HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Van Horn.1978)918-
1 Van Horn Subdivision
, icy o4�j 2-
6 'a
REFERRAL.
TO: Asper! Police Department
FROM: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
RE: Analysis of Impact on the Aspen Pc)lice Department
DATE: February 5, 1978
The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office is reviewing a development proposal,
and requires an analysis of'the proposal's impact on the capacity of
the Aspen Police Department by considering the ability of current
police security services to provide protection according to reasonable
response standards without the necessity of additional facilities,
personnel or equipment,.
The attached application form identifies the location, size and type
of development. Please review the application and indicate the category
of impact below.
Project: VanHorn Subdivision_CUbmi tted__by_ RVI�_ Pi elsiij�k_. a�h_i_ tect_�._.
Referral Submission Date: February 14,1978
The proposed project will have the following type of impact on the c�:pacity
of the Aspen Police Department:
Negligible impact - substantial excess capacity exists
considering the ability of current police security
services to provide protection according to reasonable
response standards t�J thout the necessity of addi-
tional facilities, personnel or equipment.
Moderate impact - only moderate capacity exists con-
sidering the ability of current police security
services to provide protection according to reasonable
response standards without the necessity of addi-
tional facilities, personnel or equipment.
Substantial impact - this development :ill over-
burden -the ability of current police security services
to provide protection according to reasonable response
standards without the necessity of additional
�t �,Q facilities, personnel or equipment.
Coin-iients: tki", i0S._1DV
Signature: �� � Date--
TO:
F i UM :
RE:
DATE:
•
Aspen Fire District
•
REFERRAL
e
Aspen/Pi.tkin Planning Office
Analysis of Impact on the Aspen Fire Department
February 5, 1978
The Aspen/Pitkin Planning OFfice is reviewing a development proposal,
and requires an analysis of the proposal's impact on the capacity of
the fire department facility by considering the ability of the Fire
Department to provide fire protection according to the established
response standards of the appropriate district vrithout the necessity
of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment
to an existing station..
The attached application form identifies the location, size and type
of development. Please review the application and indicate the category
of impact below.
Project: Van Horn Subdivision (submitted by Russ Pielstick - architect)
Referral Submission Date: February 14„ 1978
The proposed project will have the following type of impact on the capacity
of the Fire Department.
Negligible impact - substantial excess capacity
exists to provide fire protection according to the
established response standards of the appropriate
district without the necessity of establishing a new
station or requiring addition of major equipment
(such as hydrants, wet standpipes, etc.) to an
existing station.
/ - Moderate impact - only moderate capacity exists to
provide fire protection according to tile established
response standards of the appropriate district
without the necessity of establishing a new station
or requiring addition of major equipment (such as
hydrants, wet standpipes, etc.) to an existing
station.
- Substantial impact - this development will over-
i6rden the capacity of the fire department to provide
fire protection according to the established response
standards of the appropriate district without the
necessity of establishing a new station or requiring
addition of major equipment (such as hydrants, weL
standpipes, etc.) to an existing station.
•
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
REFERRAL
Aspen City Engineer
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
�EC f7v `
�4
Fig 619i
v cl; y
' COLORP�_/
Analysis of Impact un Storm Drainage, Parking Design, and Roads
February 5, 1978
The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office is reviewing a development proposal,
and requires an analysis of the proposal's in,pact rn the capacity of
storm drainage, parking desic,n, and roads by considering the capacity
of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff;
considering ti,e desirahility of the design of off-street parking areas;
and considering the capacity of major street linkage.
The attached application form identifies the location, size and type of
development. Please review the application and indicate the category
of impact below.
Project: VanHorn Subdivision submitted-byRuss Piel_sti_a_y-_ hi.#ect)
Referral Submission Date: Februar 142,_1978
The proposed project will have the following type of impact on the capacity
of:
STORM DRAINAGE
Negligible impact - substantial excess capacity exists
Tor drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the
surface runoff of the proposed development without
system extensions beyond those normally installed by
the developer.
Moderate impact - only moderate capacity exists for
drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the
surface runoff of the proposed development without
system extensions beyond those normally installed by
the developer.
Substantial impact - this development will over-
burden the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extensions
beyond those normally installed by the developer.
1
PARKING DLS1 aP;
Ne ligible ilYact - substantial excess capacity exists
i-or the design of of' -street parking areas with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience
and safety exits.
Moderate imTact - only moderate capacity exists for
Vie design of off-street parking areas with.respect:
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience
and safety exits.
Substantial imp act - this development will over-
burden the capacity for the design of off-street
parking areas with respect to visual impact, amount
of paved surface, convenience and safety exits.
Comments: C - — -----_
ROADS
Negligible impact - substantial excess capacity exists
to provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering existing traffic
patterns or overloading the existing street system
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage
and/or maintenance.
Moderate impact - moderate capacity exists for the
needs of the proposed development without substantially
altering existing traffic patterns or overloading
the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
- Substantial impact - this development will over-
burden the capacity of the existing traffic patterns,
or the overloading of the existing street system,
or the necessity of providing increased road mileage
and/or maintenance.
Comments : C�,r. �,,,�� .� ,r/973- U
- We�.f , i'��%�++�Y oY7Gi G� � S 1 ;Q� ✓� � !/C�.r. ff►"s.. L� _ _
Signature �-
•
REFURAL
TO: Aspen Metropolitan Sanitatich District
FROM: ' Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
RE:
Analysis
of
IW act on Sewage Treatment Capacity
DATE:
February
5,
1978
The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office is reviewing a development proposal,
and requires an analysis of the proposal's impact on the capacity of the
sewage treatment facility by considering excess capacity of the system,
location of the nearest trunk or connecting sewer line.
The attached application form identifies the location, size and type
of development. Please review the application and indicate the category
of impact below.
Project: VanHorn Subdivision tsgbpfitted by Russ Pielstick - architect) __
Referral Submission Date: February 14.„1978
The proposed project will have the following type of impact on the capacity
of the sewage treatment system.
Negligible impact - substantial excess capacity exists
at the sectiege treatment plant and at the nearest
trunk or connecting sewer line to accommodate this
development.
Moderate impact - only moderate capacity exists at
the sewage treate,nent plant or along the nearest:
trunk or connecting sewer line to accommodate this
development.
/ - Substantial impact - this development will over-
burden the capacity of the sewer treatement plant
or the nearest trurd, or connecting sewer line.
�A
L s. E2r S e a srPAIe4 LEFT
SOS o r- r,4 r- L o r s A jF! A• r-
L°
�Jtia� tw' Voatur _ _ �s_'�.n _._/7�-�,c� Date _ E3 275;
REFERRAL
TO: City of Aspen !dater Department
FROM: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
RE: AnalYsis of Impact on the existing water system and capacity
DATE: February 5, 1978
The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office is reviewing a development proposal
and requires an analysis of the proposal's impact on the overall capacity
of available water and impact on water pressure and the nearest water
main or connecting line.
The attached application form identifies the location, size and type of
development. Please review the application and indicate the category
of impact below.
Project: VanHorn Subdivi-,,Lion_..(.s-ubmitt.... by Russ Pielstick - archit t�—
Referral Submission Date:_____JebrUary14, 1978
The proposed project will have the following type of impact on the
capacity of the sewage treatment system:
Negli iq ble iflli - substantial exce�:s water capacity
exists and will not adversly affect water pressure
in the vicinity of the nearest water main or connecting
water line.
1oderate impact � only limited water capacity exists
and water pressure will be affected in the nearest
water main or connecting water line.
Substantial iioact - this development will overburden
the water treatement plant and seriously reduce the
pressure in the nearest main or connecting water line.
Comments: See Attached Comments in Memo_. �J
i
Si gnatur•e Date
.^ "��� ~`�/}���
�����A�� ~�~ /��'-�
\���rr,vw- ����^ ,r-,
'
Recommended PointAllocation _
Residential Fr0V05alS `
' . ���
Project K Date /�� � /&����
_____
A. Public Facilities and Services
/maXimmn of 21 points -'maximum of
3
points per review element).
-
l.
1,Jater Service
----'- ----------------------------------`--
�
2
`
�
--'-----------------------'-------
�
-------------------'--------
Sewer 3ErVjC�
3,
�
--__-`_---_-
'----'---------------------'---'-------------------------------'
Storm Drainage
'
4.
Fire Protection
----------------------------
�
-----«`-------
------------'------------' ----------
5.
Parking Design
----------'--------------'---'---------------------------'---
G.
�
--_-_m�-___''
Roads
-----''------------------'--------------'-----'--------------
7.
---'-----------'—'- ----'- '
___-__---__-___ --_--'_-�'-_'--.----_--_�_-------_--
Energy
------' --------' -----' --------------'-------''------
-_-'--�---_-----' ----_-_'-_-_-_-_-_'
- ----------------'-----
------ ' ----------- - ' ---'
��»--- -
---'----'_-'-__-_-
�---- ' - ---'- -- -------'( ' �'
B. Social Facilities and Services (max imin of 1� uo i nts )
' 1. Public Transportation
2. Police Protection
3. Childcare Facilities
4. Bicycle Paths
5. Recycling Facilities
6. handicapped Design Features
7. Covivnercial Support Proximit'f � •--�-�-._~_---•-~----_�__-_-(
C. Housing (Maxi±num of 30 ooints)
1. middle --------._____- -
?.-Noderate
3. Low _ -
Sub Total of Above Points
Bonus Points
6474
USf
TOTAL POINTS
Name
Recommended Point Al1ecation
residential Proposals
Project V A��.` . Date
A. Public Facilities and Services (19aximurt of 21 points - maximum of
3 points per reviev, element).
1. !dater Serviu
I
2. Sewer Service
3. Storm Drainage
G. Fire Protection
5. Parking Design
6.* Roads
7. Fnergly __ _--
�
B. Social Facilities and Services (maximum of 14 points)
. � .
1. Public Transportation
�
�
2. Police Protection
°
�
3 Childcare Facilities
.
�
'
4. Bicycle Paths
y
5. Recycling Facilities _------z--_--
---------------------------------------'---'-----------------------'
�
6. Handicapped Design Features
7. CDponercial Support Proximity
'------------------------------------------------------- -'----_�- /
C. Housing /DaXimUUl of 30 points)
l. Middle
2, Moderate
3. Low
--'------------------ ------ -- '-----' ---'-- — —' --------
1
C
Sub To-tal of Above Points
Bonus Points
TOTAL POINTS
Name i
i
•
a—
Recommem!'-d Point Allocation
Residential Proposals
Proje::t Cate /F11
A. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 21 points - maximum. of
3 points per review element).
1. hater Service _
2.
Sewn r Service
3. Storri Drainage
4. Fir Protection
5. Parlyrn' C Cesion
6. Roa
7.
B. Social Facilities and Services (maximum of 14 points)
1. Public r nsportatien
2. Police Protection
3. Chi 1�%c'�c�are Faci 1 i t i es
4. Bicycle Paths
5. Recycling Fac'lities
6_ handicapped Desiqn Features
7. Commercial Support Prox'.mi ",/
C. Housing (maximum of 30 points)
1. middle
?. Moderate
3. Low
O
Sub Total of Above Points
Bonus Points
TOTAL POINT
Name
Recommended Point Allocation
Residential Proposals
Project ,�% lkei�r o0/4/, Date � �4'17f'
A. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of 21 points - maximum of
3 points per review element).
l . ter Service
2. Sewer Service
3. Storo Dr ainaae
�. Fire Protection
6. Parking Desion
6. Roads
7. Energy
2
2
B. Social Facilities and Services (maximum of 14 points)
1. Public Transportation
2. Police Protection
3. Childcare Facilities
4. Bicycle Paths
5. Recycling Facilities
6.
Handicapped
Design
Features
7.
Proximity
Commercial
Support
C. Housing (maximum of 30 points)
1. middle
Moderate
.; , , , ii �/JO✓sue K�'l�p/� q vn . J
3. Low �
---------J-----
Sub Total of Above Points 3 57
Bonus Points
TOTAL POINTS S
Recommended Poin-1E. Allocation
n
r\esi.dential Proposals
Project Date
A. Public Facilities ities and Services (maximum of 21 points maximum of
3 points per review element). -
1. !dater -Service ---
2. Sewer Service
3. Storm Drainage
4. Fire Protection
5. Parking Design
6. Roads
7. Enerqy
�-
����
��
B. Social Facilities and Services (maximum of 14. points)
^ |
' }. Public Transportation
.__--_'_— _--_---__--____-_'--_------_-
�
'------'--------------'----'----- ---'-------------
/
2. Police Protection
3. Childcare Facilities
�
�
4. Bicycle Paths
'
' 5. Recycling Facilities. _--_!------___
-
/
6. Handicapped Design Features
-- '__-_--- __--_--_
-- ___---_____-'----_-- -----__'
/
7. Commercial Support PrOximitv
�
C. Housing (maximum of 30 P0ints),
l. Middle
2. Moderate
1 ^J
3' Low
-------------------- ''-'--- --------'---------------------
------------------------'-- '-'-- ''-'------'--' - -'------'--
Sub Total of .Above. Points
Bonus Points
s
TOTAL POINTS
Name �
D
Recoc;mcnr,ed Point Allocation
Residential Froposals
Project - --- Date
A. Public Facilities and Services (maximtpq of 21 points - maxirlum of
3 paints per revie►•; eleeient).
1. !dater Service
-,A --r--
i
2. Sewer Service
1 0' - .
3. Storm Drainage
4. Fire Prc,tectior,
-
... { arhi q Design
-y
• 1 W
B Social Facilities and Services (,!iax,mum of 1A.ooints)
1. Publi Transportation _
--✓- - — —----��.Q ...ram . ___- ___—
2, Police Protection
3. Childcare Facilities
_._!�.j5t4---
4.
5. Recycling Facilities
5. handicapped Desicn Features
i . Commercial Support Prox'mi t.— _^
C. Ilo.;sinq (rlaxiT9um'of 30 points)
1. Middle
''. Moderate
3. Low 1 /,c
•
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
MFMnPANnIIM
TO: P & Z, City Council, Bill Kane, Dorothy Nuttall
FROM: John P. Stanford
RE: Van Horn Subdivision
DATE: February 14, 1978
The Van Horn Subdivision application for the Growth Management
Plan (GMP) review needs additional data and clarity to permit an
adequate review by this office. The questions and comments are as
follows:
1. It is not clear if the applicant is requesting a change
from the zoning district of R-15 PUD to another zoning district.
Item five (5) of the application only mentions PUD and then lists
the density standards for the multi -family residential district..
2. The applicant proposes six lots for a single family resi-
dence plus caretaker units. The caretaker units result in each lot
being considered a duplex lot or a total of 12 units. Assuming the
zoning remains as R-15 PUD, the buildout appears to be incorrect.
Buildout should be calculated as follows:
Parcel size 134,295 sq. ft.
Less area subject to 20,000 sq. ft.
flooding
114,295 sq. ft.
Min. lot size/duplex
R-15 PUD = 20,000 sq. ft.
114,295 = 5 duplexes or lot units
20,000
Also, the net area used for density calculation should not include
the common access easement.
3. The applicant should indicate the anticipated price range
of the lots and the rental schedule for the caretaker units, the annual
rate of rental increase and the method by which the City Housing Author-
ity can monitor the rental schedule. Also, the applicant should agree
Memo
February 14, 1978
Page 2
to not condominiumize the units for at least a five (5) year period,
after the date of the certificate of occupany for each building and
unit.
4. The application fails to satisfy minimum access requirements
on Riverside Avenue as described in the attached memo from the City
Engineering Department.
5. There are a number of questions regarding the submitted
drawings (attachments A, B and C):
a. The common access easement is 25 feet. Is this sufficient
for right-of-way, pavement, etc.?
b. The lots should be drawn to exclude the common access.
Access should be separate from the lots since it is
customary to sometimes dedicate the access as a public
street which would then create substandard lots.
c. The site plan does not indicate the trail easement re-
quired by the adoped Aspen Trails Plan.
In conclusion, there are enough deficiencies in this application
to reject it from applying for a development allotment (Se. 24-10.3 (c)).
The applicant should review the requirements of Ord. 48, 1977, for up-
dating of the application and resubmittal for the 1979 building permit
allotments.
Referral reports are attached along with the Planning Office point
allocation.
JPS: sr
Sub Total of Above Points
Bonus Points
TOTAL f'O I f1TS
C �
Pdame �j+
•
•
V A N H 0 R N S U B D I V I S 1 0 N
OWNERS
Jack E. VanHorn, Jr.
Jane E. VanHorn
Reuben M. Ginsberg, Trustee
P.O. Box 1585
Aspen, Colorado
ARCHITECT
Russell A. Pielstick
520 E. Cooper Avenue
Aspen, Colorado
0
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT APPLICATION
RESIDENTIAL SECTION
1. Project Name: Vaniiorn Subdivision (a land subdivision)
2. Location: At the end of Riverside Avenue approximately 700 feet
south of Highway 82
3. Parcel Size: 3.083 acres (134,295 sq. ft. +)
4. Current Zoning District: R-15 P.U.D. Intention residential
purposes -- one -family dwelling, two-family dwelling, accessory,
farm and garden; minimum lot 15,000; minimum lot area per dwelling
10,000 provided duplex is permitted on a 5,000 sq. ft. lot sub-
divided as approved, minimum lot width 75 feet; minimum front
yard 25 feet for dwelling, 30 feet for accessory building; side
yard five feet dwelling and accessory building; rear yard 10
feet dwelling, 5 feet accessory; maximum height 25 feet; no open
space required.
5. Zoning Under Which Application is Filed (Proposed): P.U.D. --
Minimum lot area 3,000; minimum lot/dwelling 6,000 sq. ft.;
1,000 studio; 1,250 one bedroom; 2,100 two bedrooms; 3,630 three
bedrooms; maximum 1,000 sq. ft. per bedroom; width, front yard,
side yard, rear yard, height, minimum distribution all set by
P.U.D. Plan, 25 percent open space; 1:1 external floor area
ratio; no required internal floor area.
6. Maximum Buildout Under Current Zoning: It is estimated that the
mean water line would exclude a maximum of 20,000 sq. ft. from
calculation of density under Sec. 24-2.6 Aspen Municipal Code.
Therefore, maximum buildout under current zoning would be 7 lots
at 16,320 sq. ft. ±.
7. Total Number of Units Proposed and Bedroom Mix: Six single-family
homes with "caretaker" units. Six lots varying in size from
7,090 sq. ft. ± to 16,890 sq. ft. ± plus common open space. Each
lot is to contain one single-family residence including a care- �y
taker unit.
8. Size of Units: This is unknown. They will vary with requirements
of individual homeowners although a caretaker unit with a minimum
of 300 sq. ft. would be required within each residence. Each
"caretaker" unit is to have separate entrance, bath and cooking
facilities.
9. Price Range for Sale or Rent: The P.U.D. Plan will include pro-
visions for limitations on rental of caretaker apartment under
terms agreed to between Developer or City to provide conformance
with Section 24-10.3(b)(3).
10. Program Narrative: This application is for a land subdivision.
It is the desire of the Owner to subdivide a 3.083 acre parcel of
land into six lots clustered so that common open space may be
maintained to provide a green area adjacent to the Roaring Fork
River.
Sewer, water, gas and electricity are all on or to the boundary of
property.
2 •
Access is available from Riverside Avenue and Centennial Circle
allowing for through traffic for fire trucks. The property
presently has one house and several out buildings,which are not
salvageable, located at the north end about 30 to 35 feet above
the Roaring Fork.
The Riverside Ditch enters the property 460 feet + from the
south end and exits on the north boundary.
Riverside Avenue slopes down to Highway 82 on the North. Callahan
Subdivision is located to the southeast.
Riverside Subdivision is located to the northeast. Calderwood
Subdivision is located across the river to the northwest. D. R. C.
Subdivision is located across the river to the west. Ute Cemetary
and Ute Children's Park are located to the southwest and south
across the Roaring Fork.
A. PUBLIC FACILITIES
1. Written Description of the Following:
a. Type of water system to be used including information
cn main size and pressure and, if public, the excess
capacity available from such public system; the location
of the nearest main; the estimated water demand of the
development or building.
The property has a 6-inch C.I.P. water main just to
the north on Riverside Avenue. There is an 8-inch
D.I.P. water main in Callahan Subdivision which comes
from the south side of the Roaring Fork. It is planned
that a line through the Van Horn property will
complete the loop so that pressure will be maintained
at 60 psi or greater. At 300 gallons per person per
day the estimated demand would be 6,300 gallons per day.
See Attachment B which is a portion of the City Water
map indicating the approximate location of the planned
new water line (6-inch or 8-inch as determined by the
Engineering Department). The easement through the
Callahan Subdivision is already of record.
Source: Jim Markalunas, see Attachment B.
b. Type of sewage treatment system to be used and, if
public, the existing excess capacity available from
such public system; the nearest location to the building
site of a trunk or connecting sewer line; the expected
demand of the development or building.
There is an 8-inch VCP sewage line located on property
in an easement. The 8-inch line placed in 1976 was
sized to include development on VanHorn property.
The development -- 21 X 100 gal/person/day = 2100 gal/day.
See Attachment B.
• 3 •
c. Type of drainage system proposed to handle surface,
underground and runoff waters.
Surface -- Paving in private access road and on
parking areas shall be gravel or perforated paving.
Foundations penetrating active groundwater levels will
be required to have a perforated pipe collection and
distribution system to return interrupted groundwater
to the existing groundwater flow.
Irrigation ditches shall be maintained so that unwanted
surface water runoff is avoided.
The site slopes to the river as it presently exists.
All runoff water on the site will continue to run to the
river.
d. Type of fire protection systems to be used (such as
hydrants, wet standpipes, etc.); distance to the
nearest fire station and its average response time.
Hydrant locations at present are 100 feet north of
boundary and 320 feet southwest of boundary. Distance
to fire station is 3,800 feet +; average response time
is 3 to 5 minutes.
Source: Willard Clapper
A new 6-inch or 8-inch (as determined by Engineering
Department) water line to form the final closure on
the loop of the 8-inch line in Callahan Subdivision and
the 6-inch line on Riverside Avenue will be installed
which will provide the opportunity to install a new
hydrant on site if desired.
e. Total development area; type of housing or development
proposed; number of units including employee housing;
expected price range of sale or rental; the distance
from the proposed development to the nearest elementary,
middle and high school; the distance to existing school
bus routes.
Housing will be single-family residential dwellings
with a required caretaker unit. Price of dwellings
is unknown since this is a land subdivision application.
Distance to lower elementary school is 6,000 feet +.
Distance to upper elementary school is 6,000 feet ±.
Distance to middle school is 14,000 feet
Distance to high school is 14,500 feet ±.
Distance to school bus route is 700 feet +.
f. Estimated traffic count increase on adjacent streets
resulting from the proposed development; description
of type and condition of roads to serve such development;
total number of motor -vehicles expected to use or be
stationed in such development; hours of principal
daily usage of adjacent roads; on and off site parking
to be supplied; location of alternate transit means
(bus route, bike paths, etc.); any auto disincentive
techniques incorporated in such proposed development.
•
4
•
Estimated increased auto
Avenue to Highway 82 is
and Centennial Circle to
trips per day.
traffic from Riverside
19 one-way trips per day,
Highway 82 is 38 one-way
Lot 1 accesses throuqh Riverside Avenue. A Drivate
road with approximately 15 feet of paved surface for
two-way traffic would serve these lots.
Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 access through Callahan Subdivision
which is a private road with a one-way traffic circle
at the end of a two-way road. An easement with approxi-
mately 24 feet of paved surface connects VanHorn to
Centennial Circle. The easement is of record.
All on site parking will be supplied. It is estimated
that approximately 18 cars will have to be accommodated.
It is approximately 700 feet to the bus route of Aspen
Transit System. No on site bus route is planned.
The general corridors indicated on the City Trail System
Plan show a bike/pedestrian path through the VanHorn
property.
g. Location relative to proposed or existing parks,
playground, hospitals, airports, mass transit systems
and estimated increased usage of such facilities by
reason of the proposed development.
h.
The site is located across the river from Ute Children's
Park. It is 1200 feet from Glory Hole Park and 3420
feet from Wagner Park. The expected increase in use
of parks is negligible.
Hospital (1975) - .27 Inpatient days of care/cap/yr =
5.67 inpatient days due to development.
(1975) •38 Outpatient visit/cap/yr = 7.98 outpatient
visits. Based on 1975 total population of 31,781 pg. 16
Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Policy Plan.
Airport - 31,781 Total 1975 population Pitkin County.
5.8 Air passenger trips per year/cap X 21 = 122 trips
per year maximum possible increase.
.45 Operations/cap X 21 = 915 operations maximum
possible increase. No statistics were found on travel
of local homeowners, therefore, overall figures were
used.
Aspen Shuttle - Yellow and Blue Route 700 feet north
of site. Based on present usage of system, the sub-
division could add as much as 4 one-way passenger trips
per day.
Location relative to the proposed development of police
facilities and their average response time; estimate
of additional policy personnel needed by reason of the
proposed development.
It is approximately 3,000 feet to police facilities
and there is a 3� minute average response time.
No additional personnel would be required by this
development.
Source: Aspen Police Department
• 5 •
i. Location relative to proposed development of retail
and service outlets and estimated increase demands on
such outlets by reason of the proposed development.
It is 3,150 feet to the center of the intersection at
Galena and Cooper. Since retail and service facilities
in the Aspen Area are designed for high season capacity,
the increased demand would be negligible.
j. Effects of the proposed development on adjacent uses
and land uses in the vicinity of the project.
This proposed development is residential and is
completely surrounded by residential development;
therefore, the effects on adjacent uses and land
uses in the vicinity will not be adverse.
k. The proposed construction schedule including, if applic-
able, a schedule for phasing construction.
It is assumed that construction would not proceed
faster than a maximum development of three lots per
year. That is a two year total build out.
2. A site utilization map shall be submitted to show the
following:
a. Preliminary architectural drawingsin sufficient detail
to show building size, height, materials, insulation,
fireplaces, solar energy devices (demonstrating energy
conservation or solar energy utilization features),
type of units, and location of all buildings (existing
and proposed) on the development site.
b. Proposed landscaping, screening, attempts at preserving
natural terrain and open space, and undergrounding of
utilities.
C. Motor vehicle circulation, parking bus and transit
stops and improvements proposed to insure privacy from
such areas.
d. Any major street or road links and school sites, path-
ways, foot, bicycle or equestrian trails, greenbelts.
e. General description and location of surrounding existing
land uses and identification of zoning district boundary
lines, if any.
Notes to site utilization map:
a. This is a land subdivision, therefore, architectural
drawings are not available. The Zoning Code requirements
applicable to R-15 will apply as will restrictive
covenants to be approved under P.U.D. review.
b. Open space is shown on map as Common Open Space. All
utilities will be underground.
C. Map is in three parts: Attachment A is the Proposed
Development Map, 1" = 20'; Attachment B is Vicinities
Maps -- City Water Map, Sanitation District Map,
Zoning Map, Trail System Map, Location Map, Descriptive
Map of Site; Attachment C is Topographic Survey Map,
1" = 20'.
• F •
3. Additional Detailed Information:
a. Description of potential for service of project by
public transportation.
The north boundary of the site is 700 feet + from a
point on Highway 82, which is served by both the
present Aspen Free Transit Yellow Route and Blue
Route which would mean 4 buses per hour. The feasibility
or desirability of bus service into the low density
residential areas is very questionable.
b. Description of potential for service of project by
the following miscellaneous public services.
1. Police Protection
Excellent police protection may be provided with
a 31 minute response time and no additional
personnel.
Source: Aspen Police Department
2. Child Care Facilities
With an assumed average population of 21 people
and using the 1970 population figures, we would
expect one child under 5 years of age, based on
age percentages in the 1970 census. Therefore,
no child care facilities are planned.
3. Bicycle/Pedestrian paths (comment on relationship
to city sidewalks)
The City Trail System Plan 1973 indicates a general
corridor Bicycle/Pedestrian Path on the property
along the Roaring Fork.
4. Recycling Facilities
Existing recycling facilities are remote from the
site. No additional facilities are planned.
5. Design for the Handicapped
Uniform Building Code requirements applicable to
dwellings would be included.
6. Proximity to Commercial Support
Distance to commercial support is excellent with
the site located less than 2 mile from the C-C
zoning district.
0
B. PROVISION OF LOW,MODERATE AND MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
1. Middle Income Housing
None.
a. Number of units
b. Bedroom mix
C. Size of units
d. Points anticipated for this section --- 0 points.
2. Moderate Income Housing
a. Number of units
Between Developer and City authority
b. Bedroom mix
C. Size of units
d. Points anticipated for this section --- 0 points.
3. Low Income Housing
None, or
a. Number ofunits
6 units
b. Bedroom mix
Studio or one bedroom
C. Size of units
Minimum of 400 sq. ft. per lot
d. Points anticipated for this section --- 12 points.
Total points anticipated under the Housing Section and
general comments:
Twelve points are anticipated. The caretaker units planned
with this subdivision are of benefit to the builder of a
home as well asproviding the best opportunity for lower
housing costs to local employees.
• 9 •
Additional Comments:
A preliminary plat for this subdivision had been approved prior
to the institution of the Growth Management Plan. Since that
preliminary approval where concern was shown about the access,
the access through Callahan Subdivision has been obtained, and
the water and sewer easements approved.
00
ZZZ •/ 3 4,3 95 sq.ft. .'--0' N ♦/00
• / /I
. i �_
_•___ _ •
N 1°40�E •/ / ���-,a�� =_ ` �` �� MEAN HIGH WATER LINE
_ 1
—�/ •/ STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD LINE ��— _—�— ��� ,
.00
0/000
00
/ I ILd
v
/ / ♦ 1 I I j o
_ - - - •/ �- - _ Ir
LOT 2 1 T
�� / ♦ --- - LOT
�%♦ _ COMMON MEADOW 34,815' OPEN SPACE 00 /
/ ♦ - ........ 1 1
loft
j / •/ ? - ---- --- --1
♦ ♦ li I — — -- ---.._ - I
• /
1 1 3
1 1 i
--- I � I I 1
SOUTH 459.0 1 r„' "'� /--I COMMON ACCESS
EASEMENT
/ �a I
O
DiTc� - 1 LOT 3 1 _ - 1
.. �� 1 ca
13,450'
LAND USE SUMMARY I
LOT 4
COMMON RIVER LAND 34,395 1 1
16,820' w
I
COMMON MEADOW LAND 34,815 1 I I I I
S _ 1 o
LOTS 6. 1 1 1 LOT 6 c
LOT 5
134,295 sq. ft. 1 �! 8,250'
•�
i -1010
I/ 1 ' 115.3'O'-��—��•�
~I I
w /31
I ♦O
0
fit00,
1 g
�♦ NORTH
J _�—
� SCALE I"=20'
J1.0
N
CIO
a M
W
Z
U) O
w
W
W
O
O r—
� U �
H 00
a oW
cc a N
Lb O
1�1 Lo
L O
N Z
W W
~ a_
(%) Q
1 s-
�1 _jr
7 t` t
G
Nx
l_
••••••Proposed 66r8" Line��—`=-1��
VKWTY MAP. ,
Scale I°= 400' t'r uJ
WATER' SYSTEM MAP I
/LJ
N A-
VICINITY MAP
To Ute.,. Pground
Scale I"= 400' 4 Rock
PEDESTRIAN/BIKE TRAILS q.
�,�� \ I ' 7 ------ --
VICINITY MAP
Scale I°= 400'
SEWER SYSTEM MAP 2
CITY of ASPEN 14
LOCATION MAP 5
VICINITY MAP L'J \�
Scale I"= 400'
ZONING MAP 3
LEGEND
MAP I VICINITY MAP OF WATER SYSTEM
SOURCE : City of Aspen Water System Map Dale H. Rea 1970 ( rev. Jan 1977)
MAP 2 VICINITY MAP OF SEWER SYSTEM
SOURCE : Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District 5 Aspen Sanitation District Map
Wright McLaughlin Engineers (Dec 1977)
MAP 3 VICINITY MAP ZONING
SOURCE : Zoning District Map City of Aspen, Colorado 1975 (rev. Mar 23, 1976)
MAP 4 VICINITY MAP PEDESTRIAN/BIKE TRAILS
SOURCE City of Aspen Trail System Plan 973 (rev. 1974)
MAP 5 LOCATION MAP —VAN HORN SUBDIVISION
SOURCE > Adapted from Chamber of Commerce Map
MAP 6 DESCRIPTIVE MAP OF SITE
SOURCE: PIELSTICK 1978
W
Del
} I \I
r
Scale I"= 50'
DESCRIPTIVE MAP OF SITE F�
co
F N
O�
C�
Cl)
Q w
Z
� CcO
v w a
r.�■ a_
O
OLLJ
�
CO
C- Q O
w o
Q O Q
N cc
Ln O
.� O
L.v CD U
CD
N z
w w
~ CL
D U)
0 Q
-- --------
U
f -I 16
c P.l sVE V
fourJ E, v
Al
�v
AIVL F-�!(Vlou�
Z"T
c 0 rt
Vqf',Jr Fr ^
E U
V
Ala
77
aG o
le
A
1,6
J
IF
21