f. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on ,2012. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: James R. True, City Attorney Resolution No. , Series of 2012. Page 1 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION 217/219 South Third Street 94,14- A JURISDICTION: City of Aspen DATE: February 21,2012 - APPROVED BY: Chris Bendon, AICP Community Development Director Purpose: The Community Development Director is issuing this Administrative Determination to accept an estimation of pre-development topography for the 217/219 South Third Street property, pursuant to Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Background and Review: The property contains a steep embankment along the southern portion of the property. A surveyor evaluated the site, determined the existing grade to be man-made as part of the development of the Midland Railway, and prepared an estimation of the pre-development grade for review by the Community Development Director. Prior to making a determination, the Director conferred with the City Engineer as to the evidence of the embankment being man-made and the estimation of prior grade. Determination: In accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of Title 26, this Administrative Determination acknowledges and accepts the estimated pre-development topography prepared by professional land surveyor John Howarth February 21, 2012. This estimated topography shall be used as the basis for development allowances for this property. Attachments: Aragon email dated February 21,2012 Howarth letter and survey dated February 21,2012. Chris Bendon From: Trish Aragon Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 5:01 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: 219 S. 3rd Chris, I have reviewed the letter and cross sections in the Howarth survey dated 2/21/12. I agree that the site grade appears to be affected by the railway and is not natural. I also agree with the historic grade outlined in the cross sections. I do want to say that it is hard to really tell unless borings are taken. But in general I do agree with Howarth's interpolation of historic grade. Trish Aragon, P.E. City Engineer 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 429-2785 1 M met IVED Feb 21, 2012 FEB 2 1 2012 CITY OF ASPEN Mr. Chris Bendon, Director COMMUNITY DEVROPMENT City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Chris, The purpose of this letter is to address the narrow band of steep slope that runs through the Foster property, located at 217-219 South Third Street in Aspen. My firm has prepared a survey of the Foster property that depicts both improvements and topography. I have evaluated the slope that runs east to west through the property, just to the north of what was previously the Midland Railroad right-of-way. I have examined this slope in the field. During my career as a surveyor I have also examined similar slope conditions on other properties along the Midland Railroad right-of-way as it traverses the City of Aspen. It is my conclusion that this slope is not a natural condition on this property, but rather is a man-made condition that is the result of the installation of the railroad. If you have any questions about my conclusions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, \ ) 7Â»547 john Howarth Aspen Survey Engineers 6//1 KLEIN, COTt & EDWARDS, LLC ~~~#~71 ~-0~, ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERBERT S. KLEIN1 hsk@kcelaw.net 201 NORTH MILL STREET, STE. 203 LANCE R. COTE, PO Irc@kcelaw.net ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, Ill, PC jee@kcelaw,net TELEPHONE: (970) 925-8700 KENNETH E. CI'I RON3 kcitron@kcelauÂ·.net FACSIMILE: (970) 925-3977 MAI)HU B. KRISHNAMURTI mbk@keelaw.net www.kcelaw.net OF COUNSEL: JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR., Pd joe@keelaw.net ' also admitted in Hawaii March 6,2012 2 also admitted in California 3 also admitted in New York and Massachusetts 4 also admitted in Texas RECEIVED VIA HAND DELIVERY MAR O 6 2012 Chris Bendon, Director Community Development Department CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. Galena St., 3rd Floor COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Notice of Appeal concerning Administrative Determination Related to Man- Made Slopes; 219 South Third Street, Aspen, CO (the "Property") Dear Chris: This letter constitutes a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Section 26.316.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code. This office represents Angela and Paul Young, the owners of property known as 413 West Hopkins, Aspen, CO, and Staspen, LLC, the owner of the property known as 431 West Hopkins, Aspen, CO, both of which are within 300 feet of the Property. On February 21,2012, an Administrative Determination was issued concerning the acceptance of an estimation of pre-development topography for the Property. The purpose of this letter is to appeal that Determination to the City Council pursuant to Code Chapter 26.316. The basis for the appeal is that the Determination was issued based on an abuse of discretion. Please consider the following. The City Council considered arguments concerning the slope of the Property on October 27,2009. The City Council made it very clear at that hearing that the City would require the property owner to provide -evidence" concerning what is man- made and what is natural slope and "in the absence of that showing, the natural slope is what one sees." Further, the Property owner's representative, Bart Johnson, acknowledged that the owner would be required to provide such "evidence." See highlighted portions of the Minutes of that meeting attached as Exhibit A. As Mayor Ireland stated in the October 27,2009 hearing, "it is reasonable to assume that if a railroad is being built, one would put it where the natural land forms support it." Moreover, the City Engineer's email of February 21,2012, states, "it is hard to tell unless borings are taken." See copy of email attached as Exhibit B. This is consistent with what Larry Doble said in 2009 - "Without doing test borings there is no way to tell." See email from Larry Doble attached as Exhibit C. Chris Bendon, Director City of Aspen Community Development Department March 6,2012 Page 2 The Determination is based on a letter and topographical survey from a local surveyor who says he went to the property and looked at it and that he has looked at other properties along the same rail line. This is nothing more than a superficial investigation - no borings were performed. From his observations he concludes that "this slope is not a natural condition on this property." This is not "evidence" - it is a best guess. He does not say what portion of the slope is natural and what portion is man-made, because he can't do that unless he performs the borings which the City Engineers suggested. There is not even an estimation o f the percentage of the slope that is natural and is man-made. The visual analysis is inconclusive regarding the portion of the slope which may be cut and which may be fill or what was "original" grade in this location. Regardless, the current grade has been in place for approximately 130 years, long before we had a land use code, and is integral to and a permanent part of the landscape and infrastructure of the City. Absent some reasonably conclusive evidence showing what portion of this slope is natural and what portion is man-made, especially given that it is reasonable to assume the railroad would be built where natural landforms will support it, it is inappropriate to accept a guess that 100% of the slope is man-made. A reasonable estimation can be made that shows the entire slope is natural. See sketch attached as Exhibit D. In these circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to render a Determination without sufficient evidence to establish this historical grade of the property. Enclosed are our (1) Land Use Application Form, (2) Agreement to Pay Fees and (3) the fee in the amount $1,260.00. If you require any additional information in order to pursue the Appeal of the Determination. please contact me. It is my understanding that the City has already published Notice of the Appeal hearing date. Sincerely, KLEIN, C~* & EDWARDS, LLC 42 t*--~_97~ JosÂ¢~ E. Edwaras III CC: Paul and Angela Young John Staton young\ltr to Bendon appeal slope determination.doc RECEIVED hAAD 0 6 2012 ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION CITY OF ASPEN PROJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Foster Lot Split Name: 219 South Third Street Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: Name: Paul Young and Staspen, LLC Address: c/o Klein, Cote 6 Edwards, LLC. 201 North Mill St., #203, Aspen, CO Phone #: 925-8700 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Joseph E. Edwards, III Address: 201 N. Mill St., #203, Aspen, CO Phone #: 925-8700 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): U GMQS Exemption 01 Conceptual PUD U Temporary Use U GMQS Allotment U Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) U Text/Map Amendment ~1 Special Review U Subdivision U Conceptual SPA U ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes U Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane El Commercial Design Review El Lot Split U Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ~1 Residential Design Variance U Lot Line Adjustment Lil Other: Appeal U Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description ofexisting buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Non-Conforming Duplex PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ U Pre-Application Conference Summary E Attachment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement U Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form U Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards E 3-D Model for large project All plans thatare larger than 8.5" X 11"must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. COMMUNrrY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT r~~~-~ Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and Property Phone No.: 925-8700 Owner ("ID: Paul Young and Staspen, LLC Email: jee@keelaw.net Address of Billing 201 North Mill St., #203 Property: 219 South Third Address: (subject of Aspen, CO 81611 (send bills here) application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $ flat fee for $ flat fee for $ flat fee for $ flat fee for For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. 1 understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. Ihave read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 1,260.00 deposit for 4 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $315 per hour. $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $265 per hour. Appellant: Paul Young and Staspen, LLC City of Aspen~ 8~4.Z~tp--~,d~-~bz~b Chris Bendon Community Development Director ~lame~eph E. Edwards, TTI Tie:-- Attorney for Appellant City Use: Fees Due: $ Received: $ November, 2011 City ofAspen I 130 S. Galena St I (970) 920-5090 ' vidMLNIFFBEVE6OPMENT CITY OF ASPEN MAR 0 6 2012 RECEIVED Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council October 27,2009 Mayor Ireland called the continued meeting to order at 4:12 p.m. with Councilmembers Romero and Johnson present. Â· RESOLUTION #89. SERIES OF 2009 - Code Interpretation Appeal - Man-made Landforms Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council this is an appeal of a land use code interpretation made by the community development staff on lot area and man made land forms. Bendon said one ofthe tasks ofthe community development director is to interpret the land use code, which is a formal process at the request of an applicant. The interpretation affords the applicant the right to appeal the decision. Bendon noted there is a section in the land use code that outlines the details and the time frames for code interpretations. Bendon explained this is because the code is not always clear; there are differences ofopinion. This is a process ofdetermining what the codes says. Bendon noted there are also conversations about what the code should say and there is a separate process for amending the land use code. Bendon reminded Council this appeal is of the record. Bendon said this interpretation deals with how man made landforms affect development rights. Bendon said the city reduces development rights for conditions existing on a property, which comes down to a calculation called lot area. Lot area is reduced for areas under high water, areas within former rights-of-way, and areas that are affected by slopes. This particular appeal is about slopes. Bendon said the definition of lot area mentions slopes, high water lines, rights-of-way. There is not a definition of slope, which is what this appeal comes down to, what is the meaning o f slope. Bendon noted this interpretation cites a term that is defined, structure, which describes what can be constructed on one's site and one ofthose is a berm, which can be constructed on site. Technically a berm is a structure. Bendon said this interpretation allows the planning office to accept an assumed natural grade when there is clear evidence there is an unnatural condition. Bendon said property owners are allowed to go back to what was originally there prior to man having an affect on site. Bendon said this particular appeal is in regard to 219 south Third, which had a lengthy review in front of Council. Bendon pointed out a portion of the property is impacted by a railroad right-of-way with a significant change in topography related to the railroad right-o f-way on the south side o f the property. Bendon said if the interpretation stands, it will allow the planning department to work with the land owner to come up with a pre-railroad grade which may add up to 500 square feet of additional floor area. Bendon told Council this interpretation could apply to many sites in town. There are two ways to look at this issue; one is the way in which the planning department has traditionally looked at this, to allow property owners to go back to a virgin landscape and assume the slope prior to the affect of man. The other is to look at the condition of the site right now, which includes all the things that have happened to the site. Bendon said property owners could change their landscape and Gatten out steep topography in order to increase the development rights. Bendon stated there are several places in the land use code where that activity is specifically prohibited. r-=iimr, 1 A Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council October 27,2009 The best example is height which is measured to a natural or developed grade, the lower of the two. A property owner cannot mound up their property in order to develop and increase the allowable heights. Bendon said this is an example of not allowing property owners to affect their property in order to increase development rights. Bendon noted there are 3 standards on which Council needs to make their decision; these are contained in the code. The standards are whether there was a denial of due process, the administrative body exceeded its jurisdiction, or the administrative body abused its discretion. Bendon said due process is about the process up to this point issuing this opinion. Bendon reiterated the land use code describes as one of the tasks ofthe community development director to issue interpretations. Bendon stated whether the administrative body abused its discretion is the heart ofthis discussion. Bendon noted the community development director needs to use discretion when faced with terms that are not defined, one needs to look to other terms in the code and use judgment in rendering an interpretation. Bendon told Council his interpretation is consistent with how the city has applied the issue of manmade topography in the past and is a technical analysis of the terms in the code, what other terms that can be relied on, the history of the policy and the analysis of the effects of various decisions. There is a resolution to support the decision o f staff and one to overturn that decision. If Council overturns the interpretation, they will need to set out policy going forward. John Worcester, city attorney, told Council the appellant has stated there was an abuse of discretion not a violation of due process so Council can focus on that standard. Worcester pointed out a decision of the administrative body that is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority is an abuse of discretion. Worcester said Council must determine whether Bendon's determination was a proper one, whether they agree with it is not relevant. Council should not determine whether the decision was correct but only whether it was an abuse of discretion, a violation of due process or exceeding one's jurisdiction. Jody Edwards stated his is withdrawing the second appeal. Edwards said he will focus on definition of lot area. Edwards said the appellants have no complaints regarding due process or concerning jurisdiction or ethical behavior. The only basis for the appeal is whether the community development director abused his discretion by reading words into the code that are not presently there. Edwards pointed out page 3 of staffs memo and quoted "the question in a code interpretation is what does the code say" not what should the code say. The memorandum points out the appropriate venue for what the code should say are a code amendment through that process, This appeal is only looking at what the code does say. Edwards said practically, the public has to be able to read the code, to read the law, and to know what it means. The public should not have to imagine what words should be added or subtracted to meet the desires ofthe governing body. Edwards noted people have to be governed by what the law says, not what people believe it should say even if one does not agree. The principle is what the law says; the fundamental rule of statutory interpretation is that if the law is clear as written, then no interpretation is necessary. 2 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council October 27,2009 Edwards noted Courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says. Edwards noted the definition of"lot area" in the code which states "areas with slopes of greater than 30% shall be excluded". Edwards said this is a simple statement with no ambiguity. It does not matter whether the slope was created by the formation of the Rocky Mountains, by a mudslide or by a group of men building a railroad. No distinctions are made by the language in the code and making any distinctions is to add language to the code. Edwards said if the lack of language results in hardships, a land owner can appeal to the Board of Adjustment or appeal to Council to amend the code. Edwards stated it is an abuse ofdiscretion for staff to add words to the code that are not there, such as man made or natural. Edwards said in the interpretation, staff expresses concern that a property owner could regrade steep slopes in a benched or terrace fashion and increase the allowable floor area on the site. Edwards pointed out the city's code states anything other than landscaping is defined as development and therefore requires a permit. Any such permit could be granted with a note that it is not granting additional floor area. Edwards said staff and the attorney for the owner at 219 S. Third street state that staff previously interpreted the term slope so as to not include man made slopes. Edwards said this provides a course of conduct, it does not justi fy the interpretation. Edwards stated the fact that there have been informal, unappealed staffdeterminations that man made slopes are excluded from the deductions from lot area does not justify further areas in the applications of what is clear and simple language. Edwards pointed out in the menlo the community development director notes that other provisions of the code do not allow a property owner to artificially elevate the land to increase heights or to add a vacated right-of-way to lot area in order to increase floor area and the code does not penalize a lot owner by reducing area lot area for dedicated public trails. Each o f these assertions is correct and is provided for with existing language in the code. The code specifically states that height is to be measured from natural or finished grade, whichever is lower at any point around the perimeter of the building. The definition of lot area specifically excludes areas that are vacated rights-of-way and specifically includes trails. Edwards said this is different from the present case where language states steep slopes are to be excluded. Edwards noted staffbelieves that means "natural terrain prior to being affected by development", which language does not appear in the code. Edwards said the measurement for height, natural or finished, is covered in the code but slopes are not which indicates that slopes, manmade or natural, should be excluded from lot area. Edwards reiterated the issue is what the code says; not what it should say. The code contains a clear statement that slopes in excess of 30% must be excluded from lot area for purposes o f calculating floor area with no qualifiers like natural or man made. Mayor Ireland said the suggestion by Edwards is that the people who created the code intended a one-way effect on development, to decrease a property's developability by putting a berm on it but one cannot increase by flattening it. Edwards told Council that is not what he is saying; he asserts that slope is slope. Councilman Romero asked i f staff 3 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council October 27,2009 has had code interpretations relating to slope and calculating lot area. Bendon said not regarding slope. Councilman Romero said in calculating lot areas, staff has treated man made forms as part of the lot on which to calculate floor area. Councilman Romero noted there is an operating precedence but no actual interpretation or appeal. Bart Johnson, representing the owner of 219 South Third subject ofthe appeal, noted Council asked if there was any evidence of legislative intent. Johnson pointed out staff wrote that Council minutes from hearing on this provision do not reference slope and staffbelieves that by slope the drafters meant the natural terrain prior to being affected by development. There is in the record a statement ofwhat staffbelieves what the intent was. Johnson clarified there is one official request for interpretation on this issue, which did not result in an official interpretation from staff. Johnson said this request was made in 2006 by the owner ofthe property at the southwest corner of Midland Avenue and east Hopkins and is referenced in the record. Johnson provided materials that show the applicant was permitted to move forward based on interpolated natural slopes. There is some precedence that that policy goes back years. (Councilman Skadron came into the meeting) Johnson said slope is not defined in the city's land use code. The land use code does have rules o f construction, 26.104.080 which states when a word or phrase has acquired a technical or particular meaning whether by ordinance, definition or otherwise, it should be construed accordingly. Johnson said in this case, it is clear through prior interpretation and staffpolicy, the term slope has acquired a particular meaning - natural slopes prior to man's interference with them. Johnson said the code also provides when one is reading the code, one has to read all provisions as a whole to fulfill legislative intent. Johnson said the logical conclusion of Edwards' argument is that slope is a forever changing thing and what matters is the slope that exists on a site the day o f applying for a building permit. Johnson pointed out the city code does not prohibit interference with slopes in the 20-30% zone. The county code has a provision that one cannot modify slopes; there is nothing in the city code that would present someone walking in with a building permit for earthmoving and flatten out their complete site to maximize their site before applying for a building permit. Johnson said that is not the intent of the city code. Johnson said the community development director needs to be able to read some common sense into the code and Council should follow his interpretation that slope must have meant the natural land forms that existed. Johnson said the argument against that is that in granting a permit for grading, a condition could be attached stating the land can be re- graded but not to the benefit ofthe property owner. Johnson stated there is no authority in the city's code to place that type ofcondition on a grading permit. The community development director should be allowed to interpret slope to mean natural landforms and to read the code in a larger context. John Worcester, city attorney, said Councilman Skadron should not participate unless the parties waive that. Johnson stated they would prefer the Councilmembers present for the entire argument participate. 4 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council October 27,2009 Councilman Romero asked about the reference to general rules of construction. Johnson said that refers to principles used to interpret the code. Councilman Romero asked for an explanation of"acquired a meaning". Johnson quoted from Section 26.104.080(a) general rules ofconstruction and application, "words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by ordinance definition or otherwise, shall be construed and applied accordingly". Johnson argued that the term slope is not defined in the code and one needs to look outside the code unless there is a clearly defined common meaning that is undisputable. The code's rules of construction also state that words should be given their plain meaning. Johnson said the term slope is questionable about what it means; it can be a technical term, and it is not defined in the city code. Johnson said he read the general rules of construction and then tried to determine how to figure out what slopes means. The community development director is charged with interpreting the city code. Johnson noted that state statute also says the person charged with enforcing the code is given the task o f interpreting it. Johnson said he looked into how the community development department has interpreted slope in the past. Johnson said he found that the term slope has been defined for the property at Hopkins and Midland Avenue, that slope means the natural terrain not manmade terrain. Otherwise one would end up with constantly changing landscape and people can regrade their lots. Mayor Ireland said ifthe assertion is that slope is natural terrain prior to man's action, the question is when, when does land acquire its natural terrain. Johnson said "when" is when humans starting developing in Aspen's townsite. Johnson said for this particular lot, it can be pinpointed to when the railroad came into Aspen, about 1889. The city's engineer has concluded, based on investigation of the site, that it is a manmade landform. Johnson stated his argument is not that manmade landforms should be excluded but that Chris Bendon, community development department, did not abuse his discretion in reaching his conclusion. Johnson pointed out in order for Council to reverse the interpretation, they have to find there is no evidence to support his conclusion. Mayor Ireland asked how much o f the ben-n is manmade. Johnson said they do not know -~ that. Mayor Ireland said there is nothing in the record to show that all or part of this berm ~ did not exist and it is reasonable to assume that i f a railroad is being built, one would put ~ it where the natural land forms support it. Johnson said this case is about how one interprets the land use code and beyond that, the separate issue is how the land code is enforced. Johnson said his client will submit information that provides evidence on what ~ is natural and what is manmade in this berm. Johnson noted the city engineer pointed out I it may be necessary to do borings in this area. Mayor Ireland said he believes every body of law requires interpretation because words change in meaning and use over time. Councilman Johnson asked if the community development director has discretion in interpreting the land use code. Worcester said he does have discretion; there is a section of the land use code giving the director the 5 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council October 27,2009 authority and anyone can ask the director to make a land use code interpretation to help them in their planning. Edwards said it is a stretch to state that the word "slope" has acquired a meaning when there are one or two instances where this has been interpreted to be man made. Edwards said that has not acquired a meaning in the community at large or among the land use community. Edwards said the "when" issue is important because slopes will change both by man made and by natural changes, like avalanches, earth, mud, earthquakes. Edwards asserted it should be the slope as existed at the time the code was adopted, which time makes sense. Edwards said there is the question of what is natural and what is man made. Edwards said the community development director and city engineer went to the site; the engineer said it is probably man made but to know for sure, test borings have to be done. Councilman Johnson noted staffs memo states, the slope has been altered from its original condition; why then are boring samples necessary. Bendon said that will address what the natural slope is, that the berm is constructed, how far down the man made slope is. Councilman Romero said he is not sufficiently swayed by the arguments that the community development director stepped outside his realm of discretion in performing the duties of reasonable interpretation. Councilman Romero said although there is only one decision in the record regarding this issue, there is a historical common application of the code, specifically to grades and the motion of pre-existing "natural" grades and slopes. Councilman Romero said the measurement for heights between pre-existing and reconstruction is in the code, which is reference for the construction industry and has acquired meaning and this indicates the community development director stayed within his realm in rendering his decision, taking in precedence and taking the entire land use code to apply a reasonable result. Councilman Romero said the community development director did not violate his discretion. Councilman Johnson said the community development director has, as one of his duties, the task o f interpreting the code and has discretion to do that. Councilman Johnson said there will always be things in the code that are not clear. Councilman Johnson stated the community development director has not abused his discretion. Mayor Ireland proposed this be modified to incorporate the principle that it is the burden 7 of the applicant to show what the original natural slope was and in the absence of that ~ showing, the natural slope is what one sees. The applicant should have the opportunity through a public process what that man made portion is. Mayor Ireland said he would like this modified that it is the burden of the applicant to reasonably show to what degree the original slope was. Mayor Ireland said that should be a public hearing where evidence can be presented. Worcester said the motion to approve the resolution should be amended in the 4th WHERAS clause ;'the City Council has taken and considered written and oral argument 6 Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council October 27,2009 from counsel for the appellant, counsel for the owners of the subject property and the community development director and has found that the director provided due process and neither exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his authority in rendering the interpretationÂ°'. Councilman Romero moved to adopt Resolution #89, Series of 2009, with the amendment outlined above; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Mayor Ireland said the code needs to be amended in the future to know when the natural grade was so the community knows from when this is dated. All in favor, motion carried. Bendon said staff needs to see reasonable and credible information provided by the applicant to determine what is man made and what is natural. This can be soil borings, site inspection or technical information. That is the burden of the applicant to provide these and to make an argument to staff. Bendon said this can include old surveys, old flyovers, or a report from a geotechnical engineer. Johnson requested clarification that this is to be done in a public hearing process. Johnson said this can be done with staff in the building permit process. Bendon said there is no remaining public process on this property. Mayor Ireland said the Council has been asked to grant variations and exceptions. Bendon noted that process is concluded. Councilman Romero said this is now back to normal course of business within the land use code. Councilman Romero agreed the applicant will submit technical and reasonable evidence to the community development department. This will not come back to Council for a public process. Councilman Romero moved to adjourn at 5:25 p.m.; seconded b Mayor Ireland. All in favor, motion carried. KathrygK. Koch, City Clerk #J Chris Bendon From: Trish Aragon Sent: Tuesday, February 21,2012 5:01 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: 219 S. 3rd Chris, I have reviewed the letter and cross sections in the, Howarth survey dated 2/21/12. I agree that the site grade appears to be affected by the railway and is not natural. I also agree with the historic grade outlined in the cross sections. I do want to saythat it is hard to really tell unless borings are taken. But in general I do agree with Howarth's interpolation of historic grade. Trish Aragon, P.E. City Engineer 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 429-2785 i EXHIBIT m Larry Doble From: Larry Doble Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:43 AM To: Amy Guthrie Subject: RE: 219 s. 3rd st. FAR and 30% Slopes Amy, It appears to be reasonably accurate. Without doing test borings there is no way to tell. Larry From: Amy Guthrie Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:39 AM To: Larry Doble Subject: FW: 219 s. 3rd st. FAR and 30% Slopes Hi Larry- will you look at the attached site section and tell me if you think it is accurate (the estimated natural grade part.)thanks From: Bill Maron [mailto:bill@strykerbrown.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:39 AM To: Amy Guthrie Cc: suzanne@tfosterjewelers.com Subject: 219 s. 3rd st. FAR and 30% Slopes Amy Sorry this is later than I said, I had a joint P&Z and Town Board work session in basalt to prepare for and was unable to complete this in time. I wanted to double check my math. Bill Maron Stryker Brown Architects 119 South Spring Street . Aspen, CO 81611 P: 970.925.2100 F: 970.925.2258 C: 970.948.5358 Vlk strykerbrown.com EXHIBIT 1 C M,ff; 2,NATS /Â·A/7* 12>lAT/of 07.- 11/07-4&40.Aa, 6 i 1-r '7 d).--- â€¢ 2.5 m 2,3- ..L ,. 8,-,L \ ./ . un -t--\~ . Â· 70< 1 --r .- 1 , 1 fe- 4 1 1 - . ?O. Â¢44Â·2 9% - 4 . 1 01 - rpi''r~~~i~E--*EkEag \ 71;49 A#gly#Er 46~ 9,2 7 -13.61 70#Â¥ 70Â¢794947235Â· FIC (Mals h u., C 3 0 ( g W A415 434 7- F l 1-1/ O N -1-6 P o.p - o u-t op OBCUWAL T rEE#4 1 Nit, 91.8 m . =I al \ , 0- -Nfl S *0 Pt, Pre-,1491- ,- : -FRMâ‚¬m 64 1 9 V MumutÂ· Mar 01 12 10:08a 970-W ~929 p.4 EL 3 - Chapter 26.316 Sh\16,4 0 APPEALS Sections: 26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement. 26.316.020 Authority. 26.316.030 Appeal procedures. 26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the authority of the Board of Adjustment, Growth Management Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council to hear and decide certain appeals and to set forth the procedures for said appeals. (Ord. No. 17-2002 Â§ 2 (part), 2002) 26.316.020 Authority. A. Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals: 1. The denial of a variance pursuant to Chapter 26.314 by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. B. City Council. The City Council shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals: 1. An interpretation to the text o f this title or the boundaries of the zone district map by the Community Development Director in accordance with Chapter 26.306. An appeal ofthis nature shall be a public meeting. 2. Any action by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving a development application for development in an "H,", Historic Overlay District pursuant to Chapter 26.415. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 3. The scoring determination o f the Community Development Director pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 4. The allocation of Growth Management Allotments by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 5. Any other appeal for which specific authority is not granted to another board or commission as established by this title. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. C. Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have the authority to hear and decide an appeal from an adverse determination by the Community Development Director on an application for exemption pursuant to the growth management quota system in accordance with Section 26.470.060(D). City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 300, Page 35 D. Administrative Hearing Officer. The Administrative Hearing Officer shall have the authority to hear an appeal from any decision or determination made by an administrative official unless otherwise specifically stated in this title. (Ord. No. 17-2002 Â§ 2 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 27-2002 Â§ 23, Ord. No. 12-2007; 2002) 26.316.030 Appeal procedures. A. Initiation. Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice ofappeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the city office or department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days ofthe date ofthe decision or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice o f appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this title to appeal any decision or determination. B. Effect of filing an appeal. The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay any proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the Community Development Director certifies in writing to the chairperson of the decision-making body authorized to hear the appeal that a stay poses an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further proceedings. The chairperson of the decision making body with authority to hear the appeal may review such certification and grant or deny a stay o f the proceedings. C. Timing of appeal. The decision-making body authorized to hear the appeal shall consider the appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of filing the notice of appeal or as soon thereafter as is practical under the circumstances. D. Notice requirements. Notice of the appeal shall be provided by mailing to the appellant and by publication to all other affected parties. (See section 26.304.060(E)). E. Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this title, the decision-making body authorized to hear the appeal shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the body from which the appeal is taken. A decision or determination shall be not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. F. Action by the decision-making body hearing the appeal. The decision-making body hearing the appeal may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination appealed from, and, ifthe decision is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the appeal is taken, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the appellant. The decision-making body may also elect to remand an appeal to the body that originally heard the matter for further proceedings consistent with that body's jurisdiction and directions given, if any, by the body hearing the appeal. The decision shall be approved by written resolution. All appeals shall be public meetings. (Ord. No. 55-2000, Â§Â§ 4,5; Ord. No. 27-2002 Â§ 24, Ord. No. 12-2007,2002) City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 300, Page 36 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE =44:MED REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTYÂ· â‚¬19 901Â« 31#. 9/. Step.A,joed , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MMA /,2- , 2012 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, 1 &BED=,8 (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: ~~~0000~ 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 meeting, notice was mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to the appellants. The names and addresses of property owners are 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 attac}Ad hereto. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 4:2 jlday of Fl bri 1.-4 A ) , 201* by (1 1-1 R.1 6 73 624 00 6 1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL I Â·t Mycommission expires: 044 1 620'15 0 - 'dj , , '1 4 :/00~ /*MVVJ â‚¬rtÂ·;930014-k ...... â‚¬*84>f' *btary Public it.... Paul and Angela: Community Development recently issued a determination : regarding the pre-development grade of Suzanne Foster's property. I sent Jody Edwards the staffmemo. I don't know ifyou will choose to appeal this decision. I f you do appeal it, the meeting to discuss the appeal has been scheduled for the March 12, 2012, City Council meeting. If you decide not to appeal the decision, the issue will be deleted from the agenda. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks. Chris Bendon - 429-2765. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: APPEAL OF PRE-DEVELOPMENT SITE GRADE DETERMINATION FOR 217/219 SOUTH THIRD STREET NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public meeting will be held on Monday, March 12, 2012, to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an appeal of a determination of natural site grade by the Community Development Director for the property 217/219 South Third Street. The determination was made on February 21, 2012, concluded the existing grade of the property to be man-made, and accepted an estimation of pre-development topography prepared by a professional land surveyor. The property is owned by YLP West, LLC.; 7 South Main Street; Yardley, PA 19067; represented by Suzanne Foster of the same address. The subject property is legally described as Lots O, P, Q, R, and S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen, excepting therefrom that portion of Lots O, P, and Q that lies south of the northerly boundary of a right of way described as a 17 foot strip of land being 8.5 feet on each side ofa centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and shown in deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at Page 628. For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 970.429.2765, (or by email chris.bendon@,ci.aspen.co.us). s/Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Aspen City Council M 91Â¢2 02 -AL 507. VS VITY --1'ly '69 54* 373 t -19 4Â¢1 11(7%2 - ' 44~ * 0'9 '11214 'M g& t Â«1 +94 0% 49" le.-~~7 A.....4 40 Pony=790 KiÂ©NINeultÂ¥ 09 9 -.Â· . Â·Â· /-0. 0 -,i'Â·.AB&/PÂ·- 7 --- .*4*Ira ,%:ed 0004424701 FEB 24 2012 tr23Fr,q:L:kiÂ·,0 0 2 1 P $ 000.450 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 822Â£1&32 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 81611 45 w. 11+5 4% ~DFA Co SIMI Poar 9 14 % 42, *:;.iÂ»'7~47fFS?EM#-4. lic,0,~ ~ ...,4~Â·k-tru: 8 "'ttv -=wÂ·'=- PIT'JEY BOWES 1.Â·.Mk.:1117;J THE CITY OF ASPEN ~~441'i~ 02 1P $ 000.450 ?11*H ~Â«%~1~~ 000442470 1 FEB 24 20 12 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET 2.Â£271223J~W MAILED FROM ZIPCODE 81611 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 40*1~45 Â£ tte 41-r P i Id Al st tew, 00 s*:4 % AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 2,1'*19 90 30' 94-. S lopÂ°, *Â¥'fÂ°4 \ , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: t-fiel le , 201-1 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, 0-the\5 B-a)DON) (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. 044 Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me thisDE~ day of *h,ruo~- , 20_4-by IMAR15 -23*LKJ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Mycommission expires: 21.,~ \6~ 1/-O foio lA 84 -Alt,tui- 1 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION Â¥/1/11 1&1&1-11~-.l. I.U j..U. ilb Juuilley Utill LU 125 11Ume COUnIry On Christ and independence hero Simon Friday after the deep-sea explorers who Bolivar a's he departed Venezuela on Fri- lifted it to the surface lost their claim to dhy for Cuba for urgent surgery to ownership. remove a tumor he says is probably Two Spanish military C-130 cargo malignant. planes took off after noon from a Florida Clasping the hand of his youngest Air Force base with 594,000 silver coins daughter, Chavez addressed allies of his and other artifacts aboard. They were socialist political movement and troops packed into the same white plastic buck- standing at attention at the Miraflores ets in which they were brought to the U.S. presidential palace. by Tampa, Fla.-based Odyssey Marine "I say this from my gut: With cancer or Exploration in May 2007. without cancer... come rain, thunder or "These are emotional and moving lightning ... nobody can avoid a great moments for me and all my colleagues patriotic victory Oct. 7," the president behind me;' Spain's ambassador to the said, referring to the date of Venezuela's United States, Jorge Dezcallar de Mazar, presidential election. said Friday. He stood on the windy tarmac "Long live Chavez!" he cried. at MacDill Air Force base, flanked by an The socialist president, who is seeking entourage of more than two dozen Span- a fourth term, referenced Bolivar and ish officials and others. Christ's burdens to describe his battle "History will make us who we are, and with cancer. today we are witnessing a journey that started 200 years ago," he said. "This is not HISTORY money. This is historical heritage." The planes were expected to make two Fate Of Will sparks bitter displlte refueling stops and land about 24 hours BOSTON (AP) - With only eight days later at one of two air force bases in to live, a wealthy, ailing Massachusetts Madrid in a high-security operation. PUBLIC NOTICE THE CrrY OF A~PEN RE: APPEAL OF PRE-DEVELOPMENT SITE GRADE DETERMINATION FOR 217/219 SOUTH THIRD STREET NOTICE S HEREBY GWEN thata public meetjng will be held on Monday, March 12, 2012, to begh at 5:00 pim. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, Ciw Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an a[?peal of a determkiation of natural site grade by the Communily Development Director for the properly 217/219 South Third Street. The determinatjon w'as made on Febiuary 21, 2012, concluded fle exbting grade of the proper'ty to be man-made, and accepted an estimation of pre-development topography prepared by a professional land suweyor. The property is ovwied by YLP West, LLC.; 7 South Main Steel, Yardley, PA 19067 represented by Suzanne Foster of the same address, The subject properk is legally described as Lots 0,11 0, R, and H Block 39, City and Townske of Aspen, excepting therefrom that pomon of Lots 0, R and Q that lies south of the nor'herly boundary of a right of way described as a 17 foot strip of land being 8,5 feet on each slde of a centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and shown In deed and map recorded February 27,1950 h Book 1 75 al Fage 628. For furtherinformation, contact Chris Bendon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 970.429.2765, Cor by email clids.bendon@ Ci.aspen.co.us). Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Aspen City Council 1 F,Ir--â€¢0â€¢â€¢Wyâ€¢~mâ€¢'~â€¢-C#7791 1; 1 1 r.1. 1 .....1 11 -911.kil 1 1 11 , 1.Ir.1 1 -71 ,+1111 p' R $ 7 1 - .1Â·'2 kt. -1~ n, 11 .4*'." " 9' iÂ·.. Â®1''l'-1~~l, j~ 1121111 â€¢ r~ 6. / ,Â·, .7, u. j~JB-' 4 , ~p.k';~.J/ 7'f' 9/I'llill"Imill'll- 1.1 1111' 5.179= 6 1.1 i, Al);712,0 -~ 11 11 1 14 1 11 ...lili-0 - 6; 1-1- ~-21,-, ifll-rl'Jp,61 [f - e "1 1-4-~ W. Â·,2Â· Sim., 1 6 1 -*1141 A---j;1-0/.td'.re'--~....4 i L , i- . . r.-1 tÂ· - . 611 PUBLIC NOTICE - THE Cn Y OF ASPEN - RE: APPEAL OF PRE-DEVELOPMENT SITE GRADE DETERMINATION FOR 217/219 SOUTH THIRD STREET NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public meang will be held on Monday March 12, 2012, to begin at 5:00 p m, before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, Cily Hall, 130 & Galena St., Aspen, to consider an appeal ofa determination of natural site grade by the Communlb, Development Director for the property 217/219 South THrd Steel. The determinabon was made on February 21, 2012, concluded the existing grade of the properv to be man-made, and accepted an estimation of pre-development topography prepared by a protessional land surveyor. The properly is owiled by YLP West, LLC 7 South Main Steel, Yardley, PA 19067, represented by Suzanne Foster of the same address. 1 he subject pi operly is legally described as Lots 0, R 0, R, and S, Block 39, Clly and Townsite of Aspen, exceptitig {herefroin that por[ion of Lots 0, R and Q that lus south of tile noithedy boundary ot a right of way described as a 17 foot skip of land being 8.5 feet on each side of a centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway Mght of way and southerly 25 teet of Lot R and S as descr4bed and shown in deed and map recorded Febnjary 27, 1950 un Book 1 75 at Page 628. For turtlief information, contact Chrls Bendon at the City of Aspen Communky Development Department, 130 S Galena St., Aspen, CO 970.429.2765, Cor by emal chris.bendon@ ci.aspen.co,us), Michael C Ireland, Mayor Aspen C.Ky Coundl Chris Bendon From: Â· Jody Edwards [jee@kcelaw. net] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 10:09 AM To: Chris Bendon Subject: RE: 219 slope appeal Yes, thank you - I confirm you gave me notice. Thanks, Jody Joseph E. Edwards, III Klein, Cotd & Edwards, LLC 201 North Mill Street, Ste. 203 Aspen, CO 81611 Tele: (970) 925-8700 Fax: (970) 925-3977 iee@kcelaw.net www.kcelaw.net From: Chris Bendon [mailto:Chris.Bendon@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 9:12 AM To: Jody Edwards Subject: 219 slope appeal Jody: I'm scheduling your appeal hearing forthis coming Monday night, the 12th. Please confirm your receipt of notice. Thanks. Cheers, Chris Bendon, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 970-429-2765 www.aspenpitkin.com/ Email secured by Check Point 1 Loel 1421-f- - Advertis Invoice Statement THE ASPEN TIMES Account Number: 6443723 PO Box 1888 Billing Date: 02/29/12 Carson City, NV 89702-1888 Invoice Number: 6443723022912 Due Date: 03/10/12 Total Amount Due: 133.77 Address Service Requested Amount Enclosed: $ We gladly accept checks made payable to COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA. For credit card options, please complete reverse side. 7206002282 PRESORT 2282 1 AT 0.374 Pl C9<B> 1 1,1 11 1 lilli 1.1 lili 1 1 1 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA 1, 1 11 1 1 1 11 111 lillil /1 PAT BUETTOW/AP CUSTOMER PAYMENT CENTER ASPEN, CITY OF- COMMUNITY DEV. DEPT. PO BOX 1888 t,2 130 S GALENA ST CARSON CITY, NV 89702 ASPEN CO 81611-1902 11 111 11 11 11 11 1 1 11 1 1 M. 1.1 lili 1 lili 1 1 lilli 11 Please detach and return above portion with your payment THE ASPEN TIMES at 888-508-2666 or email us at AdvertisingBilling@swiftcom.com. For information or questions regarding your bill, please call our Customer Service Department www.coloradomountainnewsmedia.com Account Manager: Ashton Hewitt 970-925-3414 ahewitt@aspentimes.com Account Name Account Number Billing Period Invoice Number Aspen, City of- Community Dev. Dept 6443723 02/01/12 - 02/29/12 6443723022912 Payments/Credits Current 30 Days 60 Days 90 Days 120 Days Total AmQ-unt-flee - 0.00 133.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 < 133.77 ~ ~~ DATE PUBLICATION AD# PO# / DESCRIPTION / INSERT IDENTIFIER UNITS RUNS AMOUNT 2/1 Balance Forward 143.33 2/20 Payment on Account -143.33 Ad Type: Display Cd s *64'~ 2/25 ATD 7604493 PUBLIC NOTICE/PURVIS <12 9\ 3 x 3.5 1 66.88 2/26 ATD 7604493 PUBLIC NOTICE/PURVIS b.l/1 Â»'41 3 x 3.5 1 66.89 AA Â· Â»./3.201% @,4 -PAL\ect +00** @ Â·42 Arb 2%11#6, '132.50 D 1.45 0/006\ D 462&&1*3 61 093 4 I Au. Elst. 00/-2/ Â· 2/000 Â·52 999 t:-4.?'. ciD. Approved pintemt$ /5 3 - 77 MAR 0 5 2012 DA* -8,62"2- 111111111111111111Â®111111111111111111111111 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTYÂ· ZIC' 901-k St#.*. Stq=.A,"1 , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MA/+- 1-2-- , 2012Â· STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, 6DtlAS tiEUE>08 (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 (IE) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ~~~00 ~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 meeting, notice was mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to the appellants. The names and addresses of property owners are 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 o-wners and governmental agencies so noticed is attac}Ad hereto. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 0Â£/day of hz. Liril. 64.--\. S , 201* by ( ' 01 14 1 i .A Eki /)~ /. 1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 04 f i l /,2 6 ' i 5 t .i :/,00 /\\1 \94................Â»1 2 oF CO\6155. ~btary Public Paul and Angela: Community Development recently issued a determination regarding the pre-development grade o f Suzanne Foster' s property. I sent Jody Edwards the staff memo. I don't know ifyou will choose to appeal this decision. I f you do appeal it, the meeting to discuss the appeal has been scheduled for the March 12, 2012, City Council meeting. If you decide not to appeal the decision, the issue will be deleted from the agenda. Please contact me i f you have any questions. Thanks. Chris Bendon - 429-2765. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: APPEAL OF PRE-DEVELOPMENT SITE GRADE DETERMINATION FOR 217/219 SOUTH THIRD STREET NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public meeting will be held on Monday, March 12, 2012, to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an appeal of a determination of natural site grade by the Community Development Director for the property 217/219 South Third Street. The determination was made on February 21,2012, concluded the existing grade of the property to be man-made, and accepted an estimation of pre-development topography prepared by a professional land surveyor. The property is owned by YLP West, LLC.; 7 South Main Street; Yardley, PA 19067; represented by Suzanne Foster of the same address. The subject property is legally described as Lots O, P, Q, R, and S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen, excepting therefrom that portion of Lots O, P, and Q that lies south of the northerly boundary of a right ofway described as a17 foot strip of land being 8.5 feet on each side ofa centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and shown in deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at Page 628. For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 970.429.2765, (or by email chris.bendon@ci.aspen.co.us). s/Michael C. Ireland, Mavor Aspen City Council *sts post ......i"'9*Â¥7Â¥ ....'I"/I . ~;2'....+EW ,-m, Â·. A-r ,+,-r.M... 'Plogm,7#41.4, wtal:taiG z 4*.,. =L-- P'1TNEY~O~1'ES THE CITY oF AsPEN 6,*It;296 02 1p $ 000.450 E 4 k.k= ArÂ· .IE 0004424701 FEB 24 2012 130 SOUTH GALENASTREET Ii'in. L *Al,1Â£% MAILED FROM ZIPCODE 816 I I ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 Â®/1 TW~ f*0,41-h'* 43 w, Hopuvis Ag 47* co *It *SPOST 4(P CO Â¢ 95.,9 ~ Friea.*3419: 8 ~444 -PITNEY BOIVES THE CITY OF ASPEN ~ 02 ]P $ 000.450 - - Cletil:24 0004424701 FEB 24 2012 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET -< MAILED FROM ZIPCODE 81611 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 406Â»4 kie 4*wy 0, to. 04\\ St. LON CO 06'Ad e Mollg 02 -Â« 902 4 11& MY --}p<N tes 56~9 3721 ~ -19 44 114?KE 00 0,9 Rr1211 'M g}7 ([ Â«0794% P# I . I AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: â‚¬919 90 30( St <3 'De' AÂ¥,f*\ , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 114/rk tâ‚¬2. ,201-12 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, affâ‚¬h B-a)DOJ (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. OfÂ»0*kg Signature The foregoing "Affidavit o f Notice" was acknowledged before me this00' day of T~rua~/ , 201*-by &*15 6-0-1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: <lj i .6-1 ll_o foto~ 141 -14*hun Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Attachment 2 - Land use application 2 Agreement to pay application fees 3-6 1- Introduction and Proposed PUD 7-9 11 - Property description and summary of proposed development 10-12 111 - Amendment to official zone district 13-22 IV - Consolidated PUD review 23-24 V - Subdivision review, lot split 25 VI-Conclusion 26 Exhibit #1 - Proof of ownership 27 Exhibit #2 - Property description 28 Exhibit#3- Authorization to act 29-30 Exhibit #4- Pre-Application summary 31 Exhibit#5 - Uniformity of street scape 32 Exhibit#6- Reconstructed grade 33 Exhibit#7- Vicinity map locatingsubject property 34 Exhibit#8- Existing conditions 35 Exhibit #9 - Density allowed under existing conditions 36 Exhibit #10 - Proposed density under PUD 37 Exhibit #11 - Proposed site plan 38 Exhibit#12-Dimensional Requirements 39-40 Exhibit#13 - Results of Hazards Study ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: NLP U' 2 4 i LLc Location: A 19 13 0 6<- el t*< 2-/1 84 06 t. 41 Ded?â‚¬S (Indicate street address, lot & block number. legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 91 -1 3 5 - \114 - G 5 - 0 05- API'HCANT: Name: 9 L P u.) est- , L L 6 Address: 1 9, 7061, A St c.e â‚¬j- ~ 1 4 4 El \ e Y , I~(1 i 61 0 6-7 Phone #: 1 I 5 - 49 3-- G (06 REPRESENTA1'IVE: Name: â‚¬ U 1.1 D O C 16 t> Le r Address: -1 5 Ynct,n %-4--6 -2+ 2 N 4,61(22 , Pq 11 067 Phone #: lis--35 3- 1101 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): GMOS Exemption 0 Conceptual PUD U Temporary Use GMOS Allotment 2 Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) U Text/Map Amendment Special Review U Subdivision U Conceptual SPA ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream Â£ Subdivision Exemption (includes U Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane Commercial Design Review U Lot Split U Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Residential Design Variance E Lot Line Adjustment E Other: Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) i b upt -4 Â¥ PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Lo nel -bonct-1 , e-n An (2.e-|hA, A Â·Â·it,r Le.04 Le ue.' Lot- 5,21'+ 4 ,\6' c93-0 5*<uck,Ovi Â°-6 51Â· N eu; 54 01 1 4. 44 m, 19 \30, toâ‚¬ 5 Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ~9 10 > E Pre-Application Conference Summary ~ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Â® Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ~ Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards U 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. L 00 0 Ummm COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .. Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and Property Phone No.: 2 15 --35 3-- \16-1 Owner ("1"): NLe, W.Â·251-.I (\C Email: SU-LAnctâ‚¬ 41 \- tz,â‚¬>H 42.4"JeuvÂ·li-125' Lee,A Address of Billing Property: A Fi 5 3:-3 9 Address: -1 5 Â· -Yna, a StÂ· (subject of A.-oi) en , Co. (send bills here) 9.1,Â£3\\ey i PÂ« Ic,00: -7 application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No,, Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $ 141< flat fee for ?(3-1 \(-9 C-z.~2-<C 02 $ flat fee for $ flat fee for . $ flat fee for For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. 1 understand that addjtional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and riot returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to re mit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my applicatjon at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $34 Wi DED deposit for 3 1 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $315 per hour. $ 34 4 deposit for \ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $265 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: NLP,Wc,5-t- Inc- -- Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name: S u le n.c YZ,3\-4/ City Use: Title: \1\ 2(25,2~ evA Fees Due: $ Received: $ November, 2()11 City of Aspen I 130 S. Galena St. I (970) 920-509() 1 1. INTRODUCTION This is an application requesting that the Aspen City Council approve a lot split and land preservation proposal at 219 South Third Street. 219 South Third Street is located at the base of Shadow Mountain and its Pitkin County Parcel ID# is 2735-124-65-005. The property is currently zoned R-15. 219 South Third Street consists of two distinct lots of record separated by the Midland Railroad ROW, which is owned by the city. The "upper lot" has a lot size of 3,496 sq. ft. and the "lower lot" has a lot size of 9,942 sq. ft. The Owner of both properties is YLP, West. LLC. (hereinafter, "the applicant) which obtained deed to the property in 2009. Proof of the ownership of the property and a legal description of the property are provided by Exhibits #1 and #2. Suzanne Foster, a manager of YLP, West LLC is the project representative. A letter from the applicant authorizing Alan Richman Planning Services and Ed Timmins, attorney, to act on behalf of the applicant is provided in Exhibit #3 A pre-application meeting was held with representatives of the Community Development Department prior to the submission of this application (see Exhibit #4, Pre-Application Conference Summary). Based on this meeting, the applicant is hereby submitting the following requests: We propose that the City designate this property as a PUD. The PUD designation will provide some flexibility to the applicant in terms of lot sizes and setbacks, allowing the development to be clustered in the most appropriate part of the property. In exchange for obtaining this flexibility, the applicant will preserve a critical portion of the property as open space through a conveyance to the City or a covenant with a local land preservation trust. The resulting density and floor on the property will be less than what is allowed today by underlying zoning. Since the property is less than 27,000 sq. ft. in size, Sec. 26.445.020 of the Land Use Code requires the Community Development Director to find that the PUD application would further the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and serve the best interests of the community. We have held a preliminary discussion of this proposal with the Community Development Director and believe that these findings can be made. Designating this property as a PUD will provide for public ownership of the Shadow Mountain Trail as it passes through this property. It will also preserve the base of Shadow Mountain as open space and avoid development in environmentally sensitive areas by restricting development on the upper portion of the property and only allowing 3 development on the flat lower lot. These actions directly support the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and further the best interests of the community. The primary elements of the PUD, as shown on the PUD site plan, would be as follows: 1. Lower Lot. The PUD would split the lower lot into two approximately equal size lots, so each new lot would be approximately 4,971 sq. ft. in size. A single family residence would be permitted to be built on each of the two lots, replacing the existing duplex. Since each lot would be smaller in size than is allowed under the R-15 zoning, this would require a PUD variation of the minimum lot size requirements. 2. Upper Lot. The PUD provides that no development will occur on the upper lot. Upon approval and recording of the PUD plan, the owner will, through covenant and quit claim deed to the City, the Aspen Valley Land Trust or another recognized non-profit land conservation organization, or by conservation easement granted to such an organization, provide that no development shall occur on the upper lot, and that owners of the lower lots shall be responsible for maintaining appropriate landscaping north of the existing Shadow Mountain Trail to provide a landscaped buffer zone between the Trail and the lower lots. 3. Floor Area. After the lot split, the floor area permitted on each of the lower lots would be the floor area permitted by right for that lot in the R-15 zone. Since each lot would have an area of 4,971 sci. ft., the allowable floor area for each lot would be 2,951 sq. ft. The upper lot would have no floor area allowed on it. The applicant proposes that the two lower lots also have the right to develop an additional 390 SF of floor area per lot, but that this additional floor area be limited solely to above grade decks and outdoor living space. The rationale for this request is as follows: Under current R-15 zoning the lower lot has an allowable floor area to reconstruct the duplex of 4,145 sq. ft. The upper lot has an allowable floor area of 2,538 sq. ft. The total of these two floor areas is 6,683 sq. ft. The applicant has proposed that the two lower lots be limited to a floor area of 2,951 sq. ft. each, for a total floor area of 5,902 sq. ft. This is 781 sq. ft. less in free market floor area than what is allowed by underlying zoning on the entire property. The applicant proposes to "re-capture" this right by allowing an additional 390 sq. ft. of above grade decks and outdoor living space per lot, for a total of 780 sq. ft. of such space. This allowance would be in addition to the 15% of deck and balcony space allowed by the Code for all residential properties in the City. 4. Setbacks. The PUD would establish the front, rear, and side setbacks for the two lower lots at 10'.A 10' setback allows the lot that faces 3rd Street to align with the existing structures along the street (see Exhibit #6), which is consistent with the intent of the City's Residential Design Standards (Sec. 26.410.040.A). This setback would also enable a minimum of 20' separation to be created between the two structures which will Ll maintain the views from the neighboring property to the north. The setback variation and the reduction in the minimum lot area for the two lots would be the only dimensional standard variations that the PUD would grant. The PUD would otherwise be consistent with the dimensional standards of the R-15 zone district. 5. Consolidated Review Process. Sec. 26.445.030.B.2 of the Land Use Code authorizes the Community Development Director to consolidate conceptual and final PUD review for a project when the full four step review process would be redundant or because the project would serve a community interest. We have held a preliminary discussion of this proposal with the Community Development Director and he concurs that the full four step process would be redundant for this small property with its limited development plan. Therefore we request that this application be processed as a consolidated PUD. 6. Other Elements of PUD. The PUD would also address the following additional elements: a. Slopes. We have previously provided survey information and staff has determined that the slopes on both lots are not natural slopes but instead are the result of prior human activities on the property (primarily related to the establishment of the rail line). Since the slopes are manmade, Sec. 26.575.020 C. of the Land Use Code provides that the slopes do not cause a floor area reduction for this property. We hereby request that the PUD ratify this determination. Please note that the floor area calculations provided above already reflect this determination so this would not result in a floor area "windfall" to the owner. See Exhibit 5, Reconstructed Grade. b. Covenant. The owners of the lower lots shall be responsible for maintaining appropriate landscaping north of the existing Shadow Mountain Trail to provide a landscaped buffer zone between the Trail and the lower lots. c. Affordable Housing. The applicant proposes that the City accept the covenant or easement restriction against development of the upper lot as a cash-in-lieu payment of any affordable housing requirements that the Land Use Code would apply to the development of the two single family residences on the lower lots. Please note that the cash in lieu calculation that would have applied to the 3rd Street facing lot would be reduced by the existing floor area of approximately 2,000 sq. ft. d. Secondary Mass. The applicant seeks relief from the secondary mass standard of the residential design standards (Sec. 26.410.040 B.1). This standard requires at least 10% of the total square footage of each lot to be fully detached from the principal building or be linked to it by a subordinate element. The applicant feels that by splitting the mass allowed for a reconstructed duplex into two detached residences, the intent of this standard has already been met. Given the size of the resulting lots it will be difficult to achieve a further splitting of the mass. A site specific request for relief from this 5 standard will be presented at the time of building permit review for each lot. The applicant believes that all other residential design standards can be complied with. e. Open Space Restriction. The applicant requests that City cooperate with the owner to accomplish the covenant and quitclaim of the upper lot, or to a conservation easement grant to a recognized non-profit land conservation program. (0 11. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The subject property is located at the southern end of South Third Street directly abutting the Aspen Townsite line and Shadow Mountain. See Exhibit # 7 Vicinity Map showing Site Location. The property is improved with a duplex that is located on the lower lot. The duplex is approximately 2,000 sq. ft. in size. However, since the R-15 zone district requires a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area for a duplex, the existing structure is considered to be nonconforming. The upper lot is vacant, although the Shadow Mountain Trail traverses the property. The Midland Railroad ROW, which is owned by the City, separates the two lots. See Exhibit #8, Improvement Survey. It has always been the applicant's intention to break up the mass that is developed on the lower site into two homes rather than have one large single family home or attached duplex. The applicant has made several applications to the City seeking to accomplish this goal. Prior to purchasing the property, the applicant was made aware that 219 South Third Street had been identified as a potential historic resource under Ordinance 48. After acquiring the property in December of 2009, the applicant applied for historic landmark designation and a lot split. The lot split would have allowed the applicant to achieve the goal of breaking up the mass into two structures. The historic designation had the support of staff. However, the designation was denied by the City Council. Subsequently, the applicant submitted an application proposing that the underlying zoning of the property be changed from R-15 to R-6. Under the R-15 zoning only a single family unit or attached duplex can be built. R-6 zoning allows for the construction of two detached dwelling units on a lot of this size thereby achieving the goal of breaking up the mass into two structures. This zoning change also had the support of staff. However, it was not favorably received by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant has withdrawn the rezoning application and replaced it with this PUD application. In order to understand the benefit our PUD would bring to the neighborhood and to the City's trail system, it is useful to first explain the manner in which the two parcels can be developed under the current zoning. -3 Buildable rights under current zoning Exhibit # 9 shows the mass and scale of what is buildable by right under existing conditions. The plan shows a reconstructed duplex, which is allowed by right. Each of the two units would have a 2 car garage. The project would also include either a two unit affordable carriage house unit, to mitigate for the project's affordable housing requirements on both the upper and lower lots and fulfill the 10% detached mass requirement on the lower lot. These units would have their own outdoor parking along the rear of the lot. The plan also shows the single family home on the upper lot - also with a two car garage, again allowed by right. On the lower lot the underlying zoning would permit the duplex to have an allowable floor area of 4,145 sq. ft. The carriage house would have a floor area of 1,200 sq. ft., and the applicant would receive 600 sq. ft. of bonus floor area for building the carriage house and selling it as affordable housing which would be applied to the lower lot. The single family home on the upper lot has an allowable floor area of 2,538 sq. ft. The total above grade heated living space of all of these units would be 8,483 sq. ft. The total resulting density would be 5 units. The total number of on-site parking spaces would be approx. 8 to 10. Buildable rights under proposed PUD Exhibit # 10* shows the building rights under the PUD proposal. Exhibit #11 shows the proposed site plan On the lower lots there will be two single family homes with 2,951 sq. ft. of floor area each. Each house would be awarded an additional 390 sq. ft. for outdoor above grade decks and patios, as described above. On the upper lot there will be Zero sq. ft. of floor area and no structures are allowed to be built. The total above grade heated living space of these units would be 5,902 sq. ft. The total density on-site would be 2 units. The total number of parking spaces on-site would be approx. 4. *Please note that the exhibit #10 shows an approximation of mass and scale and in no way should or can be construed as an actual architectural plan in style, color, layout or exact mass and scale. The exhibit is intended to show approximate mass and scale only. Site specific drawings showing the architecture and other features for each lot will be submitted at the time of building permit and shall comply with all underlying zoning requirements, except for those requirements that have been varied by this PUD (that is, setbacks and minimum lot area as specified herein). Summarv In summary, the PUD proposal would result in a net reduction in density of 1 free market unit plus two affordable housing units, and 2,581 sq. ft. of above grade heated living space (8,483 - 5,902 = 2,581) from that which we could attain by separately developing the upper and lower lots pursuant to the currently allowed provisions of the Land Use Code. The PUD would also result in the preservation of the upper lot as undeveloped land, preserving the current trail alignment and avoiding development along the hillside. These are significant community benefits that justify and support the proposed PUD designation. In return the applicant would be permitted to develop two detached single family residences on the lower lot, using no more than the floor area that would be permitted on those lots by the Land Use Code plus 390 sq. ft. each of additional outdoor above grade decks. Developing the lower lot as two single family residerices is the appropriate land use solution that is most consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and adjacent development. It has the least impact on the surrounding neighborhood and is of benefit to the overall community. 9 111. AMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP The applicant proposes an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, to impose a PUD designation on the property so it is zoned R-15/PUD. The standards to evaluate an amendment to the Official Zone District Map are found in Section 26.92.020 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The applicant has the following responses to these standards. A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Response: The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with any applicable portion of the Aspen Land Use Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: Designation of the site as a PUD would be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The PUD designation will allow the upper and lower lots to be evaluated as an entire development parcel. It will enable the applicant to cluster development on the site on the lower lots and to preserve the upper lot as open space, thereby avoiding development that would require the Shadow Mountain Trail to be relocated. It will also preserve valued public views by eliminating the potential for development of the upper lot. All of these purposes are consistent with the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: Splitting the lower lot into two smaller lots results in a development pattern that is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood than the development of the lower lot in its current configuration. Currently, the 9,942 sq. ft. lower lot in the R-15 district permits one large single family home or one large attached duplex to be built. The mass and scale of either of these two existing choices is inconsistent with the mass and scale of the surrounding neighborhood which consists of modest to medium sized single family homes. Currently, there are no adjacent homes of overly large size and no adjacent attached duplexes at all. All the adjacent lots are either non-conforming R-15 properties, or are smaller conforming R-6 lots. Typical lot sizes range from 7,500 to as little as 3,000 sq. ft. Two new smaller R-15 lots of approx. 4,900 sq. ft. each will result in two smaller homes, splitting up the total building mass and better fitting with the neighborhood context. The restriction against development on the upper lot will preserve the public trail and neighborhood views of Shadow Mountain. In addition, the 10' front yard setbacks will 10 align the 3rd Street facing building with the other structures along Third Street, thereby maintaining the existing development pattern in the neighborhood. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: We feel that the traffic and safely will be greatly improved by the proposed PUD. By right under current conditions, a two family attached duplex with 2 two car garages and an affordable housing carriage house with two units can be built on the lower lot and a single family home with a two car garage can be built on the upper lot. This would generate approx. 8 to 10 cars with the carriage house cars parked outdoors along the alley way or outside the building envelope along the rear of the property. With the proposed PUD there would be no authority to build a carriage house. This would result in two single family homes in the PUD, each with a two car garage. The upper lot would have zero development, so the entire project would generate approx. 4 cars instead of 8 to 10. In addition, having two single family homes rather than the attached duplex and carriage house will create more open space on the lower lot vastly improving snow removal and storage options. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities. including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: The proposed PUD will decrease demands on public facilities. The PUD decreases the allowed density from 5 units to just 2 units and will therefore decrease demands on these public facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: The proposed PUD will dramatically reduce adverse impacts on the natural environment. The PUD allows for the preservation of the upper lot where no development will ever be allowed. This preserves open space, the public trail and unobstructed views of Shadow Mountain for pedestrians and neighbors forever and avoids the need for further disturbance of the hillside on the upper lot. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: The proposed amendment will be consistent and compatible with the character of Aspen. In addition, we believe the community of Aspen's residential districts i \ always benefit from building masses that can be broken down into smaller units. Designating the site as a PUD will allow us to achieve this goal. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: In recent months a dispute has arisen between the City and the applicant as to the ownership of lands within the upper parcel. As a result of this dispute discussions have occurred between the City and the applicant, leading the applicant to reconsider its approach to this property. The two prior applications submitted for this property involved solely the lower parcel. This application instead addresses the entire property ownership, allowing the applicant to appropriately plan for both the upper and lower parcels thus ensuring that development occurs where it is suitable so sensitive lands can be protected for the public benefit. This is a significant change in conditions that affects the subject parcel. A second change in conditions is the result of the recent development of the mountainside portion of the Boomerang project along W. Hopkins Street, which included a zoning change from R-15 to R-6. Prior to this zoning change a massive single family home or attached duplex could have been built on that lot. It now contains two modest sized single family homes and an affordable two unit carriage house, as well asa modest sized single family home building lot. This type of change reflects what is most appropriate for our neighborhood. Our PUD proposes to continue the support of modest sized structures in the neighborhood. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. Response: As demonstrated herein, the proposed amendment would further the public interest by providing a restriction against development on the upper lot, thus eliminating the possible disturbance of the public trail. Benefits to the public in general include the preservation of open space, maintaining the alignment of the public trail, and unimpeded views of Shadow Mountain, and for the neighbors specifically - consistency of scale within a mostly modestly built community. Designation of this site as a PUD will help achieve significant improvements for our neighborhood over what is currently allowed, and will help maintain its existing charm and scale. \L IV. CONSOLIDATED PUD REVIEW Section 26.445.010 of the Land Use Code identifies the purposes of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay zone district in the City of Aspen. This designation is intended to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land so as to: (a) promote the goals, and objectives of the AACP; (b) achieve a better quality of design and a greater compatibility with surrounding land uses; (c) preserve valuable site features; (d) promote the efficient use of land; and (e) incorporate public input into the planning process and ensure sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals. The Community Development Department determined during the pre-application review that the project could proceed as a consolidated review of conceptual and final PUD, as authorized by Section 26.445.030 of the Land Use Code. The applicant proposes to achieve the above-listed purposes in this consolidated PUD application. The standards for PUD review are found in Section 26.445.040 of the Code. The applicant's response to each of these standards follows below. A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: The proposed development will be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). As explained above, the PUD allows the upper and lower lots to be evaluated as an entire development parcel. The PUD clusters development on the site on the lower lot and preserves the upper lot as open space, thereby avoiding a currently allowed development that would require the Shadow Mountain Trail to be relocated. It will also preserve valued public views by eliminating the potential for development of the upper lot. All of these purposes are consistent with the AACP. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: Splitting the lower lot into two smaller lots results in a development pattern that is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood than the development of the lower lot in its current configuration. Currently, the 9,942 sq. ft. lower lot in the R-15 district permits one large single family home or one large attached duplex to be built. The mass and scale of either of these two existing choices is inconsistent with the mass and scale of the surrounding neighborhood which consists of modest to medium sized single family homes. Currently, there are no adjacent homes of overly large size and no adjacent attached duplexes at all. All the adjacent lots are either non-conforming R-15 properties, or are smaller conforming R-6 lots. Typical lot sizes range from 7,500 to as little as 3,000 13 sq. ft. Two new smaller R-15 lots of approx. 4,900 sq. ft. each will result in two smaller homes, splitting up the total building mass and better fitting with the neighborhood context. The restriction against development on the upper lot will preserve the public trail and neighborhood views of Shadow Mountain. In addition, the 10' front yard setbacks will align the 3rd Street facing building with the other structures along 3rd Street, thereby maintaining the existing development pattern in the neighborhood. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: The applicant has taken care to design this project such that it is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will not have an adverse effect on the future development of the surrounding area. 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 development plan review. Response: The proposed development is exempt from GMQS. Section V. of this application responds to the criteria for a lot split subdivision exemption, which authorizes U IU Ully to grant an allotment to the newly created parcel, with the fallie,ing parcel retaining its allotment as a pre-1977 parcel B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plan 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 the review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed development 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 character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b. Natural or man-made hazards. 14 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. Response: The project's existing, allowable and proposed dimensional requirements are shown in Exhibit #12. The only deviations from the allowable dimensions are the proposed 10' front yard setback (which is the current condition for the existing duplex) and the reduced lot size for the two lots created out of the lower parcel. The duplex has a non- conforming 10' front yard setback that aligns with all the other buildings in block 39 that face Third Street. These buildings include the landmarked log cabin and its outbuilding that sits next to the alleyway. The City's residential design standards advocate a unified streetscape whenever possible. 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 areas. Response: As noted above, splitting the lower lot into two smaller parcels results in a scale and massing that is appropriate to the character of the PUD and surrounding areas. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: 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, when 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. Response: Each single family home will have a two car garage. The resulting 4 on-site parking spaces will be adequate for the proposed development. \5 4. The maximum 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. Response: There is adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development since the site is already developed with a duplex, which would be replaced with only two new units. 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 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, and avalanche dangers. b. The ettects ot 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 disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Response: The land on which the development is proposed - the flat lower lot - is not affected by any of the above-listed hazards. And while the applicant has agreed to permanently restrict development on the upper lot thereby avoiding such hazards, they have a study conducted by Yeh and Associates, Inc. from May of 2009 that indicate no such hazards exist for the upper lot as well. See Exhibit # 13 6. The maximum 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 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. Response: The applicant does not propose to increase the project's density through the PUD. In fact, the applicant is voluntarily agreeing to reduce the allowable free market density from 3 units to 2 units. 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 pub!ic spaces, and n ne i :rne +An nt ihlin'rÂ· Ann'+6 1nr' s~fety. The proposed development V / h.' L.Â·~ ' U. e &1 ~L, t_/U,JIIU J 1 [UL.41.1 L.1 $ IU 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. Response: The applicant proposes to eliminate the development potential of the upper lot. The Shadow Mountain Trail traverses this lot. Preserving that parcel as open space avoids the necessity of relocating the trail when the currently allowed single family home is built. It also avoids a significant cut that would occur to the toe of Shadow Mountain. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Response: The houses will be clustered on the flat lower lot. Significant open spaces and vistas will be preserved by the restriction against development on the upper lot, the separation of the planned mass on the lower lot (two smaller structures versus one larger duplex) and by the agreement not to build a carriage house on the lower lot. 1n 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. Response: The eastern house on the lower lot will be oriented toward Third Street. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Response: Emergency and service vehicles will be able to access the site via the alley and Third Street. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Response: An initial evaluation of site drainage needs for the buildings will be performed by a civil engineer. Soils in this area have not typically been a problem as they are absorbent and should drain naturally. If applicable, a detailed drainage study will be submitted at the time of building permit review. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between bui.!dings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Response: This standard does not apply to this proposed development. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the 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 development plan shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed 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, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Response: A landscape plan will be submitted for each lot at the time of building permit review. E. 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 an 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. Response: A detailed architectural plan will be submitted for each lot at the time of building permit review. The applicant has agreed to comply with the residential design standards applicable to each lot, except for the secondary mass standard; which the. applicant requests be waived. 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. Response: Given the site's location at the base of Shadow Mountain, solar access is not ideal for this property. A complete heating and cooling plan will be submitted at the time of building permit review. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Response: The elimination of the carriage house and the minimum of 20' between the two units on the lower lot will provide an adequate storage area for snow between the buildings. The 10' front yard setback requested for the rear lot provides adequate snow storage at the rear of the property as well. F. 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: \6\ 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare 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. 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 residential development. Response: All proposed lighting will comply with the City's outdoor lighting standards. 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. 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. 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. Response: The owner will cooperate with the City to accomplish the covenant and quitclaim of the upper lot, or a conservation easement grant to a recognized non-profit land conservation program. 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: 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. 1o 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Response: As noted above, adequate facilities are present in the area to accommodate the proposed development (which has the same density as the existing duplex). The PUD will actually decrease potential demand for utilities and public facilities by lowering the allowable density of the property. 1. Access and Circulation. 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 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 area dedicated to public or private use. Response: Access to the property is provided from Third Street, which is a public road, and via the connecting public alleyway. L.. The pluvuouu UUVUIUpt 11(Ill, Vet Ilculcll CloGCOO pUII Ilb, al lu pal n // /y 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. Response: The development is not expected to generate any new traffic in the area since the number of units on the property is not being increased. As a result, no road improvements are proposed as part of this 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. Response: The restriction of development on the upper lot and the covenant ensure preservation of the trail and maintenance of the open space. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Response: No additional trail recommendations from the AACP affect this property. Jli 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. Response: There are no streets planned within the project. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Response: No such gates or other entryway expressions are planned as part of this project. J. Phasing of Development Plan. 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 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. Response: While a phased development is not proposed for this project, it is probable that development on each lot will take place in its own time frame. 11 V. SUBDIVISION REVIEW, LOT SPLIT The applicant proposes to split the lower lot into two smaller residential lots. Therefore, staff has advised that this application is subject to subdivision review as a lot split. Section 26.480.030.A.2 of the Land Use Code provides the review standards for a lot split for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed through such a split granted subsequent to November 14,1977. It states that the City may approve a lot split if the following standards are met: a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Response: The land is comprised of Townsite lots that are not located in a City or County approved subdivision. b. No more than two lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the rpru lirornonte nf tho i inrlariwinr, -,nno Agetrint Anu Int fnr uihinh rlowalnnrnont ic / 'lly ;WL t./1 Â¥Â¥1"//11 VVIVIVY'-V''I 'V proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.070 (B) Response: Two lots are proposed to be created by this lot split. The lots conform to the requirements established by the PUD zoning that is being applied to the property. Affordable housing mitigation is provided for, as described above. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this Chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040 (C) (1) (a) Response: The lot has not previously received any of the above-listed approvals. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocations pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Response: The required plat will be submitted following approval of this application. e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant 13 to record the plat within 180 days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: The applicant agrees to record the plat and agreement within the specified 180 day time frame. e. In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Response: The existing residential structure has not been demolished. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Response: The proposed buildout is two units, each of which will be a single-family home. 2U VI. CONCLUSION The applicant has submitted all of the materials requested by the staff on the pre- application conference, has responded to the applicable standards of the Aspen Land Use Code, and has demonstrated the compliance of the proposed PUD with said standards. The applicant will respond in a timely manner to any requests from reviewing agencies or City staff for additional information or clarification of any of the statements made herein. Please feel free to contact the applicant through its representatives as may be necessary. 15- 6 6 6 1 -14 1 ~reo.1- c + ciuu n.er- sh'e 0 0 Owner's Policy of Title Insurance - Schedule A Issued by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation 12 LandAnierica I Lawyers Title Lawyers Tille liisurance Corporation is a member of the LandAmenca family of tille Inslitance underwillels Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation 5600 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File No PCT22148L6 Policy No 029-Z102631 Address Reference 219 6 3RD ST, ASPEN, CO 81611 Amount of Insurance $4,050,000 00 P remium $ 6,911 00 Date of Policy December 2: 2009 @ 10.11 AM 1 Name of Insured YLP WEST, LLC 2 The estate or interest in the Land that is insured by this policy is IN FEE SIMPLE 3 Title is vested in YLP WEST, LLC 4 The Land referred to in this policy is situated in the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and is described as follows LOTS O, P, O, R AND S, BLOCK 39, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Excepting therefrom that portion of Lots O P and O that lies south of the northerly boundary of a FIght of way described as a 17 foot strip of land being 8 5 feet on each side of a centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway [Ight of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and shown in deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at Page 628 Countersigned 2-/4'vt,%44---- Authorized officer or agent ALTA Owners Policy Schedule A (Rev 6/06) Forrn 1190-134L 1 6 ' 0 6 6 * bi + 411 L-e T nu- US c r i P -1- 1 crn Proposed Development: rd 219 S. 3 Street Aspen, Colorado, 81611 Parcel [D# 2735-124-65-005 Legal Description: Lols O,P,Q,R and S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen Excepling therefrom that portion of Lots O,P and O that lies south of the northerly boundary of a right of way described as a 17 fool strip of land being 8.5 feet on each side of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and showii on deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at Page 628 2-1 E x hi 6 + 4 3 A 0-r hoc b -za-\Â· i e-h At, 61 Ce_ City of Aspen Community Development Department Pitkin County Aspen, Colorado The applicant for this project is: YLP West, LLC 7 S. Main Street Yardley, PA 19067 215-493-6100 215-493-6559 Fax Representatives authorized to act on behalf of the applicant include: Primary Contact: Suzanne Foster Alan Richman, Planning Services 7 S. Main Street Box 3613 Yardley, PA 19067 Aspen, CO 81612 215-353-1907 Cell 215-493-6559 Fax suzanne@tfosterjewelers.com Secondary Contact: Timothy W. Foster Edward P. Timmons, Esq. 7 5. Main Street Timmons LLC Yardley, PA 19067 450 East 17th Ave. 215-499-7071 Cell Suite 210 215-493-6559 Fax Denver, CO 80203 tim@tfosterjewelers.com Suzaine Foster / ?4 20-7 c 11/ Tirriothb W. Fder 9Â© Â£ A h 6 â€¢t N - fr â‚¬ AFf>~ , 2-a. 1- w.v-, Sum fÂ¥\ Cl R. 9 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Chris Bendon, 429-2765 DATE: 11.17.11 PROJECT: 219 S. Third St. Lot Split & PUD APPLICANT: Suzanne Foster Tel: (215) 493.6100 DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is pursuing a lot split subdivision to divide the northern portion of the parcel into two lots, each to contain one single-family residence. Planned Unit Development approval is necessary to acknowledge the proposed lot sizes which are smaller than required and possibly to accommodate setback variations. The southern portion of the parcel would not be developed and may be quit claimed to the City for open space and trail use. The parcel is allowed to apply for a PUD as the potential preservation of the southern portion of the parcel js a public benefit. A consolidated PUD is recommended. An amendment to the Official Zone District Map is needed for a PUD overlay to be added. The northern portion of the property is approximately 9,000 sq. ft., is zoned R-15 zoning, and contains a duplex. This type of application is a two-step review involving both the P&Z and City Council where both review boards would determine if the application meets the standards for amending the official zone district map. Due to the limited nature of this PUD and the creation of only two development parcels, submission requirements for specific architectural plans, landscape plans, and outdoor lighting plans are waived. Below is a link to the Land Use Code for your convenience. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use- Code/ Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.310 Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map 26.445 Planned Unit Development 26.470 Growth Management 26.480 Subdivision, Lot Split 26.710.050 R-15 Zone District Review by: - Staff for complete application, DRC for technical considerations - Planning and Zoning Commission (1st Step of Review) - City Council (2nd Step of Review) Public Hearing: Yes at P&Z and City Council Copies of Application: 25 Copies Planning Fees: $10,080 Deposit for 32 hours of planning staff time (additional planning hours over deposit amount are billed at a rate of $315/hour) Referral Fees: $265 Deposit for 1 hour of engineering staff time (additional planning hours over deposit amount are billed at a rate of $265/hour). $1,575 flat fee for Parks referral. Total Due at Submission: $11,920 To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total deposit for review of the application. 2. Proof of ownership. 3. Completed Land Use Application Form. 4. A signed fee agreement. 5. A Pre-Application Conference Summary. 1 9 6. A letter signed by the applicant, with the applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant, which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 7. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current 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. 8. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 9. Existing and proposed site plan. 10. A written and graphic description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. Please provide a written response to all applicable criteria. Summary of Review Fees Planning Review - Administrative Flat Fees Flat Fee Flat fee Note type of review. (e.g. condo Number Type Amt. plat) total Flat Fee 0 1 $79 $0 Flat Fee 0 2 $158 $0 Flat Fee 0 3 $315 $0 Flat Fee 0 4 6630 SO Planning Review - Hourly Deposit Deposit Note type of review. (e.g. 2-step, Hours Rate subdivision) total 32 $315 Lot Split and PUD $10,080 Referral Agencv Fees - Housing, Parks, Env. Heal th PUD/SP admin, 1-Step 2-Step A total Housing $0 Parks 1 31,575 Env. Health $0 Referral Agencv Fees - Citv Engineering total Engineering service billed at $265/hour, min. 1 hour- $265 Total Fees Due for Submission: $11,920 Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and js not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. This pre-app is not determinant on the ownership of the southern portion of the parcel. 30 Exh,Lit 11_jw- A er lal V I e Ki -5 ho w ,nl- exughr~ Se,-t- back. c I b'jn Nwn 4- 0 + A-Que-1 Of m--at on Brd 52Â· Block_ 39 a ntt Cot, Airm , r~ i 0 ' 16 2 4- bdck a c ross --\-ke SA- CÂ«Dr- 1 B 1\- 4 2- 6 0 -e d b' 5 U ' 6,5 0 / -- I ... 1..9. Â·i' '2~,1. ..* SS#.El. . 4. : .- ' '- 21 ...2 -.Â£,4.J %. A.1.&*.mil . 4 NtÂ·~ &Â·,Ch I i:~~j- 1 .Ill... ' S ht: ...1 ../.,2 r r -I - - r/9. " 4 17*-. 27 -74/ 0 ~ 4-1-411-Idini,69& 1,~A MP'- . t41*T~~ . 11 -Ii #.- 1 Legend N ~-~1~~2/7 F:1/0/1 V~ ~ Roads LIt\' Boundap, O 00 2,1 83 120 150 Feet S L n p Leâ‚¬ 3 -e note un \ -Are>r In t 4-1 0 C <ES+/ +U- 5 co p *t- 0 0 b Ah 5 / 3 -9 5 4 3 rd 126(.i'.24=13-, 3j m. Ile/ MAOI. ..< Ce.0 .0â€¢0 BEAR IMC C 1 i." 52Â· .4,11, 91 1, .. LEGEND AND NOTES I n."lf 0 -Il'OLE 0 10 4 0 HOP*INS I ./.7 ...1 01.17:m'-1 0 /'Elâ€¢rÂ¥ 'al AVENUB i,~in cou,lrY Tirl_E '. r,r. '../.10â€¢ ./.1,/ED 1/ MX:r.UIN; A.&:Wrrti=Wrism S W M 1 1 1 FMI~ ~LAT SMO,11 n~56 LOi3 1 1 ..eel posir'. T-/1, 10 SOUTH d i 1 12:*FEME.'~.<,5 RANGE . ./T . '1. 1/ 'IE ....,CE AT .E,f,5,0,3~ 0105 ....400 ' I ./â‚¬%'10' 1... 1 1 11 1.5 .$ 79~5 1 ' 1 1 De,B -ES' ~17 nâ‚¬ 2,0Â· C + 5 ~i itÂ· 737% 4131*1-z -2 - -* -* 1 " ' :" :~ ' .15 ' I.E....4 0/0 'Al....0, 79,0 .-/'-1. +H 79 10 1 PUTS u,ED 7905 ---I.-I-Â·-in 'Ves / / 1 L,$0 Oggla CL. 0, 41,/ ClyÂ¥ 00 ASPEN ~Ay DATED REC 4, #691 =NTÂ¥ WOI, 23 ,~10 7900 -1 ..OE. Er*;Er?:ia'*Â·-/ .00441.,AÂ¢*.10 RECONSTRUCTED j NP4 - 1 / Â£*CLUO,MO AREA 0â‚¬t_0.01 'w, MAOâ‚¬ *01â‚¬,rMUUED ELE-,IC.,1 8, OVE*MINED . r. -0,1.5 4 5,10-4 GAADE 1:17, iff = ILLIÂ¥ 120 4 .Z iii .0 907 AREA=~,~42 $0 . lf: - 7925 7925 ' Â· A 1 1 SLOPE LEGEND ig,5 Â»Â·Â·-Â·Â·DM~~~F~ZR--UULth.--Â·Â·-Â·--Â·--1 --Â·+4 7~5 .9/i.0 F 14, f'* 1/. / HOUS.11 ; 2 /1 d. f \k) 70,Â° P- dfid =!E@fiEE-Mu ---1 70,0 11 i - --| 2905 . \ i \ - 1, . 7Â®5 .-Â·Â·-Â· -Jill] lIlli_l -1 U L..- 1,00 ,,, f /8 . t.4 %41 7. . . E 3-DPI ..30, "-1.1 0.. ././1 , 0 - Till 2 wE 57 PROPERTY LINE PROFILE 22 'MW. ' H -' ' WHI RECONSTAUCTED J . GRADE \ D C~TOWMED ~EAS LES, r,~i '0. ~or w~roâ‚¬o g,Â». li 1 . 0 --- 1: 1 1, ' '2\ Zi E ' 11 L. 1 : R '4 J./ ' I j : a~Eze,E::F.?00:aiE,%4 / EEMile,E?EFEWEME:iÂ°GE.1,02 2 7. 1 907 C~EgAN , i. oce 044 4. ./TED -' 79,0 1 .'. 7925 -Â·Â·+ 7925 7920 \1 --Â·+ 7920 *,0/ 4, 41, .. 7,0, 1 ._.4--Â·Â·= 7900 7905 . e,h 1.-4 y . â€ž,4,1,4 -6 ,$ 44 144 7. 111: .0 ;rol, I I.PROV E.INT RECONSTRUCTED TO'OGRAPHIC iUlÂ¥MY RECON5TRUCTED j CENTER PROPERTY LINE PROFILE GRADE ~,0 0 â„¢Al *i SB . he *E. CC*INT, OF ,irkil .... ./.*00 -EPAW . ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS INC 1,0 ;OU. 0,4-EMA ~TREET A,â€¢. M.*00 1,6, 1 1 â€¢40"Emo, in 3.1. . 21*m:Bif~6 - .10 16;m oATE '08 OUY PARCEL ALLEY . PROP LINE Ke,CeÂ» 51X Udâ‚¬(1 6-<46 6*6,2 4 6 ALLEY S PROP LINE ALLEY '909 ./ I TO-TE 1 OWN - - - OUT PARCEL -- N. PROP LINE 012 : -fl=- -& '1 1 1.11 --,-1 cnn.- ~014 p LE i /403 49% 0-4 9-Â»- 0 re , 1 lotat-frU 3 #0- - 2.1.1 ~) EÂ¥Â·r'(721 ..W 11. - -- 1 - 1, I . 1 111:.. .. i r y LU 4 6 <,1 .-Z 1 Â· Â· . .3 % Â»/ i 1.* ,-, 2,2 fiallci on p ve-if 1 c -I , / 6 ' - --r â€¢ Ii.4.1 1 2% l' i 10 --- , te r'rÂ«- C'. Oa k -ClE . Aor. A-C C>eMO D.0.0 -1. C ,â€¢41/ ./ . 25 , .Â·. 1,Â·E LIGEN' AND NOTES 0 20 0 / W-OLE r, .o = *#. ...f:.:.:r"- 0 0 .ILLT, * ~1â„¢u, COUNT. TlrU i. il . 826-,4rt:'241 i i .0 â„¢E ./~46~~ST c~â€ž,~~ ..T I /0/ 25 {ALLMIMIUM .. LS M~47 I. SE~PIC, inED ~ 4 ) EMT AT ,HE 11Â©An,~Sr CORMER OF eLOCK . 400 ul,Lin POLE 4 .j.fil Â« BA~ED MONUMP,T . i ..1. 45Â¥0 ia:ir*.4*r.',~.8.3;EFE.:3-9,rterEL:.RÂ« 1 1 1 1 Â· C 1.0/ 0" C.Â»40 . I. 0~,UAViÂ¥ 3/0~ 1 1 1 1 43 '.* 'SED toâ€¢E - 1 1 0,Â¥ . Asâ€¢EN â€¢w o..60 9,Â£ 5 =5:i,o. C.TY -04 25 11.0 RET*IMI. R \ / 2-11'r . .00' I,3 'ACE 'O Â£ .ILLITS .LAI â€¢LAT a.. â€¢ 40[7. 0 :41'm.-7> 4Â£22Â£04 i f l / 40 2 i rn 1 -0 â€¢.n f-) . | 9 giâ‚¬- - 8.0 CEMTEÂ»LI~le ~ OLO Â»AILAOAO I r#6 *Â£ 6 /\ DLE L -k 1 I ,~ .11/ N & 0,-: 0 - 3 113 00, i g il 40 6 011 J . 11 80 00; : NO 2 7 7 Q A '31 -* SLOPE LEGEND l .,4 0 LAyE' !30~ hO~- 1 Q C 3 ji:"'01. ST.rES fur ,-RO,ER.Â¥ OESC~,B MENEON *Al AELD Su~EYEO LO 0, 2001 * l' ACC~ATE g.'Â·SEÂ© . r,4, GIELD EVIDE,â€¢CE Al Fal koâ€¢E~ 20 30â€¢ L!3LÂ·9Â·0Â·~0~ , 59â‚¬17.15=E?%912.9.ME:fir:FroS~JEL =L*Â¥'36*re:%%,tmallt.,r.:tff':.,:01%:I kim'.9:.f. im W.i#[114 -Â·41 ' . 3, ./. 20.0 ./: *T F DATEO 1-141 4 . /0/ AVENUE 11#fl, 4 4 , 2/ .. 40, IWPROVE/ZNT TO~OGRArIC 5UlÂ¥EY / 10 '01 ./. Iii (,1. I. f.ls,TE . ASÂ»EN E..;6%3:3~irT#â€ž....*.,i.~E~Â·EAED:~EMP:ME*: 75 *â€¢â€¢06 '. Ccul. C, il,;,il .ArE O. ...... "E... 1. A5PEN 5URVEY ENGINE ER5 INC ~LO ~Nâ„¢ 0.'iLE,u .116ET .PEâ€¢ ,~4 M .trEMr â€¢0â€¢:Â·ICÂ» ME,0 M JO, 1.01 *.A 1*ZIIS '-HA /100. x 4 6 , + 41_ g 1 0-ens,4 Schematic Design Packet - 06.11.2010 Ex In *614- 9 Suzanne and Tim Foster Majestic Peaks Custom Homes 944 - CÂ» f 41 C 31 is- illi l i , 9 ill * - I 4 - Â·-TY L F - 1 . . + 4 1-- + - 4 /7 /1 - -- 1 - I . =.-1--Â· . . 1 L-,111 . 1 .f. ~ L . 1.. . 1 . I $ 161 - .. .: ..4 . . 1. - 11 --4.1.4 * 1 4 I . 11 1.1 1 - J- -2 416 - 2 1. 1 lil.34:Q: -141.1 3. ' ~3164-: .~'-2:Â·.144 J. 1. . 1 - 1 â‚¬ 1 4 lili 1 1/ . 1..16.1.1.Â¢'....F, . , h i %.*.+.517 1 11 . A- % a.i*.'1:44,24 091 M.......7 Â· ' ' *' 02â€¢ZUtf24- // I 1 '1 -, L --+fitf?,32.ti:S~ - 3,/ 1 - Â¥ - : ' 1029Â·?f --* ... ..0: 7 .42 -1 - ; ..J-L.,u.v,Â· /-- Â¥P'. I ~ 14* 53Â· Â© Turkel Design and A Lindal TUR Lindal Cedar Homes CEDAR HOMES KEL â‚¬ I 54,6 c 6 4- 41 9 repes d Schematic Design Packet - 02.28.2011 Suzanne and Tim Foster D Majestic Peaks Custom Homes ...129 1- 11-4- 1 r k ' %4 ..': , = Il - I*- 2 - . .-1 0- 1 -6-1,1 - - ./ 7 - -'' 1- ' t,1-AC -017 4 ' f '1= 1 u + 7 - '~ ill" ' , 1 21 21 4.1 1 ' '11 2 1 1?1 >l.11 44- 1 4 5 -to Ar IL.,r- . e .1 ./ 97 7 -~ 0 -<4*4.3-+ 410 CL " 0 - -7 -2 t,-4Uy -93 : 'Ill_ i L Ch"=92---- 4< A - . - --. -- il -'.4 9 AN_*.4 ..1.-2.29.7 .'t 0 ---*443-<-*7*~ilotr2-~~4.493- I .1. .. .21 94 7 -4 + , r k.. '4 . 91Lkit 1 1.6 -i ' . . . 11.. -- 1 1 1.11 14,11111.,14,11111,1:ti,11 - . . ...7 1.' -:tat.4 -, '.,+Â¥.: I .3 1: 0 Â·:.21'141'i,~,Â·018~"I/' 1 1 2 I. 14,1 Â¢ 1,11 .1 , - 1 1 . 1,_ LI. '1 1,Â¥ p 11.1.~1: 1 41; ;.11. 11 1,1-11, 1- 1.11 1 ' 1 1 1 2,11<,1.4.1421.1..,11:11,1,1. 11! J 1 1 1 11 1 11 11. . 1 '11 1,1 i. .111' 1, :- 11 1. . 1 . ..i.?00; I 1 , 01, . 111'.11.,Z.,1.4. 1 . .. I 11 1 .11 1. .* . i\Kj Â© Turkel Design and 4 Lindal TUR Lindal Cedar Homes CE-DER AOME s KE L b ni, 41 u n d v-r P _b / *IP:%3 / 1 S 14Â· 50Â· 19- w 47 00' ~ lil 1 6 'j1 i /3 iii} 1 , 1 1 Et-JETJ --- ' /1 T 1 C 1 \ 1~ al; / PROPOSED LOT #2 0/ 4, ry : F p 1 5 , (4,9/1 sq Ft) PROPOSED IAR= 2.951 sq. ft 00 ' 1 390 sq ft. additional F A R 1 51 0 (to he wed For above ground : * 5 ; 1 dpck, and living areas only] ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~AN actes~ to Urnm 1 / 1 the alley- 31 , u public utilities to tie in from 1 1 1 1 the alley LO, Q ," 1 \\ /// 9 9 '7; ~' PROPOSED PROPER CY UNI , 111 - PERPENDICULAR TO EXET 9 Al I FY PROPPRTY I INF 52 ' Ill 1 1 61 7 1 .\ f 1 1 tr PROPOSED LOT #1 IN,1 (4.971 sq. ft.) 1 1 PROPOSED !.A.R=2951 :q, ft f + 390 39. h. addilional FAR. ~ LOT ~3 / (to he uned for above ground / decks ind riving /eas only REF!)dc T ED 44'ELOPMENT OPEN SPACE / NOTE, 1 1/ d~v~w~-acce~ to~-M_' Lj public ut,lit,1,5 [f, Ip in frim rhe alley , i / 11 10-0 0 ~ ~ EXISTING PROPFRTY LINE (TYP.) - 1/ 69.10 25.00 N I 4- 50' 49 1 7% 00' /t EDGE 01 PAVEMENT SOUTH THIRD STREET PROPOSED SITE PLAN A-1 FOSTER SCALE ,/20- -, 1Â· 0 2 I 9 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 DATE Il-Il-11 E-*t I 101 1 41- 11 Fmpos-â‚¬21 5 lie pla A 3cO13AN3 Dvlollne OMOdOld 3dO13AN3 D.Niallng 035(dOWd (dA.1) 3All A1~32O&d DN LSIX3 (035OdOEd;.ZE EN (03%0dold) .39 99 /' L 1 .60.EZ N ('151><3) .00Â·Of I /, I t .60 .52 N (03,\UNn) 6Â£ )13038 X311Â¥ N 75- 0911-W 60 00 ach IL, f *\ 1 D i m ens 1 (rn cil R <%u'I re rn -2 01- i S ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: y Lf> U_,at,f- LLC rub Applicant: 9 L p lÂ« 2 9 +- i 1_ L C Location: 119 5 . 8:64 94...re J Zone District: A-11 Lot Size: 9 141 S F -1 399 4, 5 F Lot Area: iloll 59 + gqi 6 5F (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark. easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: O Proposed: 0 Number of residential units: Existing: 9 Proposed: 1 Number of bedrooms: Existing: 4 Proposed: 3 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): i 00 DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: 1 96 6 Allowable: 10 9%3 Proposed: 590-1 4 -1 90 Â¥-0. Principal bldg. height: Existing: \f' Allowable: 16-1 Proposed: 20 4 ' a b o J Â£ 61 f- ad.Â£ Â£1 ect 5 +- Access. bldg. height: Existing: Vl A Allowable: 91 (Â¥ Proposed: pl B 0&%- 64.Lf On-Site parking: Existing: 11 Required.Â· 1414 Proposed: 4 1. U inc) 1,24 02 % Site coverage: Existing: '2 02 Required: Proposed: p / P % Open Space: Existing: <*ch, Required: t'\0~ Proposed: vt A- Front Setback: Existing: 10 Required: 1% ' Proposed: \0' Rear Setback: Existing: 69 ' Required: 10, Proposed: 10 , I / & Combined F/R: Existing: -1 % Required: 3 b Proposed: 1 0 'i 4 - r . Side Setback: Existing: \'0 9 Required: to Proposed: \ 0 ' 1, I Side Setback: Existing: 9 G Required: ID Proposed: 10, 1 It . f Combined Sides: Existing: 15. 3 Required: 10 ' Proposed: 3,0 i Distance Between Existing '1 A Required: 3.5 Proposed: 1 0 Buildings Existing non-conformitiesorencroachments: NOV e c n. IRâ€¢ r,A tr,Â·f Art.,r~.4 Lf Ck*~ Seljo, cl. cy '0 Variations requested: F nn + M m .cl 3 +4- 64Â£ E ~ ID ' o n Â·e 4 6/k R) 424-u p ArL e i . Â¢h â€¢ A I 4~ U\OA LI:+ 9 1 16 239 G h 6 , 4- 44 63 R 65 u 1 13 0 11 4 2 -2 5 6-\-ca L~ 28-211A Cleary Property, 219 South 3rd Street, Aspen, Colorado RESULTS Section 7-20-20 Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes The parcels are relatively flat except for the slope formed by the old railroad grade which is well vegetated and stable in its current configuration. The site is not impacted by steep and potentially unstable slopes. Section 7-20-50 (c) Rockfall There is a potential source of rockfall several hundred feet above the site which does not affect the proposed development due to the characteristics of the slope above the site. The remnants of past mining have created an area, which will stop any rockfall that originates from the northeast facing slope of Shadow Mountain. The slope configuration resulting from the historic mining activity as well as the existing earth berm will protect the site and the proposed development from rockfall hazards. Section 7-20-50 (d) Alluvial Fan Hazard There is a potential for small, infrequent debris flow and debris flood events to originate from Shadow Mountain during intense precipitation events. These small events will not affect the proposed development due to the characteristics of the slope above the site where the remnants ofpast mining have created an area which is less steep in addition to the protection provided by the fiat area and berm near the existing bike path. Future debris events will not affect the proposed development. Section 7-20-50 (e) Talus Slopes One of the maps that we reviewed showed the parcel at the boundary of Quaternary talus deposit. Our site visit indicated that the actual boundary was several hundred feet to the south of the mapped boundary and that the site is not impacted by talus slopes. Section 7-20-50 (a).(b), (c),(d), Ce),(11 (g),(h),(i) This site is not impacted by Section 7-20-50 (a) Avalanche; (b) Landslide Hazard; (c) Rockfall Hazards; (d) Alluvial Fan Hazard; (e) Talus Slopes; (f) Mancos Shale; (g) Faults; (h) Expansive Soil and Rock; (i) Ground Subsidence. SUMMARY Our research and evaluation indicates that the proposed development at this site is not impacted by potential geological hazards and is suitable for the proposed development. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geological practices in this area for use by the client for preliminary planning purposes. If geological hazard mitigation is included in the site-specific development plan, Yeh and Associates, Inc. should review the 39 28-21 1 A Cleary Property, 219 South 3rd Street, Aspen, Colorado proposed design and construction procedure. The preliminary conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon data obtained from the observations made in the field. The findings and recommendations given in this report are site-specific, and are only valid for the subject site. -H AND ASSOCIAIES. INC. Reviewed by: 9 0410 /7 ''/2(<>'~-~;~) REFU#:Â·-~~. Roghr A. PiM P.G., (WY #PG-3353) Rf;hard D. Johnson, P.E.j'jfÂ°Â°@" - 4,4-423.7, Principal Scientist , 4 9 3 01'4 orke .e~ 2 Senior Geotechnical Engi'n#eft 17 Â© . .-, *-0 ..; IPO â€ž.P/4, .L / 2>9 . \ 4 921 16/07 -A-020 / 00 i, C ~ - Â¢t./ Â£44#PRLL. Ll â‚¬14*:-i-11) / 9 0