The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1001 Ute Ave.A68-90CA`. AD SUMMARY SHEET tiA City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 11120/90 DATE COMPLETE: J 1 e4 Cr PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. 2737- 182 -00 -063 A68 STAFF MEMBER: PROJECT NAME: 1001 Ute Avenue PUD /'Lot Split/8,04'0"/`Conditional- 'Use- Project Address: 1001 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Address: Same APPLICANT: Neal Myers Applicant Address: 910 Powder Lane, Aspen, CO 81611 REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn - -DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED Representative Address /Phone: 300 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 PAID: YESXXNO AMOUNT: 2410 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 8 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: P &Z Meeting Da te,.�c; PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES; NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment -or Exemption: Date: REFERRALS: ,City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas using Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water �� Fire Marshal State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Building Inspector Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center DATE REFERRED: 3 9 y INITIALS: FINAL ROUTING: J Q `DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: _ 1001 Ute Avenue PUD/Lot Split/8040 Conditional Use ~ 2737-182-00-063 A68-90 _-1.-- 0 o Q . 0 T -I * '.0 I. INTRODUCTION The following application requests Conceptual Submission approval of Rezoning (Text/Map Amendment), 8040 Greenline, Subdivision, Planned Unit Development and GMQS Exemption to permit the construction of the Ute Park Subdivision. The Ute Park Partnership, hereinafter referred to as the Applicant, proposes to develop seven free market units in townhome configuration and sixteen deed restricted units in condominium configuration. The deed restricted units will be designed. constructed and sold in conformance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority guidelines for Middle Income. As stated above, the Applicant is requesting a rezone of the property from its existing Rural Residential Zone District to the recently established Affordable Housing Zone District. In recognition of the fact that the AH Zone District is essentially untested, the Applicant has met with the planning staff, the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the Housing Authority for input. Although this process has been time consuming, it has given the project team a more accurate representation of the expectations placed upon this zone district. 1 1 Throughout this application, the Applicant will demonstrate compliance within the parameters of the AH Zone District as well as the regulations as set forth by the City Land Use Regulations. While the application has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Land Use regulations, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of this application, questions may arise which may result in the staff's request for additional information and/or clarification. The Applicant would be pleased to provide such information as may be required in the course of the application review. I 2 II. PROJECT SITE A. LOCATION: The 3.8 acre project site is located on Ute Avenue within the Aspen City limits. The north-easterly portion being directly across from the Aspen Club, the Ute Children's Park and the Benedict office building. Due to its location and close proximity to the central business district this site provides easy pedestrian access to town. B. EXISTING USE: No existing uses are associated with this site and there are no existing structures on site. C. VEGETATION: Vegetation on site consists primarily of aspen and douglas fir. Those trees which are in excess of 6 inches in diameter have been shown on the Existing Conditions Plan/Site Survey. The entire site is covered with native field grasses. 3 D. SLOPE: A slope analysis has been provided in the drawing package. In summary of this analysis, the site is made up of moderately sloping hillsides at the lower portion (slopes in the 10 to 15% range). These slopes transform into steeper slopes approximately half way up the site. Towards the uppermost portion of the site, the slopes are in excess of 30%. E. GE9409Â¥1_ Chen Northern Inc. has prepared a soils report for the project site and it is included in this application (see Exhibit 4). In summary of that report, the site offers substantial constraints on development. Recommendations of that report on foundation design for the specific soils types will be followed in the design and construction of the units. The most prevalent geologic feature of the site which must be mitigated by any development is the avalanche danger. The Applicant has retained the services of Arthur Mears P.E. Inc. of Gunnison, Colorado for the preparation of a detailed report of existing conditions as well as consulting services for the mitigation 4 requirements specific to this project. The Site Survey, as prepared by a licensed surveyor, represents an avalanche zone in the southwest portion of the property. At the initiative of the Applicant, Art Mears, a consulting engineer and widely regarded avalanche expert, was asked to examine the site and determine if this surveyed zone was accurate. Upon examination of the site, Mr. Mears determined that this zone was inaccurate and the zone was in fact substantially larger and included two portions of the site instead of just the m one- In addition, his findings identified two zones of frequency for the identified areas. The results of this report, which are included in this application (See Exhibit 5), determined the developable areas of the site as well as the level of precautionary mitigation that would be required. Two developable areas emerged. The first is the area which is being developed as free market units. This area is free from any mapped avalanche/rockfall activity in the past and is in an area which is free of potential avalanche/rockfall activity in the future. The second area is being developed as deed restricted units. This area shows signs of infrequent avalanche/rockfall activity (none within the last fifty years), however, does represent potential for activity. Due to the unpredictability of activity, all 5 units, both deed restricted and free market, are being engineered, under the supervision of Mr. Mears, to mitigate any avalanche/rockfall. This is discussed later in this application (see Section III) . -- F. EXISTING UTILITIES: Currently, all required utilities exist in close proximity to the proposed development. Gas is available in Ute Avenue within the property boundary. Additionally, a 12 inch water line which reduces to 8 inches approximately one half the way across the property and is a part of a loop system is located within Ute Avenue and within the property boundary. There currently exists a sanitary sewer manhole approximately 25 feet off the property line and Ute Avenue of which the manhole is located at the entry to the Benedict Building driveway. Telephone and cable are located along Ute Avenue just west of the property boundary. All utility companies have been contacted regarding capacity to serve this proposed development (see Exhibits 6-11). 6 G. ACCESS: Access to the site is by way of Ute Avenue. The majority of Ute Avenue is asphalt pavement approximately 22 feet in width with gravel shoulders. The asphalt pavement ends and turns to gravel approximately 165 feet into the project property. For proposed improvements to Ute Avenue, see Section III. H. EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS: A 24 foot utility access and servi.ce easement (book 312, pages 154 and 200) parallels the north property line (Ute Avenue). Additionally, a 60 foot wide non-exclusive easement and right-of-way (book 363, page 887, Benedict lots 15 and 16, Callahan Subdivision) parallels the north property 1 line. No other restrictions apply to this property. 1 7 ~ III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A. REZONING: The project property is currently zoned Rural Residential. In order to facilitate this development, the Applicant is requesting the property be rezoned to Affordable Housing. This is a threshold issue which must be dealt with by staff, the Commission and City Council. Although the specific review criteria are dealt with later in this application (see Section IV. ) the purpose for requesting this rezoning will be reviewed at this time. The Council adopted the Affordable Housing Zone District recently to initiate the development of affordable housing units while recognizing the reality that, for private developers to build these units, they must be accompanied by a portion of free market units to create an economically viable project. Additionally, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is currently pursuing the development of Low to Moderate Income units, again recognizing the economics of development, and leaving the Middle Income units for development by private developers. Lastly, the Housing Authority, as well as the Applicant, believe that this type of 8 I development represents less community impact as well as creates a better living environment when done in smaller "pocket" developments. This type Of development disburses housing inventory around the community and does not create the "large project" neighborhood. This proposed development fits these goals precisely. The program complies with the zone district requirements exactly with no need for any type of variance. The development of free market units allows an internal subsidy to be applied to the deed restricted units which increases their quality and livable space without increasing the end sales price. It should be noted that the deed restricted units could not be constructed and sold under the Housing Guidelines on this site without subsidy from the free market portion. To this extent, the free market units provide the subsidy to make the deed restricted units a reality. Additionally, the proposed development is located in an area in which it will be compatible in terms of size and density with the surrounding structures. I 9 I B. SITE CAPACITY: Reviewing this site for its development capacity required analysis of geologic hazards, zones of potential avalanche hazard and reduction in density for slope consideration. Geology and avalanche hazards are addressed later in this section. The PUD process requires a slope reduction analysis which is addressed in the following table. This development program proposes to divide the subject parcel into two lots. Lot 1 consists of 135,528 square feet and shall be developed for free market sales units. Ownership of this parcel will be by a separate Homeowner's Association. Lot 2 consists of 30,000 square feet and shall be developed for deed restricted sales units. Ownership of this parcel will be by a separate Homeowner's Association. 10 I TABLE 1 SLOPE REDUCTION ANALYSIS I GROSS CATEGORY PERCENT AREA ALLOWABLE SF 1 0-20 100,190 x 100 100,190 2 21-30 32,160 x .5 16,080 3 31-40 22,282 x .25 5,570.5 1 4 41+ 10,734 x .0 0 165,366 SF 121,840.5 SF 11 l To summarize this table, the site consists of approximately 3.8 acres or 165,366 square feet. After slope reduction as per the Land Use Regulations, 121,840.05 square feet remain available for development. The proposed development program calls for a total of 38,600 square feet of constructed livable space. This yields a floor area ratio of .32:1 while the zone district allows for a slightly higher .33:1. C. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: As stated above, the proposed development calls for the construction of 7 free market units in three bedroom configuration consisting of 3,000 square feet each for a total of 21,000 square feet. Additionally, 16 deed restricted units are to be constructed in two bedroom configuration at 1,100 square feet each for a total of 17,600 square feet, and a project total of 38,600 square feet of livable space. This program yields the zone district requirement of 70% deed restricted units to 30% free market units as well as 60% deed restricted bedrooms as compared to 40% free market bedrooms. Parking for the free market units complies with the code maximum requirement of 2 spaces per unit. These spaces have been located in an underground parking garage with 12 direct access to each unit. Access to Ute Avenue is by means of a private access road/driveway. Additional parking has been provided for guests and has been located in an earth sheltered carport at the entrance to the parking garage. 1 Parking for the deed restricted units is handled in much the same manner. A separate parking garage with a separate private entry/access has been provided. The parking ratio is again 2 spaces per unit which corresponds to one space per bedroom. There are currently 20 spaces located in the parking garage while the remaining 12 spaces have beetl located off-street. Access to the garage will be by means of a private road/driveway. 1 Although private, all access drives will comply with the design standards as set forth by the Pitkin County Road Standards in terms of maximum gradient, horizontal alignment and minimum site distances at intersections. D. DEED RESTRICTED SALES RATES: As mentioned prior in this application. it is requested that this project be classified in the Middle Income category of the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing 13 Authority Guidelines. Prior to this application, the Applicant met with the Authority to review this classification. It was the consensus of the Board in a formal vote, that this project should be classified under the Middle Income Guidelines. In the event the Authority will not be a review agency for this project, the Applicant will be pleased to provide a letter from the Authority in regard to this matter. Under the Middle Income classification, the sale price I of the 1,100 square foot units would be $136,400.00. Deed restrictions will apply to these units which will ensure the units remain affordable. The Applicant and its attorney will work with the Housing Authority to draft these deed restrictions and will present them for review at Final Submission. It is the current intention of the Applicant that these restrictions will not vary from the Authority's standard restrictions. E. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The units have been located on the site to take best advantage of the views and solar exposure while mitigating the site specific hazard potential. The _ design of the deed restricted units allows them to step up the slope to minimize excavation. 14 In general, the architectural character of the proposed development will emulate that of the surrounding neighborhood. To ensure visual compatibility, building materials will be limited to wood, non-reflective metal and masonry stone which will also enhance the development's ability to blend into the natural hillside. The size and height of the proposed structures will be similar to that in the surrounding area with the exception of the Aspen Club. As Table 2 indicates, the total floor area of the proposed development will be limited to 38,600 square feet. Roof forms will be predominantly hipped with dormers and will conform to the height limitations of the Land Use Regulations. Fire protection will be provided by means of an internal sprinkler system as well as centrally located fire hydrants (see the Water and Sewer plan) and internal stand pipes with siamese fittings. , l 15 UTE PARK SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION SUBMITTED APRIL 1990 l, OWNER: UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP 215 S. Monarch Aspen, CO 81611 ELITE PLANNING/ LAND USE APPROVALS: THE STEVENS GROUP, INC. 230 E. Hopkins Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-6717 ENGINEERING: BANNER ASSOCIATES 605 E. Main Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-5857 ARCHITECTURE: DAVID FINHOLM & ASSOCIATES 111 Aspen Airport Business Center Aspen, CO 81611 , (303) 925-5713 AVALANCHE CONSULTANT: ARTHUR MEARS 222 E. Gothic Ave. Gunnison, CO 81230 (303) 641-3236 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NUMBER I. INTRODUCTION 1 II PROJECT SITE 3 B. Existing Use A. Location C. Vegetation D. Slope 4 E. Geology F. Existing Utilities 6 G. Access 7 H. Easements And Restrictions III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 8 B Site Capacity g A. Rezoning Table 1 - Slope Reduction Analysis 11 C. Program Description 12 D. Deed Restricted Sales Rates 13 E. Architectural Description 14 Table 2 - Development Summary 16 F. Hazard Mitigation 17 G. General Site Improvements/Public Facilities 19 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 23 Text/Map Amendment (Rezoning) 23 A. B. 8040 Greenline Review 30 C. Subdivision 30 D. Planned Unit Development 34 E. Growth Management Quota System Exemption 38 EXHIBITS: 1. Land Use Application Form 2. Letter of Authorization to Represent 3. Commitment For Title Insurance 4. Soils Report 5. Art Mears, Avalanche Consultant, Report 6. Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Service Letter 7. Holy Cross Electric Association Service Letter 8. US West Service Letter TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED: 9. Canyon Cable TV Service Letter 10. Aspen Water Department Service Letter 11. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Service Letter 12. Transportation Study Prepared By Banner Associates PLAN INDEX: 1. Existing Conditions Plan 2. Site Development Plan 3. Landscape Plan 4. Grading & Drainage Plan 5. Slope Reduction Plan 6. Water & Sanitary Sewer Plan 1 7. Private Utilities Plan 8. Architecture , TABLE 2 UTE PARK SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY 1. Total Land Area 3.8 acres/165,528 S.F. Land Area After Slope Reduction 2.8 acres/121,840 S.F. Lot 1: 135,528 S.F. Minimum Lot Area @ 1,200 S.F./ 3 BR unit 8,400 S.F. Lot 2: 30,000 S.F. Minimum Lot Area E 800 S.F./ 2 BR unit 12,800 S.F. 2. Proposed Program: Deed Restricted Units - 16 units at 1,100 S.F.= 17,600 S.F. Two bedroom/two bath configuration 32 BR Parking - 20 parking garage/14 surface = 34 1.1/BR Free Market Units - 7 units at 3,000 S.F. = 21,000 S.F. Three bedroom configuration 21 BR Parking - 24 parking garage/6 surface = 30 1.4/BR 3. Floor Area Ratio (after density reduction for slope): Allowed - 121,840 S.F. at ,33 40,207.2 S.F. Proposed 38,600 S.F. 4. Surface Area: Total 165,528 S.F. Proposed Impervious Surface 33,944 S.F. 21% 5. Open Space 131,534 S.F. 6. BR Mix: 60/40 32/21 7. Unit Mix: 70/30 16/7 16 F. HAZARD MITIGATION: 1. GENERAL: Avalanches affecting the development are subdivided into 3 zones of intensity: (a) Red zones, (b) blue zones, and (c) powder-blast zones. These are defined as follows: RED: Area of high pressure potential (>600 psf), or high frequency ( < 30-year return period) . BLUE: Area of moderate pressure potential (<600 psf), and low frequency C > 30-year return period). POWDER-BLAST: No flowing avalanche debris, but low density powder blast may sweep through area. These area of relative avalanche-hazard intensity have been shown on Ute Park topographic survey and roof plan. 2. AVALANCHE MITIGATION: Avalanche mitigation is achieved by direct protection, which, in this case will take the form of reenforcement of building surfaces exposed to 17 avalanche loads. The employee housing units are exposed to the "Aspen Club Avalanche" and will be designed with "shed" roof surfaces facing into the avalanche. These surfaces will minimize impact loads because of small deflection angles. Other exposed surfaces will be designed to withstand the applied static and dynamic loads. Although precise load magnitudes have not been determined at this time, they will be within the range of loads typically accommodated in avalanche-reinforced design in other North American and European locations. Avalanche frequency at the employee units appears to be greater than 30 years; the Red- , zone designation results from the loading potential, which will be accommodated in mitigation. The "free-market" units are exposed primarily to powder-blast which results when small, dry-snow avalanches flow through the forest between the conspicuous avalanche paths. The powder-blast forces will be resisted in design by southern walls of the uphill units. The western most 2 free- market units are exposed to flowing avalanches from the "Ute Trail" avalanche. Exposed walls of these buildings will be reinforced for avalanche loads. Magnitudes of these loads can be minimized by 18 building exposed walls at small angles to the avalanche flow. As with the employee-housing units, the final design loads are yet to be determined, but they will not exceed loads common in avalanche design at many other locations. 1. G. GENERAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS/PUBLIC FACILITIES: ACCESS: 1. Currently, Ute Avenue is paved only to within the first third of the property. To facilitate the proposed development, Ute Avenue will be paved to the east end of the property with asphalt to match the existing paved section. The existing width of the roadway will be maintained with the proposed < paved section, however, land will be preserved in a dedicated right-of-way in the event a Ute Avenue Improvements District is actually formed and elects to widen the existing road. Should this occur, the Applicant will participate on a pro-rata basis as to the improvements. 19 4. OPEN SPACE/EASEMENTS: The majority of the site will remain as open space and be maintained by the respective homeowners associations. In addition to the existing access and utility easements which will be preserved. the Applicant is granting a trail easement which will traverse the site from east to west and will be located above the units providing an uninterrupted trail system along the base of the mountain. At this time, the alignment of this easement is not set. The Applicant will walk and flag an alignment prior to Final Plat to establish the best alignment. This alignment and the subsequent easement will be granted on the Final Plat. Easements to accommodate the proposed utility service extensions Will be provided as may be required. All easements will comply with the width requirements of Land Use regulations and will be depicted on the Applicant's Final Plat. Lastly, a 20 foot wide utility easement will be required from the subject property approximately 18 feet to the existing 20 foot wide utility easement for the sanitary sewer line to the north of the 21 subject property. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining this easement which will be represented in final form on the Final Plat. 5. UTILITIES: The project will be served by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City of Aspen Water Department as well as Canyon Cable Television, Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, U.S. West Communications, and Holy Cross Electric Association. Banner Associates, Inc. has contacted each of these utilities and verified that service exists for this project. Letters of confirmation have been written to each of these entities and are included in the Exhibit portion of this submission. Services will be provided from the existing facilities in the Ute Avenue right-of-way by extensions to the individual buildings. A conceptual design of the utility improvements is shown on the Water and Sewer Plan and the Private Utility Plan of the plan set. It is proposed to provide adequate easements for each of utilities by dedication on the Final Plat. It is also intended to design both the water system and sanitary sewer system to a sufficient standard to facilitate dedication of the improvements to the respective districts. 22 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS A. TEXT/MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING): As stated previously in this application, in order to facilitate the proposed development, the property which is currently zoned Rural Residential must be rezoned to Affordable Housing. This application requests that the project site in its entirety of 3.8 acres be rezoned. The specific review requirements, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are summarized as follows: 1 . "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter." To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, this request for amendment is not in conflict with any portion of Division 11, the chapter of reference. 2. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan." Two elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan appear to be applicable to the Applicantts proposed development. The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan indicates that the project site is within the "Mixed Residential" land use category. The intent and 23 purpose of this category is to allow a mix of residential uses interspersed with limited amounts of professional office and visitor accommodation uses. As stated previously, the proposed development calls for a mix of deed restricted units and free market units all in multi-family configuration. Additionally, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority has identified an interest in disbursing deed restricted development around the Aspen area in as close proximity as possible. The proposed development accomplishes this goal. The Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan identifies a pedestrian/nordic trail along the base of the Aspen Mountain ski area linking Shadow Mountain to Ute Avenue. This project site currently represents a missing link to this overall trail. The Applicant will dedicate a twelve (12) foot public easement corresponding to a new trail alignment upon final approval of the proposed development. 24 To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, no other element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan contains recommendations which preclude, or otherwise pertain to the proposed development. 1 3. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics." The surrounding area consists of mixed use residential, including the Gant Condominiums, the Aspen Chance Subdivision and 1010 Ute Avenue residential development. Additionally located in the immediate area is the Benedict Building (professional offices) and the Aspen Club (commercial athletic club). From both a use and density standpoint, this proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. "The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety." Provided in this application is a traffic analysis (see Exhibit 12) for the Ute Avenue area. The result of this analysis states that the existing 25 2. GRADING AND DRAINAGE: Due to the existing slope of the site and the proposed architecture which steps with the slope, regrading of the site Will be minimal. That regrading which is required will generally return the land to it's original grades. Drainage will be routed around all proposed structures by means of surface swales and collected in a detention basin where it will be released to the Ute Avenue barrow ditch at historic rates. 3. LANDSCAPING: 1 As mentioned previously, the site is predominantly vegetated with aspen and fir trees and native grasses. In an effort to preserve the natural < character of the site, the Applicant proposes to landscape the areas disturbed by construction with the same native materials. The introduction of such material as flowering trees and shrubs and ground covers will be confined to the courtyard areas. 1 20 road system has the capacity to serve this proposed development. Additionally, the Applicant believes that due to the proximity to the central business district and the shortage of parking in that district, residents will walk to town. In the case of the deed restricted units whose residents must be employed, this nearly represents the closest parking available for workers in the central business district. Conceptually, this will increase the number of pedestrians and decrease the number of motorists. 5. "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 facilities including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities." As noted above in Section III. 5, Banner Associates has contacted the utility companies in regard to ~ - impacts on the existing utility facilities, and all facilities do have adequate capacity to serve this 26 1 project. Due to the limited size of this proposed development, no significant impacts on the remaining above referenced facilities will result from this development. 1. 6. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment." Due to the architectural character of the proposed development with all buildings being clustered and stepped into the hillside, minimal disturbance will occur on site. Additionally, once the development is completed, all areas of the site which are disturbed will be revegetated with native plant material. No other impacts to the natural environment are anticipated. 7. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen." The surrounding neighborhood is made up of mixed residential, commercial, and professional office as well as parks, trails and open space. These uses establish the character of this neighborhood. The 27 proposed development blends with the mixed residential in not only density but architectural character. More importantly, however, is the employee housing element of this proposed development. As noted earlier in this application, it is the goal of both the Housing Authority and the Affordable Housing Zone District to disburse development in the community. The ultimate result of this will not only be additional inventory for employee housing but a more balanced community. 1 8. "Whether there have been changed conditions 1 affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment." In recent years residential development has taken place along Ute Avenue which has changed the character of the neighborhood. With the development 1 of the Gant Condominiums, the Aspen Chance Subdivision and 1010 Ute Subdivision, to mention a few, the area has grown into a mixed density residential community. The Benedict office building and the Aspen Club are existing non-residential uses ~ - which make up the neighboring community. This level of existing mixed density and mixed use support the compatibility of this development proposal. 1 28 1 1 9. "Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter." Due to the extreme lack of affordable employee housing in and around the Aspen area, this project will serve the public interest rather than be in conflict with public interest. The availability and cost of land in the Aspen area, and specifically within the City limits, limits the potential for affordable housing development. With the adoption 1 of the AH Zone District, the mechanism is in place to spur the development of affordable housing. The benefits to the community go beyond providing inventory. This type of development literally brings employees back up valley, lessening the traffic on State Highway 82, placing voting employees back in the City where they work, and keeps tax dollars in the area in which they work. The positive impacts to the community for this type of development are far reaching. 29 B. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW: The proposed project will be reviewed in a four (4) step process due to Subdivision and PUD. Pursuant to Article 6, Division 1 of the Land Use Regulations, applications for development inenvironmentally sensitive areas (i.e., 8040 Greenline applications) are considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission concurrent with their review of final PUD development plan applications. Consequently, the specific requirements of 8040 Greenline review will be addressed by the Applicant in the final PUD application for the proposed project. The review criteria however, have been addressed in the context of Section III. , Proposed Development of this application. C. SUBDIVISION: The proposed development establishes two separate lots for ownership by the respective homeowners associations. These lots have been identified as Lots 1 and 2 (see Site Development Plan, Sheet 2 of the plan set). This division of ownership requires review under the subdivision regulations. 30 The minimum submission contents have been included within this application. The specific review standards are as follows: 1 1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 1 A. "The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan." See Section IV.A.2 above. B. "The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area." See Section IV.A.3 above. C. "The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas." Although the area is approaching it buildout capacity, this proposed development will not adversely affect the potential for future development. All public facilities such as utility line are immediately adjacent to the subject parcel and are of a size to adequately serve the proposal. Adjacent parcels will not be affected in terms of access as no significant modifications to Ute Avenue (only repaving the gravel section along the subject parcel) are proposed. D. "The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter." See following text. 2. "Suitability of land for subdivision". A. "Land Suitability" : The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. " As noted in Section I. of this application, the existing conditions of the site reflect certain 1 32 hazards. Specifically, avalanche and rockslide potential as well as steep slopes. The proposed development has been located on portions of the site which are free from these hazards as well as lower on the site free from slopes in excess of 30%. In addition, the structures have been designed to mitigate and avalanche or rockslide activity (See Section II.E). B. "Spatial Pattern Efficient": The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies. duplications or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. As proposed, this project requires no extension of any public facility and therefore represents no expense to the public. All services to this project are in the form of secondary service lines which are to be constructed at the sole expense of the developer. 33 3. "Improvements" . For a description of all proposed improvements resulting from the development of this project, see Section II. Proposed Development. D. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT As previously noted in the application, the program for development complies with all aspects of the AH zone district. For this reason, no variance to the Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses or the Dimensional Requirements as specified for the AH Zone District are being requested. It is the Applicant's understanding that although not currently stated, PUD as a policy will be required of proposals. Consequently, the review contents have been included in this application. The minimum submission contents have been included in this text as have items 1.a.(1),(2) and (3) of the specific submission contents. Item 1.a.(4) of the specific submission contents is contained within the drawing package attached hereto. 34 The review standards as set forth by Article 7, Division 9 are addressed as follows: 1. General Requirements: See Section IV.C.1 above 2. Density: The proposed density for the project is in compliance with the AH zone district requirements in terms of number of units, number of bedrooms and ratio of deed restricted to free market. Additionally, included herein is a slope reduction analysis for the subject parcel. The result of this analysis was an actual reduction in overall project square footage to that proposed in this application. Land Uses: 3. Multi-family development ratio parameters specified within the AH zone district are considered a "permitted use". Therefore this multi-family ~ - development proposal complies with the permitted uses of the underlying zone district. 35 4. Dimens ional Requirements: No variation is dimensional requirements is being requested. 5. Off Street Parking: No variation of off-street parking requirements is being requested. 6. Open Space: The majority of the site shall remain as open space as per the development program (see Table 2). This open space shall be deeded in perpetuity to each owner as part of the homeowners association. This land shall be accessible to all owners in the homeowners association. 7. Landscape Plan: See Section II.G.3 and sheet 3 of drawing package. 36 1 ./ I. /.. Fli 'Al ./. 8. Architectural Site Plan: Although not required for approval until the Final Development Plan, conceptual architecture has been presented at this level. The reason for this is the architecture plays a significant role in hazard mitigation on the subject parcel. To facilitate the review of the rezoning and the subdivision, this information has been provided herein (see Section III.E. and sheet 8). 9. Lighting: All project outdoor lighting will be low level and will be designed to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets and lands. 10. Pub lic Fac ilities: See Section III.G. 11. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation: A traffic analysis has been provided herein (see Exhibit 8) stating that the existing Ute Avenue has capacity to serve this proposed development. Access to Ute Avenue has been designed to allow each 37 dwelling unit direct access. Intersections have been designed to permit smooth traffic flow while minimizing hazards. Additionally, the existing road is gravel and will improved as per Pitkin County Road Standards to 22 feet of asphalt pavement with road base shoulders. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION- E. Pursuant to Ordinance 59 establishing the Affordable Housing zone district, deed restricted units shall be exempt from GMQS. Additionally, an annual allotment of 14 free market units exempt from GMQS will be available when proposed in compliance with the AH zone district. There is no scoring system outlined for the selection of these 14 units. The Applicant encourages to City Council to allot all seven free market units and subsequent development of 16 deed restricted units described in this development application. The subject parcel is unique in that it is one of the few sites available within City limits, and ~ . consequently walking distance to the central business district, that is still out of the primary impact area in terms of roads, parking and scenic impacts. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Applicant that this 38 1 1 development proposal best accomplishes the intention of the AH Zone District while resulting in the least amount of impact to the general community. l 39 ATIJACTâ„¢NP 1 IAND USE APPLICATION FOâ„¢ EXHIBIT 1 ~ 1) Project Name UTE PARK SUBDIVISION 2) Project I.ocation UTE AVENUE: NW 1/4 SE 1/4 SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10, (indicate street ackiress, lot & block number, legal description where SOUTH. RANGE 84W appropriate) |~ 3) Present Zoning RR 4) Lot Size 3â€¢8 ACRES 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP, .TTM MARTTN, 215 S. MONARCH. ASPEN. CO 81611 925-8310 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # THE STEVENS GROUP, INC., TOM STEVENS, 230 E. HOPKINS, ASPEN. CO 925-6717 Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conlitional Use - Oonceptial SPA Ocnientual Historic Dev. ~ - Special Review - Final. SPA - Final Historic Dev. X 8040 Greenline X Concentual PUD Minor Historic Dev. "/ - Stream Margin Final POD IIistoric Demolition IT Mountain yiew Plane 21 Subdivision - Historic Designation Conianiniumization X Text/MÂ® Anâ€¢arxharrt _1_ (2133 Allotment ~ _ Int Split/Iot Line - OW Fbanption Adjustment Description of Ebbisting Uses (amber aId type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; nmber of bedroams; any previous approvals granted to the property). NO EXISTING USES. Description of Developâ€¢ant Application 7 FREE MARKET TOWNHOMES 16 DEED RESTRICTED CONDOMINIUMS REZCNE TB AFFORDABLE HOUSING ~ 10) Have you attached the following? X Response to Attachment 2, Minimmt Submission Contents X Respanse to Attactment 3, Specific Submission Contents X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your 4plication CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: l_Tri_ Poi-2- 7~0 4-~.60.ec-i.-urb APPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVET-731 YA 5--~--e[ 7 41 -) REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: OWNER'S NAME: ~ .u m-- SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: Ca pL j 904cjb.~9040 @ce"' 6*x 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: Ad-6 '~Â»- fa L QÂ°- alv 4 9 ~. 21- pÂ»wk--1 3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments -Daill 11Â« - A c.,6 0 0-3 846112, 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC Only) (P&Z then to CC) 5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO) 6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: /~2 C,~9-Ll<9 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: 69'11 QL-4- 0-Gli 8. Anticipated date of subbission: 1_1_ 1 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: re Sil-~0 03-6 ~ 8 1 frm.pre_app EXHIBIT 2 ASPE PROrinlIES April 18, 1990 Planning & Zoning Dept. City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom It May Concern: This is to confirm that Tom Stevens and his company, The Stevens Group, is authorized to act on behalf of the Ute Park Partnership for all matters concerning our application for rezoning under the "Affordable Housing" guidelines. Sincerely, L.,1 . LA., ub.1.- -1 '7 1 j i ~~- - --- Mames T. Martin Howard G. Stacker - General Partner General Partner (303)925-8310 â€¢ 215 S. Monarch â€¢ P. O. Box 10502 â€¢ Aspen, Colorado 81611 ri'ITITi~~] EXHIBIT 3 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective date: 06/28/89 at 8:00 A.M. Case No. PCT-3633 C5 2. Policy or policies to be issued: . (a)ALTA Owner's Policy-Form B-1970 Amount $ 401,500.00 (Rev. 10-17-70 & 10-17-84) or 10/21/87 Premium $ 1,194.25 PROPOSED INSURED: UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP, A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP - (b)ALTA Loan Policy, Amount $ 351,050.00 (REV. 10-21-87) Premium $ 50.00 PROPOSED INSURED: PITKIN COUNTY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY t (c)Alta Loan Construction Policy, 1975 Amount $ (Rev. 10-17-84) 6 Premium $ PROPOSED INSURED: Tax Cert. $ 10.00 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: ROBERT S. GOLDSAMT 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT 1, A. ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Countersigned at: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. Schedule A-PG.1 601 E. HOPKINS This Commitment is invalid ASPEN, CO. 81611 unless the Insuring 303-925-1766 Provisions and Schedules A and B are attached. Authorized officer or agent 9519&Â£ /0Lht Imuyers Title Insurance Grporation LTIC 100-0000/2 EXHIBIT "A" A parcel of land situated in the NW 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the, Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado. Said Parcel is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point whence Corner No. 9 of Riverside Placer, MS 3905 AM bears North 38'11'25" East 158.05 feet; thence South 68 00'00" East 120.00.feet; thence South 49'00'00" East 350.00 feet; thence South 41'00'00" West 361.82 feet; thence North 49'00'00" West. 330.37}feet; thence North 00'49'21" East 390.96 feet; themce South 60'24'26" East 121.55 feet to the point of beginning. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 1 PG.1 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT-3633 A and B are attached. Imuyers Title Insurance Grporation LTIC 100-0000/2 SCHEDULE B-SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the requirements to be complied with: ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit: 1. Deed from : Robert S. Goldsamt : Ute Park Partnership, A Colorado General Partnership To 2. Release by the Public Trdstee-ofi.(-2 Deed of Trust from : Robert S..Goldsamt To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of 5 Wilner J. Thomas To secure Â·: $200,000.00 Dated : March 24, 1987 Recorded : August 31, 1987 in Book 544 at Page 904. Reception No. : 2924132 3. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer Tax as established by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) has been paid or exempted. 4. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer Tax as established by Ordinance No. 14 (Series of 1989) has been paid or exempted. Certificate of Nonforeign Status of Individual Transferor signed 5. by Robert S. Goldsamt. 6. Deed of Trust from : Ute Park Partnership, A Colorado General Ptr. To the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin For the use of : Pitkin County Bank and Trust Company To secure : $351,050.00 7. Trade Name Affidavit of Ute Park Partnership, A Colorado General Partnership, disclosing the names of the partners, and the other information required by '73 CRS 7-71-101 (1) (1) evidencing the existence of said partnership on , or prior to its acquistion of title to the land herein. NOTE: In the event that the Partnership Agreement fails to comtemplate the acts necessary to consumate the instant transaction, the Company requires the joinder or ratification of all partners pursuant to '73 CRS 7-60-109 This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 1 PG.1 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No.PCT-3633 A and B are attached. Imuyers Title Insurance Grporation LTIC 100-0000/2 10. A perpetual, non-exclusive easement and right of way, for access in vehicles and otherwise and/or utility service lines over, - upon and across a strip of land sixty feet wide along the northeasterly boundaury of said property as set forth in instrument recorded in Book 363 at Page 887. 11. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Restrictions as to employee housing and/or-recreational use as set forth in instrument recorded in..Book2361.fat Page 887. 1 .Â« . 0- . . 9 Â»~ 2 A -- 4. Â£ 31 - 3 - 1 *71 .1 .- ... ... 2Â· il: 1 4 i Lif it 1.2 u e I This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 2 PG.3 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT-3633 A and B are attached. kwyers Title Insurance Grporation LTIC 100-0000/2 SCHEDULE B-SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundaryilines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any Â·facts- which. a correct survey and inspection of the premises would diselose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to 4'lied,'for bervices, labor or material heretofore or hereaftec furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 3 Â£- 5. Defects, liens, encumbrandes, adverse claims or other matters, if 1 any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district. 7. Reservations and exceptions as set contained in United States Patent recorded June 17, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 246, including the following: The premises may be entered by the proprietor of any vein or lode of quartz, or other rock, or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposits, for the purpose of extracting and removing the ore from such vein. or lode should the same, or any part thereof be found to penetrate, intersect, pass through, or dip into mining ground. (affects parcel A and B) 8. A Right of Way 10 feet in width for pipeline flume, ditch or waterway as set forth in instrument recorded in Book 93 at Page 527. 9. Terms, conditions, obligations and covenants as set forth in Easement Agreement between Fredric A. Benedict, et al., and Robert S. Goldsamt, recorded May 19, 1976 in Book 312 at Page 200. continued Imuyers Title Insurance Grporation LTIC 100-0000/2 SCHEDULE B-SECTION 2 CONTINUED Exceptions numbered NONE are hereby omitted. ~1.owing items in addition to the ones set forth above: Owner's/Mortgage Policy to be issued, if any, shall contain the (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1. ~(2) Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 2Â»121 7 7.... k 1 3 ir 39 r - --a- his commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 2 he Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No.PCT-3633 (3 and B are attached. kuyers Title Insurance Grporation LTIC 100Â·0000/2 1 11' ~ 11' 1 1 1( I lit 1 11, 1 11{ 1 I It 1 111 . 1.11 !1, III : !1 I !, 1 III 1 1.11 Â· 1 1. 11 ;i ' lli ! I 1, I 1, 71 ; I ;t i I I, IQuDEIKIitle Insurance @poration NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND. VIRGINIA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby In the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; allsubjectto theprovisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been Inserted In Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment Is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed forshall issue, whichever f irstoccurs, providedthatthe failure toissuesuch policy orpolicies is notthe faultof the Company. This Commitmentshall notbe valid orbinding untilcountersigned by an authorized officeroragent IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By-Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1 The term "mortgage," when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument 2 If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fall to disclose such knowledge to the Company In writing, the Company shall be reheved from liability forany lossordamage resulting fromanyact of reliance hereon totheextent the Company Isprejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Companyat Itsoption mayamend Schedule Bof thisCommitmentaccordingly, butsuchamendmentshall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3 Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire orcreatethe estate or Interestor mortgage thereon coveredbythis Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and StipulatiorIs and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein 4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. lauyers TItle Insu,~ce Grporation Ellete, 4~ a.kr1 67/L President Attest: 0 Secretary. I ! Il I i ~01-- EXHIBIT 4 Chen#Northern.In.. 60 1Sli'll'19 tÂ·'(1 04Â·l'7.101.'SOP"1 919 5080 REad i54 G,enwooc Springs Colorado 8160Â· 303945-7458 303945 2363 Facs,mile SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING SOUTH OF UTE AVENUE ACROSS FROM ASPEN CLUB ASPEN, COLORADO Prepared For: Aspen Properties Attn: Jim Martin P.O. Box 10502 Aspen CO 81612-7344 Job No. 4 188 90 January 30, 1990 A n'einter 011,r,~~~group d compar' es TABLE OF CONTENTS CONCLUSIONS 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2 SITE CONDITIONS 2 FIELD EXPLORATION 3 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS 3 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 4 FLOOR SLABS 5 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM 5 SURFACE DRAINAGE 6 LIMITATIONS 7 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS . CONCLUSIONS The proposed multi-family housing should be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils and designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. Other design - - and construction criteria relating to geotechnical aspects of the proposed building are presented in the body of the report. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed multi-family housing to be located across from the Aspen Club on Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering ser- vices to Aspen Properties, dated November 22, 1989. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was con- ducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and labora- tory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing are presented in the report. This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained during this - study and to present our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. Design parameters and a discussion of geotechnical engineering considerations related to construction of the proposed project are included in the report. l 1 I . -2- PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed multi-family housing will be a two-story wood frame struc- ture with a building footprint of approximately 60 feet by 80 feet. The ground floor level will be structural over a crawl space or slab-on-grade. Grading for the structure is expected to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 4 to 8 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type construction. If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS At the time of our field work, the site was vacant and covered with about 2 feet of snow. The topography of the building envelope is moderately sloping down to the northeast at grades of 15 to 20 percent. The slope steepens to the south of the building area. The steep slopes above the site have been characterized as having snow avalanche potential on the Pitkin County Snow Avalanche map by Colorado State University (1974) and on the Environmental and Geologic Constraints map prepared for the Colorado Geological Survey (1974). There are historic avalanche tracks located on the Hoag Subdivision to the west of the subject site. We are not aware of historic avalanches that have impacted the project site. The proposed building area is vegetated with small aspen trees, brush and weeds. An old overgrown cart path crosses the building area from east to west. (11,91 f.i h' 1;1 1. -3- FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on December 21 and 22, 1989. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Chen-Northern, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 1 3/8-inch I.D. spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the sub- soils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSOIL CONDITIONS The subsoil conditions encountered at the site are shown graphically on Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 2 to 4 feet of topsoil overlying mainly medium dense, silty sand and gravel containing cobbles and possible boulders. Drilling in the gravels with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and gradation analyses. Results of grada- tion analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 1/2-inch fraction) of the natural coarse granular soils are shown on Fig. 4. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. -4- No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moist to mcist. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS . Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. The construction criteria should be considered when preparing project documents. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. 2) All existing topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to relatively dense natural granular soils. 3) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 4) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protec- tion. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. - 5) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf. 6) Sliding resistance of the footing on the bearing soil can be taken as 0.4 times the dead load weight on the foundation. 7) A representative of the soil engineer should observe all footing excava- tions prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site soils exclusive of topsoil are suitable to support lightly to moderately loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for control joints and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4-inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-site sand and gravel devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater may develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below grade -1. f Ill-'11%-3 N.t .10''L.rt. r -6- construction, such as retaining walls, crawl space and basement areas be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drain tile placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular mate- rial. The drain should be placed at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 2 feet deep. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the building has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and com- pacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend - a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. It may be necessary to create a swale on the uphill side of the building to route surface water around and away from the development. C 11(ift....:3.".+F~'.Tii.H-t -7- 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices in this area for use by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1 and the proposed type of construction. The nature and extent of subsurface variations across the site may not become evident until excavation is performed. If during construction, fill, soil, rock or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein, this office should be advised at once so reevaluation of the recommendations may be made. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. Sincerely, ,$64Â¢31~%%>. % "0"". 1, CHEN-NORTHERN, INC. 24*> E. Hi*t kt Â§ 0 :Q 1-0 =: ~ ~~ 24443 Â£ ~ 8 h . 1-Â£~Q liu so. 426 42 Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. , mmitmet Reviewed By 9-zi-Al.L Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. DEH/ec cc: David Finholm & Associates, Attn: David Finholm ~~~ .............. APPROXIN,ATE SCALE "ASPE .LUB" 1k , 1 -- / / 1 <PROPERTY j BOUNDARIES / 1 - ---9 - / UTE AVENUE -/ - 1 - - - - - RIGHT OF WAY 8 EASEMENT LINE - 'I----- ---- - _1_ BORING 2 -- ---- -- - - - 11 -- - %- - - -fepip 0030 -/ k, - --- - 0 --- -- - bi------- -- -- --- -- -1 ---- -- -- --------------- - ./ -C --- -- - BUILDING . I / 0- ENVELOPE ) - - BORING I - &23 -- & - -- R -- -- -- , 4 188 90 Chen#Northern,Inc. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1 Boring 1 Boring 2 Elev. = 8040' Elev. = 8028' 8()40 - 8040 N D..O R 8035 2.2 8035 ~24/12 .,0. O. C C WC=4 7 +4=43 j -20()=16 8030 8030 , Â©~25/5,20/0 R.:0. /1/ 0/C 3.. ,(/ 10, 8025 33< 8025 T 5~ 32/12 40/12 8020 8020 ~+4=51 WC=3 -200=12 8015 2 8015 Note: Explanation of symbols presented on Fig. 3. 9() Chen#Northern, Inc. Logs of [Exploratory Borings Fig. I:/~I . . . . LEGEND: ~ Topsoil; organic silty sand and grave[, with cobbles, loose to medium dense, moist, black. [Rl Sand and Gravel (GM); silty, with cobbles, possible boulders, medium dense to Uj dense, moist, brown, ~ sample, ASTM I)-1586. 1)rive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8-inch I.D. split spoon 24/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 24 blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the SPT sampler 12 inches. --~-Practical rig refusal. NOTES: 1. Exploratory horings were drilled on December 21 and 22, 1989 with a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory horings were measured approximately by taping from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate locations between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the horings at the time of drilling. Fluctu- ations in water level may occur with time, 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content (%) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 4 188 9{) Chen#Northern, Inc. Legend and Notes Fig. 3 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 1 TIME READINGS U S STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS ' 1 1 . ; 1 : 10 24 HA 7 HR '10 45 MIN 15 MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN 1 MIN '?)0 100 '50'40'30 '16 1.A ., V 1,4.1 3" 5"6' r . 1 1 1 1 , 11, 1 11 , 1 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 1 1 /1 1 1, , 1 1 , 1.1 !1 .,/1., ooi i 11 ,1 11 : 1 11 ' '' ' 'ti 1 11 ; :/: i 1 1 1 , 1 111 1 '/1 1 11 1 1 1 11 11, 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 Â· Â· Â·,6 ; 71 1 ; 1; 20 80: .!],1, 1 1,1 11' 1 't I 1 1, 1 I . 11 1 1 1 !1! 1 lili 1 1 1 1 1 1 1/ 1 1 5 1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1, 1, 1 1 1 1 4 1 1, 30 70 1 I 1 T 1 1 : i '; ' ||!T I lil I'l , : 5 1 1 0 ' ' ' ' 1 1 1 1 , T.! 1 11 1/1, 40 '''i' :1 11''' 5: 5'''' ; 19 6 1. . & 5 ; 5 1. 11 1, 411 1,11 1 1 1 1 11 d 50; ' ' 1 1 1 T 1 [ 1 I 1 . 1 1 1 :; 1111 lili 1 11 1 11 1111 , 11 W 40: ; 5 6 1 1 .60 , 1 1 , 1 1 11/ 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 , 1 ] 1 1 1 1 { 1 1 1 1 1 '1 1, 1 1 ] 1 1 3 70 ]Of : 1 1 ..11 , 1 11 11, 5:111 /'1.!1 I;,,', 1 1 1 , 1 ,; 1: i, i T 1 1 ' 1[lillil 2 5 ~ : ' i :ii 6 12 611 1 1 1 1 : 11; to! 5 i i i ; i ME I : 11: 1 1: 1 1 1 1 13 I 1 . . 0. , 1 1, 1,1,1 , ', / 1 1 1/1 1 1 1 1| 1 1 1 ||| 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 : / 1 0 1 1/ i" / ' 100 u05 ~ 019 03/ 0/4 149 291 | 590 1.19 2 38 4/6 9 52 19 1 38 1. 76 2 127 1 200 Oot 002 152 42 20 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND GRAVEL CLAY TO SILT COBBLES . F INE J MEDIUM |COARSE FINE ~ COARSE GRAVEL 43 % SAND 41 % SILT AND CLAY 16 % % 96 LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF silty sand and gravel FROM Boring 1 at 6 feet and 10 feet combined ~ HYEMOMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS ~ IIME READINGS U S STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUAAE OPENINGS 24 4111 7 h4R 45 MIN 15 MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN 1 MIN , 2{)0 .100 '50 Â·40 '30 Â·16 ' ~~8 *, 40' Vâ€¢'0 1,4 3" 5 6 1 TIll 1 1 1 1.(0 1 1 1 1 1 |; i ;1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 Â¥ 1 1 1 1 11 3 : 0, 10 1 1 /' 1 11 15 111, 1 i W, 1 , I, IiI]] 1 11/1,11 1 , 1 1 1,1[' 1 1 6 1; h 1 1 1 ''55 ',11*1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1, 6 1 III ' i ~! : 1 1 1 1 1, 80; i ; . 1 1 1 1 ] 1 1 1 1 9 5 1 ! 1 6 11 1 1. :,i : i I ' ' 1; 1' 1 ' '! 30 1 1, 1 '11 1, 1 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 I 1 1 1 1 I ili ; 1: 1 . 1 1 , 1 , 1 1 1 ' ' 11 / â€¢ ' , 11 11.'.: 1 11, .11 1 60' 1 1 1 , â€¢ 1 1 1 1, lilli 1 1 Ill 1 11, 1 1 /1 1 1 III-Z 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 1 11 , 1 1 111 1, 1,1, 1 I,1 1,1 /T1 T[[ . 1 1 1! 50: ; Ill, 1 1 1 . 1 1 1| 40; ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~|~ , l. [ 1 , 1 1 , /1, 1 ' 1 111 1 , 1 1 i 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11,1 11'11, 1 1 1 i iii .-.f iE : 1 1 11 il W X i 1 ' 1 ' , 1 , 1 '1.- 1 1 D I lili 0 1 1 1 1 1 -,1/1 1 If , 1 1 : 61: :14 1 11 1.1 1 ,1 1 1 elf T 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 11 , 1 1 1 1, 1 1/111 111 1,1 111 1 2 lilli 1 11 111 1 [ 3: :; 1 111 .1 : 6 6 13 90 : i; i iii h 5 2 11 1 m , 1 1 1,1,1, , I lili lili 1/1 1 1 1 1/11 1 i lilli. . , 6 1 i '6,, , 5 100 00' 002 005 .009 019 4031 0/4 .149 297 | 590 1 1 9 68 1 4.76 9.52 19 1 38 1 76 2 127 1 2[U 42 20 152 - DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 1 1 SAND GRAVEL CLAY TO SILT CCOOLES FINE : MEDIUM |COAI ISE FINE | COARSE [ GRAVEL 51 % SAND 37 % SILT AND CLAY 12 % % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF silty sand and gravel FROM Boring 2 at 8 feet 1 188 90 Clien@Northem, Inc. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 03NtÂ¥13tj 1N3Ot13d 'vl_38 1N3083d PEACENT PASSING IDAU/3 9 pues AlITS ZI LE IS 5 8 Z IDAB/21 9 pues ilITS 9I It St' D pOU[QUIOJ I OI 9 9 i.1 X 3,1NI /1,1, 1 f.., 1,9.) Ipd) 1,6, 11.4,1) IlId 34-lts ONVS 1NJINC)3 3,j, 1 >00}1030 Alr)Ilsvld (111*41 13AVU9 HldjO HION:IULS 14,2 ON kl)SN*] ..1.00 Ut)06 - 3AISS 3UJ)'103 UP,ISSV.j AUG 3â€žAls/Oâ€¢ 03NILNOONfl SllÂ¥~Ill DU)UU311Â¥ 1NjOUdd 7/UnlÂ¥N 1Â¥UnlyN NOILVUVUJ NOOV'*' 1 31"râ€¢VS SllnS38 1 S 31 X801Â¥800V1 21 0 A U V 011/4 n S I 318Â¥1 Al.'u-11â€¢*ui.,0 - -I EXHIBIT 5 ARTHUR 1. MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 222 Ea,t Cothk Ave. Gimnisoc, Colondo 81230 303 - 641Â·3236 1 March 16, 1990 Mr. David Finholm Finholm Associates P.O. Box 2839 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Mr. Finholm: As requested, I have reviewed the proposed location of employee housing on the proposed Uto Park project, above the Aspen Club. Thc purpose of my revlew was to evaluate tho feasibility of structural avalanche mitiga- tion at this location, and to consider the risks involved in building at thls location. The building site is near the downhill limits of a snow-avalanchc "Red" zone. The Rod-zone definition applies because ~hj s is a location in whlch avalanche impact pressures may exceed 600 lbs/ft on flat surfaces normal to the flow direction, Avalanche frequency, however, is probably less than once in 30 years; this is not an area of high avalanchc frequency. Building can take place provided ava] anche-loading criteria are incorporated into de sig2Â· Special design may reduce the loads to much less than the 600 lbs/ft figure used to define the Red zone because walls normal to the f] ow could be avoided. As noted above, avalanchc froquency should not, in my oplnlon, be a factor at this site . The vegetation and historic data both suggest that this area is rarely reachod by avalanches. Consequently, the risk to persons using the area is very small and in fact is acceptable in usual land-use practices in avalanche areas. Please contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, / - C PtofÂ«-/111.29,5 Afthur I. Hears, F.E. Avalanche-control engineer Mas. Watfing â€¢ /loa/anche, â€¢ Aoalanche Co,!trol/Eng,neer/,w .l - 1 2 14/ 11 SNOW-AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS BENEDICT PROPERTY, ASPEN, COLORADO Prepared For Mr. Fritz Benedict 1 1 1 Gunnison, Colorado Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. May, 1988 1 1 1 1 1 11 ARTHUR L MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 222 East Gothic Ave. Gunni,on. Colorado 81230 303-641Â·3236 May 19, 1988 Mr. Fritz Benedict - 11 1280 Ute Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Benedict: The enclosed study of potential avalanche hazard on your property near Aspen was completed in accordance with our discussions a few l 1j weeks ago. Although the avalanche areas are fairly continuous, structural avalanche protection is feasible at many locations within the Blue Zone, as discussed in the text. 11 I very much enjoyed working with you on this project. Please contact me if you have any questions. .1 Sincerely, I 1 (146*t jÂ· Yrlpat0 Arthur I. Mears. P.E. Encl. 1 1 . 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 11 1i Man Wasting â€¢ Aoolanches â€¢ Aeclanchâ‚¬ Contml Engineering 1 1 OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS 1 This study of snow-avalanche hazard analysis and mapping has been requested by Mr. Fritz Benedict of Aspen, Colorado and has the following specific objectives: a. Mapping of potential snow-avalanche runout zones from design-magnitude ("100-year") avalanches; b. Subdivision of the avalanche runout zones into Red and Blue zones of hazard intensity; c. Discussion of the avalanche hazard with respect to various land uses; and d. General discussion of avalanche mitigation (defense) possibilities. The hazard analysis presented here is site specific. Therefore the results and recommendations cannot necessarily be applied to other locations. Snowpack and terrain conditions vary greatly from one location to another strongly affecting avalanche behavior and possibly changing acceptable land uses. 2 DESIGN-AVALANCHE MAPPING The analysis presented in this report maps runout distances associated with wdesign-magnitude" or "design" avalanches. Design avalanches, when applied to land-use purposes in the United States traditionally have return periods of approximately 100 years, although return periods of 300 years are considered in Switzerland and Norway. The 100 year return period is used to define the design avalanche here with the understanding that a. The 100-year avalanche has a constant 1% probability of occurring in any given year; this probability does not change after the design avalanche occurs; and b. The 100-year return period is an order-of magnitude estimate; the "true" return period may actually lie between 50 and 200 years, approximately, but data are not available by which the return period can be specified more precisely. There exist few direct observations of 100-year design avalanches because these are, by definition, rare events. For example, there exists only a 39% chance that a 100-year avalanche will occur during any 50-year observation period. Therefore, this study has followed the traditional approach of using indirect procedures to calculate the stopping positions and avalanche- hazard intensity of design avalanches. 1 1 The procedures followed to compute design avalanches here are as follows: a. The runout distances or final stopping positions of design avalanches were computed by applying a statistical model of runout distance which was derived from a sample of 130 "100-year" avalanches in Colorado; b. Given the runout distance defined in "a," a dynamics model was applied to the avalanche-path profile to compute the velocities at various points along the profile; and 11 c. Dynamic pressures were then computed from the velocities to determine the Red Zone/Blue Zone boundaries. The methodology outlined above determines the downslope positions of hazard zones and runout distances; the lateral boundaries were determined by evaluating the effect of terrain irregularities through study of air photos and topographic maps, and by considering the importance of various features in the field. Avalanche frequency was estimated by extracting cores and dating Douglas fir trees within the avalanche boundaries. Each of the trees thus sampled had suffered at least one avalanche impact, (some had received several impacts), and none exceeded 80 yeaÂ£-s old. The fact that all of the trees sampled were located below 8,200 feet elevation (within 200 feet vertical of the main access road), provided convincing evidence that avalanches will reach the road at frequencies of approximately 20-to-50 years. This implies that 100-year avalanches will reach well beyond the road, as consistent with the results of the statistical analysis outlined above. In addition, air photographs taken in 1951 and 1957 were studied to determine old avalanche boundaries prior to disturbance of the area by recent construction. The air photos indicate that avalanches had run into the area of the "Aspen Club" during the first half of this century, and had approached the location of the "Benedict Building." 3 THE AVALANCHE TERRAIN 1- Six distinct avalanche areas or avalanche paths were identified for this study. The general terrain setting with respect to major topographic features is shown in Figure 1; details of the avalanche runout and hazard zones are shown in Figure 2 (the Avalanche Hazard Map). Each of the avalanche paths have distinct characteristics that govern behavior of the design avalanche. These characteristics are discussed below. 2 1 ./ UTE TRAIL AVALANCHE. This avalanche path is located across the a-ccess road from the Benedict Building and has been observed to reach approximately to the road during the past decade. During the 1987/88 winter a small avalanche reached to within approximately 300 feet south of the road. During extreme snow conditions, avalanches will release from open areas in the forest and from within the forest itself at elevations between 8,600 and 9,000 feet. Clear evidence of avalanching within the forest is visible at the 9,000-foot elevation level, near the upper end of 1-1 the Ute Trail. As with all of the avalanche terrain identified in this study, the fastest and longest-running avalanches will consist of dry flowing snow. The Ute Trail Avalanche will impact ~~ ~ the access road at over 30 mph and will spread laterally into the upper and lower parking lots. Light flowing snow and powder blast will reach the Benedict Building (intervals of 50-to-100 years), but damage to the building will be minor and should not 11 endanger persons within the building. The parking lots will be reached at intervals of 20-50 years, consequently the greatest hazard from this avalanche is in the parking lot, an area that 1 1 tends to concentrate activity, particularly during the mornings and afternoons on working days. ~ ~ ASPEN CLUB AVALANCHE. This path is similar to the "Ute Trail Avalanche" discussed above. Unstable snow can release as a widespread slab at elevations of approximately 8,600-to-9,200 ~ ~ feet elevation. The released slabs will combine to flow across the colluvial fan which is populated with aspen trees up to approximately 30 years old, flow across the access road, and will reach the Aspen Club. As noted above, inspection of 1951 and 1957 air photos indicates that avalanches probably reached the building location during the first part of this century. As indicated on Figure 2, a narrow hazard-free area exists between ~~ ~ the Ute Trail Avalanche and the Aspen Club Avalanche. However, during periods of widespread snow instability, access to this area will be dangerous. NORDIC TRAIL AVALANCHE. This path consists of a broad, open face immediately east of the Aspen Club Avalanche. This face is actually fed by 4 small topographic depressions (bowls), that tend to collect snow at 8,700-to-9,000 feet elevation. Avalanches releasing from these small bowls will spread laterally on the unconfined colluvial fans above the road, but during 1.1 optimum snowpack conditions will flow across the road. OLD SWITCHBACK AVALANCHE. This is the largest and potentially most powerful avalanche evaluated in this project. The starting zone is a steep, east-facing slope beginning at 9,700 feet elevation. During optimum snowpack conditions avalanches releasing from this upper starting zone will dislodge additional 1.1 snow from the steep gully and cross the alluvial fan and access road. Douglas fir trees immediately above the road show evidence of avalanche impact. Ill 3 1 THEEAST FACE. This short, steep triangular face will release avalanches from 8,600-to-8,800 feet elevation. Avalanches from ~ the East Face can release independently of the "Old Switchback Avalanche" or can be triggered by it. Avalanche behavior will be similar to that produced by the "Nordic Trail Avalanche." 1 ELIAST GULLY. Avalanches here will result primarily from unstable snow in the steep gully, although inspection of air photographs indicates that open slopes immediately west of the gully may also produce avalanches. During design-avalanche conditions, avalanches from the East Gully will cover the entire alluvial fan and may combine with slides from the East Face. 't 4 AVALANCHE MAPS AND HAZARD-ZONE DEFINITIONS The avalanche map included with this report is provided on a 1"=100' scale base map with 5-foot contour intervals. For land- 11 use and engineering purposes, avalanches have been subdivided into 2 zones of hazard intensity: (a) Red Zones, and (b) Blue Zones. These two zones were defined in terms of expected . 1 frequency and avalanche energy. Experience with avalanche zoning and engineering problems also suggest certain land uses that are appropriate (of inappropriate) within each zone, as defined ~ ~ below. 4.1 RED-ZONE DEFINITION AND LAND USES 11 The Red Zone is defined as an area of either (a) high-frequency avalanches, (b) high-energy avalanches, or (c) both "a" and "b" and is subject to the following conditions: . LI Frequency - Avalanches occur once, on the average, in every 10-year period (a 10% annual probability). Due to the "order-of-magnitude" nature of the return-period 1.J estimate, the actual return period lies between 3 and 30 years. Avalanche areas of high frequency are particularly hazardous because the probability of 1 1 encounter with avalanches is high. Energy - Avalanches within the Red Zone may produce a 1] dynamic pressure on a large, flat, rigid surface normal to the flow of 600 lbs/ft2 or more. The actual pressure on an exposed object may be more or less than 1 1 600 lbs/ft2 depending on object shape and orientation. The pressure on a flat surface is given as a reference pressure for standard, simple impact conditions. These areas are considered high hazard because of the 1 1 difficulties associated with practical design for loads. The Red Zone has an "either/or" definition. Either high frequency (10-year or less), or high energy (600 lbs/ft2 or more) 1-1 4 define the Red Zone. Therefore, large, destructive avalanche zones qualify as Red even though they may occur only every 100 qualify even though they do not Produce large pressures. years. Furthermore, small, high-frequency avalanches zones also Traditionally, residential construction, public buildings, and other activities that concentrate human activities are excluded from Red Zones. Areas of intermittent exposure, such as roads or ski trails, or facilities that are not used during the avalanche ~ ~ season may be permitted in the Red Zone. The tolerance to risk must be carefully considered in the design of an avalanche "risk managemeot" policy. 11 4.2 BLUE-ZONE DEFINITION AND LAND USES The Blue zone is an avalanche area of both (a) low frequency and 1 1 - (b) moderate energy. The Blue Zone is located at the lower end of the design-avalanche runout zone and is defined as follows: Frequency - Avalanches reach the Blue Zone with return periods of 10-to-100 years. As with the Red Zone, the return periods are order-of-magnitude estimates. Energy - Within the Blue Zone, avalanches produce dynamic pressures of less than 600 lbs/ft2 on large, flat surfaces normal to the flow direction. Actual pressures at a given location are strongly dependent on object shape and orientation, and must be determined on a site-specific basis. ~~ ~ As noted above, the Blue Zone is always defined in terms of both frequency and energy. The avalanche conditions must satisfy both criteria at a given location or it will automatically satisfy one of the Red-Zone criterion and be disqualified as a Blue Zone. Traditionally, residential construction has been permitted in 1 J Blue Zones provided construction will resist design-avalanche forces. Alternately, avalanche defenses may be built to prevent interaction of the design avalanche with the residential construction. As shown on the Avalanche-Hazard Map (Figure 2), avalanche hazard ~-~ is nearly continuous below the slopes studied. There is a small area free from avalanche hazard between the "Ute Trail" and "Aspen Club" avalanches. The Red Zone is generally confined to 1 1 the steeper portions of alluvial fans and to the slope above (south of) the access road below the "Nordic Face." The presence of the nearly continuous avalanche hazard zones does 11 not imply that all construction within this area must be avoided. As discussed in Section 5, avalanche risk can be substantially reduced through application of various avalanche mitigation procedures. 1 -1 5 l 5 AVALANCHE MITIGATION As discussed in Section 4, construction within the Blue Zone is generally acceptable when appropriate mitigation procedures are used. Although a detailed discussion of avalanche mitigation is beyond the scope of this report, the following steps are 1 recommended when avalanche protection is required. 5.1 HAZARD ASSESSMENT. If the building site is in the Blue zone, structural mitigation is generally feasible because the probability of avalanches is small and the avalanche forces can be accommodated in design. The avalanche velocity and energy (impact-pressure potential) must be determined at the proposed construction site in order for engineered design to proceed. 5.2 AVALANCHE-MITIGATION OPTIONS. Many engineered avalanche- mitigation "avalanche-control" options are generally available, however, only those forms most likely to be useful on this ~ property are discussed here. a. Direct Protection. This involved reinforcing i buildings for avalanche impact and deposition loads. 1 1 Specially-shaped buildings that tend to deflect snow laterally or vertically are most practical and can be used when several closely-spaced buildings must be protected. Large, flat surfaces directly exposed to the avalanche flow are undesirable because avalanche interaction generates large forces on such surfaces. Building shapes commonly used include splitting wedges and ramp roofs, both designs making use of the fact that avalanches generate reduced forces when deflected through small angles. Direct protection is generally considered to be the most reliable avalanche-protection measure (with the exception of avoidance) because it provides complete protection inside the buildings. 1 1 This is probably the most common form of structural protection used in the United States. b. Earthen deflectors and energy dissipators. Earthen structures are useful when sufficient room is available to deflect snow. Design must ensure structures are sufficiently high to prevent avalanche overtopping , are stable against avalanche forces, and do not deflect snow such that a hazard is created elsewhere. Large earthen structures are very useful in locations where avalanches can be deflected laterally and a large area can be made hazard free. They are particularly useful on alluvial fans. Regardless of the avalanche-mitigation procedures used, current design requires careful site-specific study that defines avalanche velocity, energy, flow dimensions, and depositional ~ ~~ effects. 6 6 - EXHIBIT 6 BANNER CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (303) 243-2242 FAX (303)243 3810 605 East Main, Suite 6 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-5857 April 23, 1990 Ray Patch Rocky Mountain Natural Gas 113 Atlantic Avenue Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION Dear Ray: This is written in confirmation of our discussion regarding natural gas service for the subject project. There is a 4" gas line which runs through the south side of Ute Avenue, adjacent to the proposed development. We anticipate providing gas service to this project by tying into this existing gas line. According to Mike, your locator, this 4" line should be adequate to provide gas service to this development. As we discussed, we are presently completing our application for conceptual submission. The project will be an employee nousing development with seven free market units and sixteen employee housing apartments. The projected timeline on this project is a start-up date in the fall of 1990 or the spring of 1991. We will contact you again pending conceptual submission approval, prior to preparing our final design. Should you need any additional information, please feel free to contact myself or Bob Daniel. Sincerely, 1 014,19 %tÂ©19 Libby~ . Cowling ~ DesigUEngineer BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. I - CC: Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group LJC/clk ws/d10/8203util.rmg EXHIBIT 7 BANNER CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS BANNER ASSOCIATES INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (303) 243-2242 FAX (303)243 3810 605 East Main, Suite 6 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925Â·5857 April 23, 1990 Alex Kiess Holy Cross Electric Association P.O. Drawer 2150 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602 RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION Dear Alex: This is written in confirmation of our discussion regarding primary electric service for the subject project. There is a HCEA vault located on the south side of Ute Avenue on the subject parcel. A tie into this vault will enable a line to be run and transformers set on the project, thereby providing adequate electrical service for the proposed development. As we discussed, we are presently completing our application for conceptual submission. The project will be an employee housing development with seven free market units and sixteen employee housing apartments. The projected timeline on this project is a start-up date in the fall of 1990 or the spring of 1991. We will contact you again pending conceptual submission approval, prior to preparing our final design. Should you need any additional information, please feel free to contact myself or Bob Daniel. Sincerely, 0441/62*fici Libby 0~ Cowling ~ Design/Engineer BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. cc: Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group ec: jeff Franke, HCEA LJC/clk ws/d10/8203util.hce BANNER EXHIBIT 9 CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (303) 243-2242 FAX (303)243-3810 605 East Main, Suite 6 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-5857 April 23, 1990 Mark Campbell Canyon Cable TV 201 AABC Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION Dear Mark: This is written in confirmation of our discussion regarding cable television service for the subject project. There is a Canyon Cable pedestal approximately 400 feet to the west on the south side of Ute Avenue. This pedestal will serve as a tie onto which a new line can be run, thereby providing adequate TV service for the proposed development. As we discussed, we are presently completing our application for conceptual submission. The project will be an employee housing development with seven free market units and sixteen employee housing apartments. The projected timeline on this project is a start-up date in the fall of 1990 or the spring of 1991. We will contact you again pending conceptua.1 submission approval, prior to preparing our final design. Should you need any additional information, please feel free to contact myself or Bob Daniel. Sincerely, --I 444% Utu tr~/ 0 jn g ' Libby~ . Cowling~ DesigE Engineer BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. ce: Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group LJC/clk ws/d 10/8203util,cc EXHIBIT 8 BANNER CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (303) 243Â·2242 FAX 003)243 3810 605 East Main, Suite 6 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925+5857 April 23, 1990 Wayne Johnson U.S. West Communications P.O. Box 220 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602 RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Wayne: This is written in confirmation of our discussion regarding telephone service for the subject project. There is a U.S. West pedestal approximately 250 feet to the west on the south side of Ute Avenue. This pedestal will provide a tie onto which a new line can be run, thereby providing adequate phone service for the proposed development. As we discussed, we are presently completing our application for conceptual submission. The project will be an employee housing development with seven free market units and sixteen employee housing apartments. The projected timeline on this project is a start-up date of the fall of 1990 or spring of 1991. We will contact you again pending conceptual submission approval, prior to preparing our final design. Should you need any additional information, please feel free to contact myself or Bob Daniel. Sincerely, 1 0314 9 go, F j na , U UU W.. 1 Libby~. Cowling /) Proje Engineer 6/ BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. CC: Tom Stevens; The Stevens Group LJC/clk ws/d10/8203util.usw EXHIBIT 10 BANNER CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (303) 243-2242 FAX (303)243-3810 605 East Main, Suite 6 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-5857 April 23, 1990 Jim Markalunas City of Aspen Water Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION Dear Jim: We are presently completing our application for conceptual submission on the subject project. The project will be an employee housing development with seven free market units and sixteen employee housing apartments. The projected timeline on this project is a start-up date of fall, 1990 or spring, 1991. As I discussed with John McDermott on Wednesday, April 18, there is in place a looped water line running through Ute Avenue directly adjacent to the subject parcel. This is a 12" line reduced to 8" half way down this project. We anticipate tying into this line with an 8" DIP looped line to provide adequate water to this development. We will contact you again pending conceptual submission approval, prior to preparing our final design. Should you need any additional information, please feel free to contact myself or Bob Daniel. Sincerely, 14-9 Uff>/7 Libby /~. Cowling ~ Projed-~ Engineer BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. cc: Tom Stevens; The Stevens Group LJC/clk ws/d 10/8203util.h20 1 EXHIBIT 11 BANNER CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 2777 Crossroads 80ulevard Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (303) 243-2242 FAX (303)243 3810 605 East Main, Suite 6 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-5857 April 23, 1990 Tom Bracewell Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 N. Mill Street Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: UTE PARK SUBDIVISION Dear Tom: This is written in confirmation of our discussion regarding sanitary sewer service for the subject project. There is a 10" sanitary sewer line directly to the north of the project in the entrance road to the Benedict Building. We anticipate tying into this existing line with an 8" line running up Ute Avenue approximately 280 feet to a new manhole, then turning south, with the new line placed so as to adequately serve all the proposed buildings in this development. As we discussed, we are presently completing our application for conceptual submission. The project will be an employee housing development with seven free market units and sixteen employee housing apartments. The projected timeline on this project is a start-up date in the fall of 1990 or the spring of 1991. We will contact you again pending conceptual submission approval, prior to preparing our final design. Should you need any additional information, please feel free to contact myself or Bob Daniel. 1 . Â«Awful Sincerely, n 9 Libby ~- Cowling Desigrt/Engineer BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. cc: Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group LJC/clk ws/d 10/8203util.ss EXHIBIT 12 BANNER 1 1!IE PARK SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Prepared For: Jim Martin Ute Park Partnership 215 S. Monarch Suite G-101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Prepared By: Banner Associates, Inc. 605 E. Main St. Suite 6 Aspen, Colorado 81611 April, 1990 BANNER 1 UTE PARK SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 1 The proposed Ute Park Subdivision is located at the eastern end of Ute Avenue. Immediately to the north of the proposed subdivision lies the Aspen Club Building and the Callahan Subdivision, as well as a portion of the Ute Children's Park. - - Access to the site is via existing Ute Avenue along the northern 1 property line which is an approximately twenty two foot (22') wide roadway which turns into a gravel roadway approximately l three hundred and fifty feet (350') from the northwest property corner. There is a sixty foot (60') wide non-exclusive easement and right-of-way which extends along the northern boundary of the 1 parcel to serve this parcel, Lots 15 and 16 of the Callahan Subdivision and the rear of the Aspen Club Building. Each of 1 these described characteristics of the parcel are shown in Exhibit One - "Existing Conditions, Topographic Survey." The proposed project consists of sixteen (16) employee housing 1 units and seven (7) free market units. The employee housing units are clustered toward the eastern half of the parcel, while the free market units are situated in the middle portion of the - site. Parking will be provided for both clusters below grade in a structural garage that will be a part of the construction for 1- the units. Additionally, surface parking will be provided for visitors and guests. The parking provided will conform to the 1 requirements of the City of Aspen zoning regulations. 1 1 BANNER 1 In terms of specific traffic generated by this site, this study has been performed to analyze the existing road conditions and the proposed section of roadway along the northern property line. â€¢ The vehicle trips generated in this report are based upon data from the Fourth Edition of the "Institute of Transportation Engineers CITE) Trip Generation Manual" published in 1987. This manual was prepared based upon sample data from specific land uses, classified according to zoning. The total average daily traffic (ADT) calculated for this project is 135 vehicles per day (VPD). The estimated peak hourly trip generation associated with this project is estimated to be thirteen (13) vehicles per hour (VPH). This calculation is based 1 upon the data shown in Exhibit Two - "Traffic Generation Analysis." Again, these ADT's were calculated using the project information and the referenced ITE data. The existing section of Ute Avenue has driving lanes of approximately eleven feet (11'). The capacity of this type of roadway is characteristically 1,000 VPD. Since access to this project is from the Durant Street and Original Street intersection, consideration in this study should be the capacity of this intersection. According to review of literature relative to the "Transit and Transportation Plan" for this area, as well as other documents pertaining to previous transportation studies along the Ute Avenue corridor, it has been documented that "the estimated capacity of the intersection is in the range of 1300 to 2 BANNER 1400 VPH." The current traffic flows in the area are estimated to be approximately 500 VPH on the Durant Street section, and approximately 200 VPH on the Ute Avenue section. These . estimates, coupled with the minimal addition of the peak VPH created by this project, show there is adequate capacity on the existing roadways and intersections to support this project. A predominate amount of traffic in this development is theoretically generated by the sixteen (16) employee units. As a part of this study, it is necessary to look at the practical implications of these units relative to vehicular transportation. The approximately 5.8 ADT's generated by a typical residential condominium should be reduced in a study of this development, due to the proximity of the project to the central core of Aspen. This should prove true for the employee housing units by the very nature of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority guidelines, which specify the qualifications required to live in an employee housing project. Given the current parking restrictions within the City of Aspen, this project is approximately as close to the central core as the non-restrictive parking spaces. Therefore, 1 it is reasonable to adjust the ADT's generated by the employee housing units by two trips per day to account for the practical assumption that employees will often walk or ride a bicycle to 1 and from work. The two trips is based upon the ITE definition for a trip being "a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination being inside the study 3 BANNER site." The adjustment is shown in Exhibit Three, "Adjusted Traffic Generation Analysis," for the employee housing units. It is proposed as a part of this development to carry the existing section width of Ute Avenue along the northern portion ~ - of the project. This will provide an improved, hard surface road to the eastern limits of the project. Additionally, the existing sixty foot (60') right-of-way will remain in place should there be a need for road improvements in the future. In conclusion, the following points should be reiterated: 1) Given the proximity of the project to the central core area, and the nearly seventy percent (70%) employee housing ratio, this project will provide a large auto disincentive to its full time residents. 2) The traffic generated by this project will not push the existing access routes beyond their capacity. 3) The proposed development Will pave a currently unimproved roadway to match the existing section west of the project. 1-The existing sixty foot (60') right-of-way will remain 4) in place should there be a need for future improvements. 4 1 Â«~II ' + GAS 'Clrl 1 (2(). 16) G..t. 0- 0009 99 -&* *f SU~D,â€¢C I / / / 1/ SAN SEâ€¢â‚¬// ' " e~'J ~0 ' v ' - %'-5 r~ 5/8- REBA. -14*ri .-- .-I -4--Â»Â«0 7 .-i :iD ye" AEBAR , i A- -3- -- ...,0--4.T 'ATH --I-n - 4%,2-i (1 ... ...~*-/2.-3N - -1 -// -1/ 1~ 1111 - -,1- / -/ --1.--F'*E W.D."11 , I. , I - . 00*00 1 ---W---' -1. r~on ~ I - - J ._ _ _ I:_MT: Asts.â€¢ ' l-w- - / Â·-Â¥f -f - --/ Â«6 - 400 1, -- - 1.. 1 -4 - -7- 7 -1 - C R AV --~I- --9 ND 5/8" REBAR . _~____1- I /__-- Ii. .1- .+ I I - / mAliaL=-8 -ff- -- - 2 ------ El Roâ€¢ D 0~LS 76 MV ~ WATOi ~/ - f r..44/- ...~ 1~EBAR- 271â‚¬69.24.25-Â£12155) -/ a - I O I , - ~41Â°191Â·71'" n Â· 3 . C / //// 11 --- - - 3 3 ~ -- / EATS 0,5 1> i An Sul.j * -- de/ -1 ELECT. VAUL T O - 4 elt' - - - U,OER/BOU~*3 TELEPHONE 3ock -- -,/ 0--- ----F %- 9: / W 1 1 1 -3 4- 7 g V ----. 4 4 - 407Â«41) .Â»01 3 1- Â£5>en-v---*-,4r- 11 ---- \.24\ 11. 11:4 .44 TU]491 .. 47 C 1 8410* SPIKE Fri -_--/- 1 144.g lo 3 1 0\ \ - - --n UTE *MG â„¢Al /1 1 20 7-\ 2- -- 1 --- (2. .DE) 1 - - fl - 1 341 0 /6 -0 - 16= . M S p- -- ~ 111 -5 4 / -- n.0 2- i P../ BRAS, CD nOS, RN. 3,8. LOT18 1 ' -4 - - ---- l--- 64 8311 (SI OUAN 1 2 h . - - 2-t.,61 - - - - - 74 - - -/\ / ..l - g - 0. \0 1, 0,4 - -14 SP. Â». , .. 06 - 1 1/ Â©R>ty. - $ /Â·n t20.6.72.S 1 1\ D \ 4- --, ./ Ivft 17 x - x 020 8 AREED - __.--- F.No AL' CO. -w .-ME fEICE 1 - 11 0 4 Lipeo 42..r, - \ -- W. -- '4 - StlÂ·.RE.AR. / 9/ 3 - - -- --- -*il . , - - - 0 4 - 1 -- -0 - Mm-- - - A V+LANCHE ... -- 'AREA _ --- - . - -- i,Â·n- A - , / 1 1/ ----- / . ./ . /5090 -- N i -12-': .42Â·â€¢iâ€¢-.. - f 1 - 1 k /9 - --- /-, -- -<<xr"-_~ - __ __ ,/ / /- *90 , Tr, co f -- 1\\ 4- + i 1 3 - h Of-/ N .- - / r , / r , \ 1 . 2 061 --- 7#Tri*- .-fi __--f~rr' \\ '.Â·r J. 4 2-1...2-trrtâ€¢$ ---- - I , ... -- 119:. -4 - W -,4 4900Â·00=-w,/ 441 I I NO: 1.-r. 1 h\\\ \,~ L/Â«-7212 121--1-0-11 I- EXISTING 7-VT 'a 1 4 CONDITIONS, TOPO SURVEY NOISSIMinS 1VnldiDNOD OpeJOIOD 'uadsv NOISIAIC]FIAS >INVd 31A 1310?W BANNER EXHIBIT TWO TRAFFIC GENERATION ANALYSIS UTE PARK SUBDIVISION . I. Description Number ITE ADT/ Total of Units of Units Designation Unit ADT ========== ------------ ------------0 Free Market Condominimums 7 230 5.86 41.02 Employee Housing Condominiums 16 230 5.86 93.76 ------ TOTAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATED 134.78 Description Number ITE VPH/ Total of Units of Units Designation Unit VPH (peak) (peak) ----------0--- ------ ------ Free Market Condominiums 7 230 .561 3.93 Employee Housing Condominiums 16 230 .561 8.97 ----- â€¢ TOTAL ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR VOLUME (VEHICLES) 12.90 BANNER EXHIBIT THREE ADJUSTED TRAFFIC GENERATION ANALYSIS UTE PARK SUBDIVISION . Description Number ITE ADT/ Total of Units of Units Designation Unit ADT -------------- -------------- ---------- Free Market Condominimums 7 230 5.86 41.02 Employee Housing Condominiums 16 230 3.86* 61.76 ------ TOTAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATED 102.78 Description Number ITE VPH/ Total of Units of Units Designation Unit VPH (peak) (peak) --- ------ ------ Free Market Condominiums 7 230 .561 3.93 Employee Housing Condominiums 16 230 Â·3 6 g ** 5.90 ----- TOTAL ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR VOLUME (VEHICLES) 9.83 * Based upon the assumptive reduction of two trips per day generated by the employee housing condominiums. ** Based upon a ratio of the assumptive reduction of two trips per day generated by the employee housing condominiums and the given peak VPH. + :.129&1 7 , 0.- p- 1 - - \ / , - 8080 -1 -/4,- /5.- /, / /' - -/0 --- 0-1 , 1~ , / ->.., '.3.CXIi:%2*k- 21-*IL-1/3,7**< , /4. / ...# 1/51 -S.- < 1493>~i /9 0,0,350 --k.M -555 - Â·- 8070 .. -*- / 59 ~~tfiÂ· --Ef~ Elf.-1 -1/ , --- -.- tit ** 6 - -- . Â·Â·- - 8060 - - + - 10 - 7-M-4 â‚¬Â«/1- L . - . 3 --K & **t...*IM * - - I..+ ISS; i-. .ic 13 23 / - \ A.. 4 k , / - - 8050 . . ..2, - 8090---- i - /- 1 - .-, - .. - -- 1 / 8080- I + \ 8040 // ... 69 09- I . e 0 8070 lou,r . / . E O *9/ 8030 . 5 ..0 - + Ill .. / 8060 - 51.- / .-. --/0 1 ./ -/ - /9 - . . I - - / %00 8050 /400 , - - , - . /0 - - --.ip - . 8040" -"--- _ _ -- _ -- . / v .. / / 1 00 - a /-/-h 5 1 0; '1 7 \- -07 0. / k- - t. 2 ..- ' rl; j . 70 I-/ h.- 8030 - . . -1 - i - - - \8020 - ' 0 0 8020 - -- -. 0 0 ... Of /0, - / -1 -1 - ' / --- f :19, T" 1 - / 91 j ... . 01 05 , 1 -- ~9610 8010 , . 0 / 0 - - - 1 - - -- -0 . . .. I . C - ..3 - . 1 1 --4 . r 0 -- -' 7- -8000 8000.4' 3 - i - - - 0, 2 / /If 1 : - . -*1% - i / . 7 - -*. ,- 3 - . . - -L t / 7-/ r - . .i B ' ' */ f 1 1% r 4 / 7 1 - -j -/ 47 -3 rl 1â€¢ 3| - / -1 2 9 < 17990 4 - . 7990-- \\-1, 1 -P Â¥ - 1 .. 1 - - 2 1 // 0 31 ... \\ 71 -' - IN... - f 0 - * 1 0.. - I / / \ / 2 - - \ *3 // . t $ 42'99' W 1 - 1,9. oÂ· , i *.- 2 ' 1 , W 4 i , c'I I - \ I - 1 X - I. ; . - $, A 1 0 1 .1 /1 4-2 ~' 1- 1 -1 \ - \ 1 - . 1 -0 mp A . 1 - . 1 0 9 i/1-. -1 : 1 12 j 4 3 - --- 4 i 4 9 I 2 2 1 - . 0 - - - 8 i G i 1j - = / 0 C - I S Yg. lh 0 14 -- 1-1 - ~7970 ?-1 10 1 I pz . 02* 02 -- 0 - 4 7980 44 6% - - 0 5 0 /-1 .. ... -2 0 .,4* .~â€¢ 6 ~ -- . ~Â· -~ 4 ~ . 1..0 1 1.- 1 . - 11,2 9. 6 -- 1 > / 000 7 ---12 2/ -00 7 H 167.5~22" W Dâ€¢ - 17--9-Â» '50 ee - + , r , /00-- \$ 0 . . . f-.F ------ \4 I - 4 J \ 4 9\ 1 1 7 01 / r r- 0 0 / 1\ 0 07 01 i I \ 0 'â‚¬_I 1~ -1 1 , 1,0 / L ..1 7970 ---44==9 I 0% 1 N 38. 4 0 a..2~ \ 0 0 1 -h. 11/ 1 69===a \ r -- ~ UTE. |TiO h.61 - L___-- --Â«71-\L--\4 - UTE ' - /,-04 U-r--~~~~_- Il i: -----LEÂ»-4 - 49 Z - nm nUt 1 3 F i : d % B m;8 &:t% f? 4 9 -. 0*m 2 1.-* @. -- . l A. ./ 0 0\ / 7 - dI .1 P +U - /r- \ C -w 6 V l\ 13 $ 7-+1 g j \ r 91 -t\\ 1 2 ~4 Z Q 2 g- Li a *1 2 4.1 A -S. 1001 UTE AVENUE 0 00 200 00 Â« 2-EL-- 0-â€¢200 < - 212-&82~Stz-#Li--' g r- E-3 i; li 19 1, S M _ 8040 GREENLINE REVIE - % , A Â§ 1 1 i i 3 3Â·d 4 R--2- i 52- i= 3-% 2 . e 01 0 4-J , 1/im'aKE#: DAVID FINHOLA AND ASSOCIATES 1 N C ARCHITECTURE ~ND LANO PLANNING A. 1. A. PO 80X 2839 ASPEN COLORAD)1 1612 303â€¢925â€¢5713 FACSIMILE 303â€¢920â€¢4471 Â·~ Aspen, CO A 39,135Â·9032 - - >1/Vd N3dSÂ¥ 30 AllO 2-10HINVWO :311ll 133HS 46 -1-11 : 31Va 3nSSI 'lualle 94 1 0, U e SUO Suaut All de~ ln04,!M Ja/@OÂ§ 2.2=Â£ 1 \ 0/ 1 1 \ f f 2 0 9 0 0 \ 0 / 0 2 O 0 0 0 0 0 \0 0 M N \9 0 2 / 1 1\'lt %1 / / K \\-\\ I t\\\\\\ \\ \\\ i \\\\ \\ \\\ \ f \\ C Â£ 1 1 1 /// -0 // I /// -il. 6.1 . \ C</ / / / b~fhâ„¢/1 2/ 1 4\\\ 1\ / Â»44 < f i I /1 i '12*4//1/// ///039 ---C .W %/ // / 1 1 1 li ltv / f \01 & 1 1 fi~1/ 1 ji / / / f / . D > - i 0 \~~ - NX \\ \ \ \\ \ \ 1 \\\\\I\\\ff \\ . 4 - h \ 1 ; rn,---~ 1& LU ,% C f 1<~~~C ffÂ« i 'll 1 1 1 li illilij~ii \ ./, 1ill\ \\ \\ 1 \\\ 0 01 \\\ 1 li -- > 03 1 LU 42 \ \\\\ \ \ LU CL 1~ ~ . < 110\411 0 1 c \ i ,# #A4-44=p48wMvvK R 1 \ \\ \\\. ~ ( I . 41. 3*1_67-1 4 1 1 1 1 C/lill// 1 il 31 1 1 1 i / / 4 to'F$432*1, 61 1 11 zil $ 9,1 \\\\\\ 1 \\11\\\ \\\\ \\\\ 1 \\ 34\\Li 1640Â«11 -1 N. T N AN~* r#*Mu l D < U.-1 ~ V.,h , ~ i J LI//1 - \\\ \\\ \\ \ \\ \\\ I \ \\ \ \ \Â«. hi 1 1 . jl ju 14(rok.&4' itt~Â« M ill 0 % 7 1-1 2 1 \\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\ 1 \9 / \ . \U \ \ \\\ \ \\\\\ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\4 4\\~\\ \\~ \\ \11\\\\\\ :~/- \ \I \ 06 \1 i 0 11'jAKj - \\ \\11/ i ,1 1\ it~ \\ il El 1 1 \1\I* u \\\\ 1 N \4.,y L.,/ / 0 -- 211\ j /~/ 1 \ Li. 9. .J. n ------ -------3,) 'll 4 41/ /. .6-=~.1.' 9.- \ -... / ----- <L- 2 10 4 11 L 11'Â·'L, -'y rk *j ) , 1 ~ //~< -7~ 11- /1/-- --I 9 C 1 4 -9-2 \32'OUUÂ· I h :12 1 1 11 - --- I . \\ I \\\\ \\\ \\ 3 1 \A\\\A . Z 1 \\ i j 11\ \ \\\ e ( . v o.&, 1.1 j '1{11:i fÂ·~/ f.ft:,4/:.... . <1 - )&Â·i ~R in . l 1 //1\ 1 1 1 . 1 1 r: Z 0 i -4 \\ \\\ \ j \! 1. 1 f 1 1 1 *1 Ji a Z Z \.h -- h 3 i\\ a. \i f \\ -\ \~\ 1 l /1~ j\j j i \\% 3 1 f~':m ~ / t: 41 ~~ ~* ' O ~ 1 It 4 Z 1Â© r \11 1% ) 3 1 3 1 13 1 \>~3 1 03 1 \\ i Â· I /1 /#MA 1 i Z/"L-*r= I *-J \ Z (4401 i . <0 . , Z . 1 1 1 ' 1 4/ Ill W 1 IL' 4/ 1/ Z 3 14 1 91/ 1 1 Â· '1 1 1 Z '1+D le v' 4 LL 1 U 11.4 0 -00 *- / 1.41 ff f // f/- 111// El w,1 + -I \ 4 > X 4/ E 1 8/5 6/ 1- , 4 O 0 0 1 I. /1 \\ . 11/ 1 z=ZEs 1 1 . =41.4 1 'T . .. 44- . m <i,94 - - ..-. p indicated by these drawings and specifications i limile 5/,3 9 ' 22/ -ir Â· ~ RE.04,-rut' 4 .LE~'dâ€¢pÂ»~e r. A ti B' 44UP9fh / . 2/ 1/ 0 All designs, ideas, arrangements and plans are the property and copyright of the Architect r\ , 33 and shall neither be used on anyother work nor I,9 L-- . al-34"1*11 I 1|4' be used by any other person for any use what- . dimensions shall take precedence over scaled <k<>- <'menement Work. - 1 1 , . 0 soever without written permission. Written 4\ \\ \ 1- ----=- 3;\ \\\ \\ 0 -I -- (*li. . / I , dimensions and shall be verified at the job si.te. thcbj p Any dimensional discrepancy shall be brought --I- ---1- ..... ... 11/ , . " .1-, .. i 311 , 3 , 3 1 1 1 , I 1 i, Ir f 3 - ~ 11 f fri <21 , - - M omilla~f>ui=~:i~-~\lll / ~ PROJECT NO. :'AJeLT r,/ 161.1 -th.,lf /fc- . , I FF V666 n\4 -1 111\ \\ 11\\\\ </ \ \ \ r \~\\ 'I .. CHECKED BY: 1 \I i k 11_ TI \\ 1 fluei---t3â‚¬_ (u -4 &104- \. \\\\ il ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ * to the attention of the Architect prior to com- DRAWN BY: \ Â£ 1 \ ~r Famp ,Â· 1-- Â£.IL///R/4 -4. *4. x.4A kdv< ---r- 7-1-YuL<tz, PA*,224--2V,9 .. I \ ~ak'- ~-4--9~ t31 ISSUE DATE: h lo e 61 --- .-I --1---W 0 O 0 8 0 co 2 co 2 2 0 0, 9- /. 1-- \ 00 N r ~Â¤ SHEET TITLE: SITE PLAN r SCALe i ~ 446 ~7-- 0 10 10 50 \ 013%821 Ed 'Li. \37///illiRrzW ..442~00' 2 t ... . 03 'uads I Z IFâ€¢036â€¢COE 311)41]90Â¥=l EL LSâ€¢986â€¢COE Z 19 L 8 00Â¥80100 NadSÂ¥ 6Â£ Z 3NllN33>ID 0#09 931VIOOSSÂ¥ IN 1 O H n1031 8090 8080- 8060 44 1 1 \ \ 1 \ g O. g 2 5- 0 0 \ \ 1 ' \\\\ \\ '\\ 5, r1ji , , 1 â€ž , , , , r p r - - * ' -- / 1 / , /1 / - \3 - -\~ I~ 1; \9Â¢x\<Vi \\ i r \\\ \ \\ \\\\ 4 1 1 0-1 r 0 1 1,1 // ' / . -- / . -1- I //// --1* .- - -- .~->< /1 f- -DIi. 1 41\\\\ \ \ \\\\\\\\\ / 1 \ 4.1.11 11 11 ~ < ii ~ f b /// C 7/ * -- / 0 / 4,1// - 1,1 \\ \\\1 \\\\\\\\\\ //2 \\\ \\ 1\ \\\\\\\ \~0~Ilt~ G C (1 \ 1 1 11 L 1 1 \ / kM.- \ \\- \\\\\ \\\\4\\ \ \ \\\ \ \\ 1 \\\ \\\ ilk /7 L \\\\ \\\ f 0 \1 2 14 1 6 1 \\\ \\ 1 \\ \\ \\ lifft 1 11,1 1 \1 \ \ I \ itf i / Cr 2 f 1 FUTURE 1 N\ 1 RETENTION :' J \\ \. POTENTIAL ~ 1~ %-/3 5 \ \\\ \ \ i \\\ \ \ \ 412# ~Â¢~t)~\\ \~ \\\ \/VI f 1/1 \ \ l \ /1 C /~ \ \\\ 1 C \ 1 1 \\ 1 ~4 . All ~ --- N<\ AREA O {11,1~111 10,\ 111 1 \~I )<4, Ir= ~ 1,~11 1 1 1 4 1 1 ~ - I i i 91\>, c ,#).%,Â»9 49 1 - 1 fill I .~ l\11# U 1 z w \ \\\\\ \\\\ 1 \\ \ \\\\/ 1 0 1 \\ 1 \ 1 1 l\\\ 1 1% I C \\\\\\\\\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\\ \ D i \ \1\\ 1 \\\ L.U > L.LI 9 \\ \\\\\\ \ \\ \\\ \\ i\\ \\\ \ \ *f\Â£111ItÂ£ 1\Ij<~f~ ) c , .. ci' , 0 -- - Un L--1 1 4 \40\10\\\.1111<11 , IMA 1 -1 , aD i C- \11 1 111\11 \ 11\ 11 ... N - D UJ < f r. \1/ .Cl --- 1 -Â« I /1. 0 / - \\ \ \ Pl\ U --li-- --- --Al / -------~~ -MI \\\\ \\\\ \\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ %\ \ \ft .tf\\.\40\.11 \ 11 1 1 1 .3 113 i) L x----i/ .-/ , 0 / *91 10.4\ (ll< - 3+72 1 OU D 13 - 2 --- . 1 1 X .-/ *-. 16 I. \Ill N. \ 1 --4 -----3 31 1 f / 0 --- - - 16 11\ C * OffÂ«\ Â« 1 hl\?// ~f Ji, 1--13 // / 1 . 00 01\\\\\11 1 \ 11 1'1f 11 1// h\\\\\\\\ 0 1 31 3/ i 1 1 1\ 1 1 --* 1 \ 1 1 1 %11 1 - i / 1 10 1- \\ , ... Â£ C /1 1\ 1 , I %' w 0,0/ 4 1/11 j Ill C\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\ f \\ -\ 1.0. Â£ f OP . 11 %1 1 1 \\\ li!/ ;37/3111'11 16 Ilj \ i \\\\ j \\ 111 j i i \ 11 1 1 \\\\ 11 \\\1\ \\\\1\!\\ 1/1\ 1 111 iii /illl' i \11\ - 4 : I' -4.-' / i.u <- / / 1/ i / 1 -1 1 D>.1-3-- 1 1 .til- 4 11\ i 0 ir' 1 i 4 1 --i) \ If f. J\\ \ 1 3 Jit i '/1/' lill jj fill ,//71~-1-~irith-~ ~ <. iÂ© c,\\ i i j 1 1 i I ) t j ) \R\l \j f /1 / 41 \\ \\ \\\ i \ 1 \\ Ill\\ \\ 6-- \0\/j\\\i\\\\ \\ 1 \\ 3 \\ \\Â»h ~ ~ i 1 ~ ~i-~f-~ff, ,~ /- ~ l 7 --. - \\\11\\\Il 3 11 1 \-\\ 1\\ 11 //// 1 11- ~r /1 19~ ~ ~ \1\ 1 \\ \ \11\ ~~~ <~tEl 'l~ ~ ~ 1 ~ \\00\-~__ 0-1/ ~u ~~ /// i- Ji 6<-~PE <<i EdRYWÂ£LL ~~~ f 1 ,\ V 1 1 1 //// 1 00 1 LIC - i 1 0 7 Z 19 1 1 1 111 c , ,1 '11-f-- . 3 / C J /1 1 1, 1 1 1 // AN) 1 1 - Z // 1 ) .-- .0 1 - / 1 1 , 0 I FU > U 0 m d m 0 0.. 19\= r) 1 .-- \ 6/ )\\\1 1 1 1 r 1 1 4 2 \ \\6 3 \ ~ k ~~ \ 1 <k Lit,11 1 1 ~ ~ / i /1 1 \ WN-2 1, 1 1 1 Â£ 1 f ~ ~ 1 1 Ki Zi<t#-T-tr*Ttr<~1 1 /t- 7' C - 11 C 1 . \ Â£\ 11 /4% /Â»\43.3- 7 / 1 1 <1 5% 111 ~-; Ii)1\C I< 1 1 1 '. and shall neither be used on anyother work nor ill\'\90\~\ ill I lit \\~rE---71/ Jl/ lj'.lil lili li\\\1 1 + 18!0 ~~~*~ ~ ~ are the property and copyright of the Architect J All designs, ideas, arrangements and plans indicated by these drawings and specifications . , Ill soever without written permission. Written dimensions shall take precedence over scaled / -1 I 1.01 dimensions and shall be verified at the job site. be used by any other person for any use what- 1 -9 e \ 11 1 Any dimensional discrepancy shall be brought to the attention of the Architect prior to com- mencement of work. 1 Ul C )716 / ---==-1. ENCH DRAIN ~ / i ~1- PED TO DM~WELL ~ PROJECT NO. 30)3313 3 r 0 - \\\\ \ r - ---- flit ... DRAWN BY: f \ 1 #lit. --- __ir... c.. r c __c....- C ./+. t / 4 \14*as'Eff.fl.<------------le---16 - CHECKED BY: t \\ Il i / FAct:- enÂ»Emil Lf-- ~N--2,0 - ISSUE DATE: 00 00 0 -1-I- Ii.--)-- co N 22 Â§3" 2 - 0 ->hz_ CO 00 *-2 SHEET TITLE: 2 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN Â£66.AL-25 Ff i i 111= 2OL 011 [EENE~ 4 Alk M- 0 \0 10 50 \ 3>Uffl W NSF/////////hw i 3 8080 8070 8050 8040 -8000 7990 086Â£ AABIA N 3 I1N3 ONI 931VIOOSSÂ¥ rylOHNI:I DNINNÂ¥ld QNÂ¥1 3Un1O31IH 1 ZIâ€¢ 026â€¢ COE 31 IM ISOÂ¥ 3 Â£ L 29â€¢926â€¢ 80Â£ 2 t918 00Â¥H 010 0 N3dSV 6Â£81 X 8060 8020.- 1 1 plans ations hitect rk nor what- ritten caled b site. jught com- . - . -2 CHECKED BY: - Â¢ 0 0 1 -- ----. 0 ISSUE DATE: Il,I.90 0 0 0 --C, O 1 1 N - C N O 0 CÂ· -- 00 Â£ 00 00 I F SHEET TITLE: Slope Analysis Legend ~ Slope Analysis el-Off=- clwÂ·es tric,Â«T '01Â·.1 0,/ 1 N GATE.de,r 56 =fao iT f.4 %- 1-.1/+4 D , r ~ 0 -10 56 71% <200 (ble) -7 11 000 2-l- 90 70 9, 1-72- 6 B- le) eD 1 1 0.%(0 ewÂ»ke t~ - Â· 2,1 - 40% 7, 900 CM. le) ze i $ ale ovek, 40% 2Â«602 62-15)+ 4,110(0) O 0 0 Ey---00 40 1 0219*XW -1Â»TÂ»LE)- â‚¬:pi-re. tis#A pvcâ„¢i# airr : 1 1:3~ 1514Â«.r, Â»rrlff euore %11Â£77Aa : 75/ 2-1 1 627.Ft 4 . All ....... .. .... ... .. '2& a #gm'#6*&*Li"Vi AEOUU,4 =~- - .m~ 31.. *"=A='-,5 EL~~~ = 4,4., ji~1: 1.95 Ot~ 6~.,4- = ~*41:L I. 1 41Â£~;F,%lift 11 11 :NE&#*651+# f - I - gal"/1,44 = 6 - â€ž B U.J - = LU - 1~L~ lit=7<~~~v~ ~ ~~ , 4â€¢ i.'Lk . kle 6 =~|E-r 2.= ~di,6 :.11= Z LU D > 1111 -- LLI 22 i â€¢t *ti" 1 *lifil~ 11 -- 7 im ==I,b Â£a4Â£ sL : Z 5- 0!/6*Ars : 7.- i<1 LU r m&. - 1 F . 16 ~31'111 i. f %1 ->~ 41,ii'%1-@~~.,0,#),Ele TIF" 15 1 1 m..Milli.2.-111#WÂ¥~101*111lm,0. Ii .:Faâ‚¬- .1 1,1 - I LL.1 --1 I ity- 2 ti/%* "= ' '' Ii'~im A Z Vie-*|*9~, ' =*91*44 .,12.-m;Â£4,un' 111,. . 81 -,â‚¬114-1 D uj 6 E Iii- , ~, rAt"6#t - M . 60 E.- LL.1 -1, -- i.- 11, - 2/ -- '11. -PIt-1 0 ~,0 - -6 131 . . . . ... 2#L~g 3.#. i 0U 3Â¥2401â€ž:- 9*RE'Â· 2.'Till' 11 .... 1,7/H - Ifh~Pli//Mi'Jajilit:A,L. il:Ing/14:%94'dial'li~VIT//1 .. - 0 ... 14Â£1/'*â€¢44 %5491 ,- _ 2~ 9 -0*al*'~-: ~lt*\ . . ... I. I I ' 7 'MI~~,~"W:~:* 414~ t:" F -7,/9,1â€žR.,f".~,~PM~1k 44 *MFW#~.4.t,> = id~â€žJie#&~IOO,#4~6$~~d~~6~4â€ž ....... 0 CO ~,:4~,~' '|~11mf~,~#M'~~- 49'.F.W.Ell,%~AmpuqW1~/4.11"Blf#= 90~se?#Ee/i,p,~1-r,~i,-r,BE=~mi~d~TW4,~f#42L/* Â¥24.-41 9 'me~~1,47.fim;- L -,j= 1 -E.1 .al,=111 = ~,~Ak:*~l ; d.- 11,~2 * 1 W'- .=*- a lum=.. - '11. ta~6 2 0 4 py!/I' -1 -1'~h. Z Â·4 ejeJit~~~I;/~I~ ~/~ ~- m':1 fr~- :-- - 1.14 1 92#%Â£#*0 + CD O Z LU - < z 1- - - t- 1 - 11 -92&&-t * I .r. ~Le Ai. --' - Z 0 1 1-11 01-, -~Fl' 1 1. 1 i 1 17,3,44~~,ATia 49 - -2 1 - 1 # 0 0- O -1 4<~4Jjlligd,02-41.11Â¢00* 0 - 0 Â©~1'LE-6-,r,Â·,pe'li~f"Wa~ O 4 1 1 19 litmlli.Ji,~.fi f 11 Z 0. <0 Z z 0 W a: I z - 0%1'-2/AY 1!1 - 0 31.71 f%. LL LU 1,1 - . - 1 1.~**~h#1--0!!. 0 2.21 m -g"LA~Ball.,1.11 1Â¥1*:1:idl~~;,~~J~* 7J ~ -I 0 36 #9 ~~m, :=1111: 11~2~%~F' 11 1 < ac 4 = 3. - 1-/1/~PE -IrMitld 0. - t.,4 Â£1100=i:./4~ . 2!41. 1 .1 - 1 1 1 - 1 ...1 Fed* %* . ,q~BATm' 1 1146,~i. 1 EE "F, 4 *' 1.81 711~ '~~L al,6 -, -11- 1.1 ii,45 '1 ~Iri#j.,M ' . 0 -, ... â€ž.1 ... . .. : I is 1%,r - f. 85*~ M * 1 7.4#1..t l - . 0 0 . . a -4-:ni lu'll! 1 th,â€ž: e ..*.. I - - :'~'E#i~tl@11~â€žilkE~:~'2*:'4 6-n 24Â£4921:~4/L~1~ *m~ Â£ 4~~/44. .. - i.. 'i,"~ii.... , dil~~iyil<:Ill.k""""""1"""lili 1,1 SE 3,~r :i,Fâ€ž,,O, F.,t "1,1111.,r=4.9 -11 LE ..7 -- 0 - ... :19*.1 --11~ ry Â· : E:'!0'~i.'.,!D. ~~rl:,|1@1 t!!AM!14' .immt. 9"fr ";L:'FC= 91!Fl ''.,11# - 7 ifi~-~p~~II? ' i : T:,4#' 1 '*9*74' 1.imt:&~Bitf.: 3â€¢1~"i~'ll~~ =%.~ 1 'Jm :! *pllil!1~~|'~Â· :1141' ,%M:FM ilmilâ€¢Illummil"ill'Ivâ€¢I!V]Iâ€¢'IHIi~Ilii !!~m,â€žIRI!!ii~~[imimll,Iinnilltlmi.,i~WIMNâ€ž ... . 9, : 'Bâ€¢a, ; 11$2~41 -'51' Lb I~ - 2 9 '||~b "r = 192: L - U:2 = -- \ 1 .//9/~ ~ Ber â€¢-61 - 190" - 4" GAL I rs# j~ ~ 1.1 4 J rlt,4 D C (10) C. 1 . . id plans fications 4rchitect work nor se what- Written ir scaled job site. brought to com- a 2 - 0, -- --- . 1 --i - 0 0 0 0 co co co M __ -- h CO --- SHEET TITLE: LANDSCAPE PLAN f,CAL B J FI2OL 0â€ž Fid 0 0 W 50 L=29.Â·k 0862 . 4 , .. , - 0 . , . . ... I . . , F I -0 - . ... I . . I .. I . . .. .. 0 A U.1 :444 4 0 . 1.0..A,9 . 1 - '. ... .. -P 1 1 1 . ,%#74 A â€¢ . 41#41~ .. 40' tÂ¢'A . a. z - - u, LU Z - <Z Z 0 O J '401~ 0 U) L U) $ alÂ¢%0 1 Z 0< #WAY' Z Z .. .1 4 Jill.' W 0 a: I 3 Z . -0 LL UJ O- -I > 0 1 a....48/le,ES&#86 ilililillillillillillip 674* â€¢Zc~ , .. , ..,. , 0 ,/ . ... . . .. : I .... â€¢citte' ... -........ - . I ..... . . 1 ... .. 8 0 --- 0. ... e ... ..... .1. ..1~. ' .. a 4 *144"'I \ 0 90 ./am'. - : /)0 , 4 *11â€¢ 97.-- - -di. 91, 91,4 .: -4, \ . 0141.YJA~'= I e . - . 41'~~44**f .4 . - . 0. 1- i I ... e .. . 1 ... .. . . . 0 . . . .. ... 0 0 ..., 0 . P . .. ... .. .. . .. . .. . I .. V 41. 1 'P.T. 42 7/.1.,f!/Pet ZAK*%&9441''Id#44~*4.. P~ Â£:Rt*,8 fiÂ·:,~ ,~A~~3~~~~~.,~,~~,",,56-~p#'c'~'1~..1~1,7,; F.y#65:~~0=â€¢i,&*.7,<*744," 4/,I' .'1< 7 9 -.1 ..)': k.:.t- ' 7.1,4%*4 t, ~i.4*-**:~~--~,~s#7 ' .3444*AA#Ak#*I **Ati'&;be**illilli.9,&(TWA. .â€¢':t IG /ph&(wpgwjgâ‚¬ 0. 7~,60Â¢tari pr~Â»%:.tti"*15#,19~-*3,# 4*1(Ft,25*~.~~~.76:, '49*11Â¥01%<&*44*,9 - 46:2'~49,4Â·9:Â¥:4Â¢j~k, a,Â·'.7(:44(%6%~ j lit/.~.P.~*At~ e,2â€¢11 9-- I Sp -, '6==111/, I '23*4*y,j 13&4*7 %38*Â·~94 7 f:$*i'~* Dz*,t ,Â¢,.01$ *ly*.F Mt:pli~e' ~44 '44#*"1 , 0 - ar -7. 3.~~ 1111111. .-b %111 A.> 1)*Pi ., 4... li rre~ te,:42 wA*%613 1 :. -il*49Â·41: ~:1 9 -*ant*14<f <94 ~1 4141: *4 iii. All i P, T, ?%1:2/~92 -:. 4. '' I.,6 1/56.Mi ' 4':.: 46~.~'~,~*. .. " 447*9& 1 - : f: 2143 ,-'/'Â£% *$41% . ....:IM Gal,Â·*.6 - t.?2-1. D. 1999.. .1... a'.4 7 2 0 i,0.22:iftÂ¢w.UÂ¥ ?9944 2.1 9,1 /324 . ..ve Wi.,4 Z# 74,7 5-Fiti#Ze f , ..,. N -/~~Lf'LA - , f. 1.1 74&,4.4,/ ,LE" JtÂ·*$09Pk ' 4 ~EÂ·).tufri ./ ' f:. ~awir. ,/ 1 L EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURVEY 1001 LOT SPLIT: P.U D. - NOTES LAWYER'S Ti-r-LE COMMITMENT NO. pal--2.472. 6/ DATED ot/0-b/89 WAS THE SCOURE OF RECORD 1 1 JNFORMATI O N . SCALE 1 INCH = 20 FEET - 1 -. 0 10 - 20 (0 40 -- / ASPEN CHANCE SU B DIVISION LOT I LOT 6 \ LOT 4 ~ ------- ----*1**m-*__--- LOT 2 VEL. FLA. f- - 1 Â¥Fc , N 47Â°O7g CAP ~l 1 , ~ 968-65' ~ \ --a LOT 3 E 1 / 1 / 1 \\\\\ \ 1 1 - 7 1 \\ - 1425 \ C C 1 \ .-I N 1/2 \11 \ \ C / 1 19 O \ \\ 1\\11 \ \ F) - 0 ) , o L- 0% le u , LOT 2 qu i \\\10 \ 40 U) 1 i f 00 1 0 \ \\\ \ (? 0 \A A G \0\\ / '/ i 05 > ~ 7970 - \ \\ \ L 0 - U -F r.... 1 \0 \\\\\\ \ \ \ \ * I 00 1. 1 +4 LOT .- 7-J - i 0../ . I ./ . 2, 1 * I k, 1 /0 - 4 % , , \1 - 1 OVERALL AREA --/ . t 6-6 o ifÂ· (6 783 27 21 -- /' . - B 1 0 3 ./' 0 0 ( 295,462* SO.FT) 6 . m J A 2 1 A- , \\\ ' 8 k ' V/ALL 1 - i Â£- 1,11 1 1 /7 % $ O 4 "1 ./.93 ItÂ· 4 li //il l \ 0 \ If) 02.8.54 - - 6,9 r 1 0 2. / 3 BLM . too} 1 1/l \V -- - - - 1-INE 3-4 - BRASS CAP 4 1 I/ 1 \ Al- 1 1 COURT LEASE + -//fl f. BOOK 447 PG 90 |0 <\ 140 c \ \\\01/ .1 11 <% 1 f // 1 1 11 / 0 1 I \ it ./4, 4 1 1 1 t< \ 1 - 1 ~0 j / 1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 lit 1 1 IIi, 9 / 4 0 .--. J ./ 1 / CP\ , O\ %\ \(9 / 1 \~ \ t 4 \ 1 1 (08 3 1 0 ' r I K K A '. n 1 001 .3-- 2.20' \ 1 X ' r. F . "14 N4*7007 2 CERTIFICATION 9,75- S '07Â¤07'0/ />00 0.00 7970 ~~ ~~UN D ~ ' 1 IN CON C ~ ~ L I. DAVID W. McBRIDE, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS,Â·BRE,GRED ~ 7-:BAA. = 7,96 8 REBAR 9 : 00 FROM FIELD NOTES OF A SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY OUTPARCEL A DURING JAN , 198 9. SIGNED THIS__Â£.y___DAY OF ____2262_21_-_-__, 1470 . ~ 9% -9--24.. h n . TEN TEN UTE SUBDIVISION PREPARED BY 'r . L g,Clf * Aspen Survey Engineers,Inc:, -4 3. it 210 S. GALENA ST. 1 . .6, 9.2 David W. McBride RLS 16129 P. O. BOX 2506 .4 NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMEN ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ?03 4-1 ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN IMKt.t'YtHRS REVISED 11-15-90 AFTER YOU i FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT. MAY ANY (303) 92 5 - 3 8 1 6 ,.; 62 -2.-, ..... Li .t j ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE Â«97, I THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. SHEET 3 OF JOB NO. 19029 44 k 6.01 :14-41 EANJAV 310 /11., 0'2, 903'c,E â‚¬ . 1 U ---1 1001-LOT- SPLIT P. U. D. CURVE DELTA ANILE RADIUS ARC TANIINT CHORD CHORD ICARINâ€¢ Cl e 00'00' 40.00' 62.03' 40.00' 54.87' N 17-83'00* SITE PLAN ' C 2 31'29'00' 07.50' 48.01' 24. U' 47.41' N 8/37'309 SCALE -- 1 INCH - 20 FEET O 10 20 30 40 LINE BEARINO DISTANCE LI N I//41'24'E 14.42' L 2 8 47007'007 2.20' t Â·L . 1 9..P N 47'07'00'E . .....8, --i- . - Ll \ - 4.-I \ ly. \ -\ / I /& LOT I 21 , \ SM> BUILDING AREA . 48.~13 80. FT. â€¢/- EN,FLOPE 46 4 \ a.â€ž5 SO Fr : \1 \ ' N 47- 07' 00'E eD / 132.45' , t. I - \:,. 12.2 .7 lt: \.// 1 %4$/ AMENDED I /_ 4 ~'3~. C F<41 , \ : ./ ~' ~ 'I 'Â·g ' 4-2 I///B'ir COUNTY ~\ j =,,/ /11 TENNIS - 1 I I l \ ...1 CUL DESAG ~ ~ % 1 \8 4,18.0,..., /40, / â€ž .. FfiÂ·Â£= *It 1'.'....."ifi. N 47'07'00'E 1 - 1 1 1= PARCEL : f. i 170.00' C --h--- - - EAS, . j COURT -,5.26- -\ (PRIVATE) <8 \ ~ LEASE t ./ 1 --- 1 \\ / AREA.- 170.071 SO. FT. 05 1%1 1 \ 7 LOT 2 .90. If. . . 8 47'07'00'. / ~ ~ C~ AREA = 24.042 SO. F . â€¢/- AREA â€¢ 48.044 SO. FT. â€¢/- 1 86.00' i J ' -L 1 001 1 12 LOT 2 /:4 \ - 1 2 1 MIR -.00.3-0- 0 1-9 f 3 \ 11 P . 03*, .* . 5.A 0 - 8 AA '6 4 1 018 290 m . 03 "ILDIM *i I I r i , 02 - 8,1 6.PEZOPE . .1 9. ISO 50 07 4 61 1 4 - 8 (14 N â€¢r 07'00'E J 1 1 1 1 9 185.00' 0 \\\\ 11'1 38' IUIiST \ \ PA.(IN. 1.... 60 5 ' PRIVATE PEDESTRI- a UTILITY EA-2NT 1 --I--I....I-*.-Ill...----Ill--I--I 1 . N 47-07'00'E - N i 28' PRIVATE ACCIESS APÂ® UTILITY EAd:<Bl-T i 8 47007'009 i - 16.00 ' ;; 177.22' A 0%- S 47o 07 '00'W .-- --il--0-- Jl- --Ill-Ill--- - lr_ 1000.00. L2 SHEET 2 OF U i ..1-1 1 . '' . 3AN3AV 31 n CAÂ·~aAD SUMMARY SHEET r - City of Aspen - DATE RECEIVED: 11/20/90 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: ji,~2Â«/6.?cy 2737-182-00-063 A68-90 STAFF MEMBER: 1>4 4< Ll .i Ol PROJECT NAME: 1001 Ute Avenue PUD/Lot Split/8040/ConditioRal Use Project Address: 1001 Ute Avenue. Aspen. CO 81611 Legal Address: Same APPLICANT: Neal Myers Applicant Address: 970 Powder Lane. Aspen. CO 81611 REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn --DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED Representative Address/Phone: 300 East Hyman Avenue Aspen. Colorado 81611 PAID: YESXXNO AMOUNT: S2410 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 8 TYPE OF APPLICATIONX_--- 1 STEP: 2 STEP: V'~ r-hh P&Z Meeting Datpkn, . 4 4 \ PUBLIC HEARING : q~0) NO ; =01 VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFERRALS: . City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District \/, City Engineer ~0/0 Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas i/' jkusing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) f/Aspen Water V" Fire Marshal State Hwy Dept(GJ) 4 City Electric Building Inspector 0, Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other V' Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center DATE REFERRED: 13|3)le INITIALS: 2-4-- 1,1 . 1 FINAL ROUTING: 14001lt DATE ROUTED:,3~)'f~(14,3 INITIAL: K.,17 City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ~3 . â€¢ â€¢ VI.a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: May 13, 1991 RE: 1001 Ute Ave. - Subdivision, Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split, and Final PUD Development Plan Review; Second Reading of Ordinance 10, Series 1991 SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision and Final PUD Development Plan with conditions. The Planning Office recommends approval of Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split with conditions. First Reading of Ordinance 10, Series 1991 was approved on April 22, 1991. COUNCIL GOALS: This process addresses goal #14 which stresses consistent and fair government process. BACKGROUND: This parcel has been reviewed for various land use applications in the last several years including a 8040 Greenline review, GMQS for a four lot subdivision, PUD and lot split. The only approval granted was for 8040 Greenline for the construction of one residence. No development has occurred at the site resulting from this approval. When this current application was submitted for a lot split, the City Attorney determined that the long term lease on the tennis courts held by The Gant Condominiums constitutes a defacto subdivision under the language of the land use code. Therefore, staff has processed this project using the two-step Subdivision criteria to legitimize the three lot proposal. However, the one-step Lot Split process is also being pursued in order to allow for exemption from growth management for only two residences as provided in Section 8-104 A.1.c. The applicant seeks only two single family development rights, so the third lot (tennis courts) will be deed restricted against any future development as a Growth Management Exemption by the Planning Director. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 2, 1991 and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Subdivision and the consolidated Final PUD Development Plan. In addition, the Commission approved with conditions 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling Units. Resolution #91-11 documents these approvals and recommendations. See Attachment "B". .. KEY ISSUES: Pursuant to the 8040 Greenline approval, the Commissioners want the applicant to provide further information regarding rockfall mitigation and avalanche potential. They also want Lot 2 reconfigured below the tennis courts and an access easement between the road and the courts. The applicant accepts the conditions approved by the Commission. STAFF COMMENTS: As mentioned, this project is rather unique in that the applicant only seeks to develop two residences, but must follow the more detailed Subdivision process because of the existence of the 99 year tennis court lease. Because a typical lot split process secures two development rights for single family dwellings without Growth Management competition, staff and the applicant decided to include a lot split request to accomplish this goal. Section 7-1003 A.2 establishes review criteria for Lot Splits: 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; and Response: The title commitment show that this parcel is a portion of the 1001 mining claim and is an unplatted parcel created before the City's subdivision regulations. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district and the applicant commits that any lot for which development is proposed will contain an Accessory Dwelling Unit. When there is demolition on the property which makes it subject to the provisions of Art. 5, Div. 7, Replacement Housing Program, the standards of that program shall supersede these requirements; and Response: As discussed earlier, the proposal creates two lots for residential development and one lot for the tennis courts which will be deed restricted against any future development. The Subdivision process will accomplish the division for the third lot. The applicant commits that each lot will contain an accessory dwelling unit and the Planning Commission approved these proposed units with conditions (see Resolution #91-11.) c The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this article or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Sec. 8-104(C)(1)(a); and Response: In 1988, a previous owner proposed a PUD Plan with a Lot Split but abandoned the project before final approvals were granted. Therefore the current proposal meets this criteria. 2 .. d A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded 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 Article and growth management allocation pursuant to Art. 8. Response: The applicant has submitted a draft plat and will make final corrections to it as required by the Engineering Department and any conditions resulting from Council's Subdivision approval. As a single family residence is proposed for each lot resulting from this split, growth management allocations are not necessary. The Planning Office recommends the following conditions specific to the Lot Split application: 1. An Accessory Dwelling Unit must be included on each lot for which a residence is proposed as a requirement of this Lot Split. 2. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit for a residence on either lot, the Accessory Dwelling Unit must be deed restricted and comply with the conditions of approval contained in the Planning and Zoning Commission's Resolution #91-11. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the Subdivision and Final PUD with conditions. In addition, the Planning Office recommends approval of the Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split for the development of two residential parcels with conditions. ALTERNATIVES: The Council could elect to not approve the Lot Split, requiring the applicant to compete for two residential development rights. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have Second Reading of Ordinance 10 for approval of the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision, Final PUD Development Plan, and Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: "A" - 3/22/91 Staff Memo to Planning Commission including graphics and referral comments "B" - Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #91-11 Ordinance #10, Series 1991 for consideration jtkvj/ute1001.ccmemo 3 AA Attachment "A" .. f MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: 1001 Ute Avenue - 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling Units, and Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan (as consolidated two- step review) DATE: March 22, 1991 Summary: The Planning Office recommends approval of the 1001 Ute 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling Units, and Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan with conditions. Applicant: Peter Coventry, represented by Glenn Horn Location: 6.73 acres on Ute Avenue. uphill from and including the tennis courts leased by the Gant Condominiums. To the East is the Aspen Chance Subdivision and to the west is Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision and City-owned park land. Zoning: Land below the 8040 elevation is zoned R-15 PUD (109,110 s.f.). Land above the 8040 line is zoned C Conservation (7,480 s.f.). The portion of the parcel extending uphill from the city ; limits carries the county zoning of AF-1. Applicant's Request: This project requires several land use reviews. The Commission will be called upon to act on 8040 Greenline review and Conditional Use for the accessory dwelling units. The Commission will also forward a recommendation for GMQS Exemption for the affordable housing (A.D Subdivision/Planned Unit Development (PUD) to City Council. The applicant has requested that the PUD review, normally a four step process, be consolidated into two steps. In addition, the tennis court lot must receive GMQS Exemption from the Planning Director under Section 8-104 A.1.e. For the two residential lots, GMQS Exemption for Lot Split from City Council is needed under Section 8-104 C.1.a. Proposal: The applicant seeks to divide the portion of the parcel within the city limits into three lots, two to each contain a single family residence and accessory dwelling unit, and the third containing three tennis courts held in a long term lease by The Gant. The existing tennis courts will be moved to the west approximately 50 feet to accommodate the access drive to the homesites. The tennis courts are proposed to be deed restricted against further development and will be available for use as common open space by the two residential lots. This court area .. is not used to calculate density, floor area nor open space. The property outside of the city limits is proposed to be deed restricted against future development also. Please see Attachment "A" for application information, site and elevation sketches. Referral Comments: Attachment "B" contains the complete referral submissions. Highlights of these are as follows: Engineering: 1) The subdivision plat still lacks certain information about monuments, bearings, rebar, and Planning Director signature block. 2) Easements are required and shall be shown on the plat for the following: a 15' Spar Gulch drainage easement, aligned with the Midland r.o.w.; a waterline easement for the pipeline to the Linda Edwards property; trail easement as proposed by the applicant; and a 20' water easement proposed through Lot 1 to Aspen Chance. 3) Water pressure is adequate to this property. When this property is connected to the City's water system, any water rights associated with this property shall be conveyed to the City. 4) The applicant shall agree in writing on the plat to join the Ute Ave. Improvement District that is being formed to address the roadway, lighting, drainage, and snow removal/parking problems. 5) Calculations for the drywell must be submitted to the Engineering Department. 6) Parking space locations must be identified on the site plan/final plat. 7) Construction techniques for rockfall mitigation suggested by Nick Lampiris must be followed and inspected. 8) The USGS Avalanche Hazard map indicates the possibility of small avalanches occurring within the proposed building envelopes. Further study by an avalanche specialist is required in addition to Mr. Lampiris's information. 9) Recommendations by Chen-Northern concerning construction impacts on slopes, drainage, erosion control, and retaining walls must be followed and inspected during construction. 10) The driveway curb cut on Ute Ave. shall not exceed 18' in width. 2 .. , 11) The proposed cul-de-sac is inadequate for fire trucks turning radius. A 50' minimum radius is required. If parking is located on the cul-de-sac, more radius is required. If the radius cannot meet the appropriate dimension, the structures must be protected by fire sprinkler systems. 12) A trash service area must be shown on the plan. 13) There is a question regarding the tennis court as a separate lot because a 99 year lease exists for that area. Previous legal interpretation indicated that a 99 year lease constitutes a lot split in the intent of the Code. City Attorney: As per discussions with Jed Caswall, the existing lease for the tennis courts constitutes a subdivision under the definition in the Land Use Code. Therefore, the applicant has had to amend the proposal to include full Subdivision review. Please see Attachments "C" and "D" for Glen Horn' s change of request. County Planning: In discussions with Cindy Houben, the situation regarding the land in the County does not represent a problem, especially considering the owner's intent to deed restrict the land against any future development. Fire Marshall: As discussed in Engineering comments, the proposed radius of the cul-de-sac does not meet minimum turning requirements for fire trucks. Additional radius is required, otherwise the buildings must be sprinklered. Environmental Health: 1) By granting an easement for a nordic/bike trail, alternative transportation modes are encouraged, with potential benefits to air quality. 2) The Snowmelt driveway is not recommended because the energy required to operate it adds to global pollution and warming. If snowmelt is insisted upon, a solar powered system should be used. 3) Each home may contain two gas log fireplaces or one gas log and one certified woodstove, and unlimited numbers of natural gas fireplace appliances. 4) The applicant should contact this office for comment should mine waste or mine dumps be encountered. Proper handling on-site, as proposed by Chen-northern, is acceptable to this office. Two to three feet of clean fill material shall cover contaminated soils. Water: 3 .. 1) In order to comply with the criteria contained in Aspen's Water Main Extension Policy, this proposed addition should be looped into the existing water system. The applicant should work with the adjacent Aspen Chance subdivision to obtain an easement to allow a looping to occur in connection with the 6" line on Aspen Chance. If the looping effort fails, the Water Department would accept the proposed "dead end", 8" installation. 2) The fire hydrant at 1010 Ute can supply sufficient flow, pressure and volume to this proposed development. Sanitation District: 1) Minor downstream constraints will require the applicant's financial participation of approximately $6,000 in addition to the regular connection fees. 2) Two 4" service lines individually connected to the main or a manhole installation at the top of the driveway connecting the two 4" lines with a 6" shared service line to the main is acceptable. A shared service line agreement would be required for the latter option. Either option will require maintenance by the owner. 3) All clear water connections such as roof and foundation drains cannot enter the District's system. Surface run-off must be handled on-site or by the City's storm water system, if available. 4) All associated fees and agreements must be paid/recorded prior to connection onto the District's system. Staff Comments: 8040 Greenline Review As the proposed development is within 150 feet of the 8,040 elevation line, it must satisfy the standards of the Greenline review: 1) The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Response: The proposed location of the two homes is on a mine dump from the Lower Durant Tunnel. Upon final grading, the toxic soils will have to be capped with 2-3 feet of 4 .. clean soil fill and revegetated to' help prevent wind and water erosion. According to the Chen-Northern report submitted with the application, the possibility of mud and debris flows, mine subsidence, and major landslides is small. Nick Lampiris, in his 1989 letter, suggests designs for the rear walls to protect against occasional rock fall (see conditions of approval). 2) The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff,drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Response: A sizable increase of impervious surface results from this proposal. Historic drainage rates must be maintained through a drywell system or other detention methods. It appears that along the eastern side of the site, grading is carried onto the adjacent property and the swale created takes run-off away from the subject parcel. This situation must be changed. The applicant proposes granting to the City of Aspen a drainage easement uphill of the homesites to accommodate Spar Gulch run-off. During construction and revegetation periods, soil erosion techniques must be used to limit sediment deposition off- site. 3) The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. Response: The residences shall comply with all regulations pertaining to woodburning/gas devices. 4) The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Response: The proposed building sites will be on a graded, level area on the top of the mine tailings. The existence of the tennis courts precludes the homesites being located on the lower shelf. The proposed driveway serves the two residences, and is steep (10% to 12% grade). There is staff concern about the height and appearance of retaining walls required above the cul-de-sac and tennis courts. The visual impact of the wall behind the tennis courts is especially important as it is nearly at street level and will be highly visible. It will be up to 17 feet tall at the rear. Site sections and detailed drawings be submitted specific to these referenced walls. A trail easement is offered by the applicant and needs to be shown on the plat and development plan. 5) Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Response: As previously mentioned, the retaining walls required for the tennis courts and cul-de-sac are major impacts to the terrain. Consideration should be made to 5 .. raising the floor level of the courts, terracing, and landscape screening along the street to reduce the visual impact of the walls. Landscape treatment of the full length of the slope above the tennis courts is suggested., with shrubs and drooping formed plants cascading over the wall. This would help to reduce the impact of the abrupt changes to the topography. 6) The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Response: The existing conditions on the site (tennis courts, atypical shape, steep slopes) are real problems. The placement of the two homes is pretty much dictated to be on the upper shelf. The paved and landscaped entry to the tennis court seems too urban for this site, but the basic idea is a good one. Would a cinder path work as well? Also, it is questionable whether a 5' paved sidewalk along the 20' wide driveway is really necessary. 7) Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Response: The Â· applicant proposes that the architectural controls contained in the deed restrictions be those which are in effect for the neighboring Aspen Chance Subdivision. Materials allowed are wood siding, wood shingles, stone, and glass, in earth tones, with cedar shingles for pitched roofs. Elevation sketches of the north sides of the homes are provided but they are too conceptual to provide much insight to design. The application states that the level of the mine tailings will be significantly lowered, thus lowering the buildings on the hillside. It is unclear what the net impact will be as the application does not contain existing and proposed site sections. The height is proposed to be 25' from new grade, and will not exceed the height of the house at Lot 6 Aspen Chance. Maximum height in the R-15 zone is 25'. 8) Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Response: Referral comments from the Water Department indicate that water pressure and volume are adequate. Sewer is available with certain improvements to the main line as previously discussed. 9) Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Response: Ute Avenue is in poor condition. The Engineering Department requires that the applicant commit to joining the Ute Ave. Improvement District which is being formed to address necessary road widening, drainage improvements, 6 .. lighting, etc. 10) Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Response: A 20' wide snowmelt driveway is proposed. This will satisfy the Fire Marshal's office, but there is question as to the adequacy of the cul-de-sac radius for fire equipment. If both structures are protected by fire sprinklers, the 20' driveway and larger cul-de-sac are not required. The Engineering Department stated that the curb cut on Ute Ave. can only be 18' wide. 11) Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Response: The applicant commits to dedicating a 12' wide public trail/nordic ski easement corresponding with the existing nordic/pedestrian trail. This easement will be located on the land in the county which will be deed restricted against future development. Conditional Use As this proposal includes a subdivision exemption for a Lot Split, accessory dwelling units must be included in a[ny development occurring on these lots (Section 7-1003 A.2.c.) Accessory dwelling units are Conditional Uses in the R-15 zone. Section 5-508 establishes review standards .for these units. Exact building design and floorplans have yet to be developed. For the purposes of this review, the units are proposed to be located within the two residences. The following responses apply to these units: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located; and Response: Accessory dwelling units are consistent with the residential uses allowed in the R-15 zone. The City deems that affordable housing be provided when the impact of new development occurs. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and Response: Caretaker units will compliment the residential uses in the neighborhood. 7 .. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and Response: No additional visual impacts will result as the units Will be located inside the residences. Each unit Will be provided with one off-street parking space. The Engineering Department is working on implementation of an improvement program for Ute Ave., so any increase resulting from this development will be calculated and provided for. The site is approximately 5 blocks from the commercial core. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, Â· emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schoolsÂ·. Response: The proposed units will not increase needs for public facilities above and beyond the single family development. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. response: The accessory units will compensate for any employee generation resulting from the residential uses. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. response: These units comply with Council's goals for provision of affordable housing in residential areas. SUBDIVISION REVIEW STANDARDS The following standards shall be applied to proposed subdivisions. 1. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: This area is described as low density residential in the AACP. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Response: Existing uses in the neighborhood are low to medium density. This proposal is consistent with this pattern. C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Response: No adverse affects should occur as a result of this .. subdivision. One of the . aspects of this proposal is to deed restrict both the tennis court lot and the sloped area within the County against any further development as a measure to protect the character and environment of the surrounding area. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter. Response: The proposal is seeking PUD, 8040, and Conditional Use/GMQS approvals as required by the Land Use Code. 2. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitabilitv. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Response: Please see 8040 review discussion above for this information. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Response: No public inefficiencies Will result from this proposal. Access to the homes are via private drive. The applicant must commit to participate in any improvement district if formed. 3. Improvements. a. Required improvements. Response: The improvements such as property pins, water lines, fire hydrants, etc. as listed in this Code section shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. b. Approved plans. Construction shall not commence on any of the improvements required by Sec. 7-1004(C)(3)(a) until a plan, profile, and specifications have been received and approved by the City Engineer and, when appropriate, the relevant utility company. Response: Any required plans for the necessary improvements in Section 7-1004 C.3.a. must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 4. Design standards. The following design standards shall be required for all subdivisions. Except as discussed specifically below, the entire series of standards do not apply to this project, or have been addressed on the site plan. 9 .. a. Easements. (3) Potable water and sewer easements. Response: The Engineering Department will require a Spar Gulch drainage easement and two waterline easements to be shown on the plat. See referral comments above. (4) Planned utility or drainage system. Response: The applicant commits to dedicating an easement for drainage system traversing the south side of the property. (6) Fire lanes and emergencv access easements. Fire lanes and emergency access easements twenty (20') feet in width shall be provided where required by the City Fire Marshal. Response: The Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposal and states that the cul-de-sac radius is not adequate. Unless the radius can meet his requirement, all residences must be sprinklered. (8) Planned trail system. Whenever a subdivision embraces any part of a bikeway, bridle path, cross country ski trail or hiking trail designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan Map, an easement shall be provided to accommodate the plan within the subdivision. Response: As discussed, a 12' trail easement shall be dedicated on the part of this parcel in the county. c. Lots and blocks. Response: The plat shall include three lots: Lots 1 and 2 as residential, and Lot 3 being the tennis courts (deed restricted against any future development.) b. Utilities. Response: The applicant commits to complying with the easement and construction requirements of the utility agencies which serve this parcel. See referral comments. Also, historic drainage on site will'be maintained. Upon submission of a Final Plat for City approval, all of the standards of Section 7-1004(c) must be met, or it shall be denied. Sec. 7-1006. Subdivision Agreement. The following Code sections describe the elements required within a Subdivision Agreement. A. General. Prior to approval of Plat for a subdivision, the applicant and City Council shall enter into a Subdivision 10 .. Agreement binding the subdivision to any conditions placed on the development order. B. Common Park and Recreation Areas. The Subdivision Agreement shall outline any agreement on the part of the applicant, to deed public lands, open space, public facilities, and other improvements to the City or other entity. C. Landscave Guarantee. In order to ensure implementation and maintenance of the landscape plan, the City Council may require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements in the approved landscape plan, as estimated by the City Engineer, to ensure the installation of all landscaping shown and the continued maintenance and replacement of the landscaping for a period of two (2) years after installation. The guarantee shall be in the form of a cash escrow with the City, or a bank or savings and loan association, or an irrevocable sight draft or letter of commitment from a financially responsible lender and shall give the City the unconditional right upon demand to partially or fully complete or pay for any improvements or pay any outstanding bills, or to withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fully complete or pay for any improvements or pay for any improvement or pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party. As portions of the landscaping improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements, except that ten percent (10%) shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved, and an additional twenty-five percent (25%), which shall be retained until the improvements have been maintained in a satisfactory condition for two (2) years. D. Public Facilities Guarantee. In order to ensure installation Of necessary public facilities planned to accommodate the subdivision, the City Council shall require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the current estimated cost of such public improvements, as estimated by the City Engineer. The guarantee shall be in the form specified in Sec. 7-1006(c) and may be drawn upon by the City as specified therein. As portions of the public facilities improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements, except ten percent (10%) which shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved. 11 .. â€¢ 4 E. Recordation. The Subdivision Agreement and Plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the Plat within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the Plat invalid and reconsideration and approval of the Plat by the Commission and City Council will be required before its acceptance and recording, unless an extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. Planned Unit Development (PUD) The subject parcel has a PUD overlay and is subject to the following purpose and standards contained in Section 7-901. Section 7-903 C.3. allows for a two-step consolidated review. At the time the applicant and staff conducted the pre-application conference, it was staff's determination that the applicant should request the consolidated process. The reasons were that a four step review for a project with minimal community impact would be redundant and serve no public purpose. The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes greater variety in the type, design, and layout of buildings. B. Improves the design, character and quality of development. C. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services. D. Preserves open space to the greatest extent practicable. E. Achieves a compatibility of land uses; and F. Provides procedures so that the type, design, and layout of development encourages the preservation of natural and scenic features. PUD REVIEW STANDARDS 1. General Requirements. Response: As the PUD General Requirements are nearly the same as Subdivision, please see Subdivision General Requirements above. In addition, PUD General Requirements expect that: "Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the 12 .. extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant." Response: Although the project is going through a Subdivision review, the net result is to obtain development rights for two single family residences. Originally the applicant only sought a Lot Split (GMQS Exemption) to develop the two residences. The City Attorney ruled that the presence of the long-term tennis court lease constituted an existing subdivision, and only a Lot Split would therefore not be applicable. In light of this decision, it was decided by Planning staff that if a three lot subdivision was processed (two residential, one deed restricted against any future development rights), the Planning Director would grant a GMQS exemption for the project under Section 8-104 A.1.e. This language reads: All development not limited: All development not limited by the provisions of Section 8-103. (This section sets forth the Growth Management Quotas for Commercial, Lodge, and Residential uses.) In effect, the Planning Office recognizes the intent of the application to acquire two single family development rights and the problems encountered because of the tennis court lease. Staff acknowledges that as part of the proposal 4.05 acres of land in the county that are part of this parcel will be deed restricted against future site development (see 3/13/91 letter from Glenn Horn). The tennis court area (proposed Lot 3) will also be restricted against any future development. This solution appears to be a win/win proposition which will benefit both the applicant and the citizens of the community. When this application is forwarded to City Council, they will consider a GMQS Exemption for the two residential lots based on the standards for Lot Split. Although this appears to be a redundancy, staff wishes to consider the spirit of the owner's request as well as the intent of the growth management sections of the Code. 2. Density. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying Zone District. Response: The R-15 zone allows one house per 15,000 s.f. of lot area. Densities do not have to be reduced for this proposal for steep slopes as per the consulting Landscape Architect. There are no other density reductions required for this parcel. 3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying Zone District. Response: Detached residential units are permitted in the R-15 zone. They may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but that is not a request of the applicant. 13 .. 1 D 4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying Zone District except through a PUD variation process. Any variation permitted shall be clearly indicated on the final development plan. Response: A variation to the R-15 side setback is being requested for the east side of Lot 1. 10 feet is required, 5 feet is requested. Staff feels that since the lot line is being established as part of a new subdivision, the line should adjusted now rather than allowing a variation. 5. Off-street parking. Response: 14 spaces are being provided on site. These must be identified on the recorded PUD plan. No variations are being sought. 6. Open Space. Response: No open space requirement exists in the R-15 zone. However, this proposal calls for the lot containing the tennis courts to be used by the residents as open space. It shall be deed restricted against any future development. Additionally, of the 6.7 acres in this parcel, 4.05 acres are in the County. The applicant commits to deed restrict this land area against any future site development. As required by the Code, "any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned facilities." 7. Landscape Plan. Response: The applicant submitted a landscape plan as part of this application. Please see discussion of landscape treatment in the 8040 section above. A less urban treatment of the pedestrian entry at the tennis courts is recommended by staff. 8. Architectural Site Plan. Response: As discussed in the 8040 standards, the designs of the two homes will use the architectural guidelines for the Aspen Chance Subdivision. This will steer designs toward use of appropriate materials, roof pitches, etc. to harmonize with the surrounding area. 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Response: The applicant commits to complying with this standard. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. Response: The two homes are both set on the shelf created by the tailings pile. This is a relatively clustered arrangement. 11. Public Facilities. The proposed development shall be 14 .. designed so that adequate public facilities Will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public Cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Response: According to comments from Engineering, the Fire Marshal and utilities, basic needs are met except where noted and conditioned. 12. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation. Response: As discussed in referral comments, vehicular access is acceptable with conditions. Staff would like a reconsideration of pedestrian access, that being a less "urban" treatment on the entry, and even removal of the sidewalk along the driveway. The additional pavement seems excessive given the width of the private drive. It will also require plowing in the winter to keep it useful. 13. Final Development Plan. Response: The applicant has provided an acceptable plan for review purposes. Staff has requested some additional site section information from the architect and this should be available at the meeting if not sooner. Sec. 7-904. PUD Agreement. The following information is required to be filed concurrently with the PUD Development Plan and Subdivision Plat. As the Subdivision Agreement is a similar document, the Agreement could be a consolidation of the two as long as all required information and commitments are contained within. A. General. Upon approval of a Final Development Plan for the Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant and City Council shall enter into a Planned Unit Develop- ment (PUD) Agreement binding the PUD to any conditions placed on the development order. B. Common Park and Recreation Areas. The PUD Agreement shall outline any agreement on the part of the ap- plicant, to deed to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the Planned Unit Development (PUD), an undivided interest in all common park and recreations areas, together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. C. Landscape Guarantee. In order to ensure implementation and maintenance of the landscape plan, the City Council may require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred twenty-five percent ( 125%) of the current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements in the approved landscape plan, as estimated by the 15 .. City Engineer, to ensure the installation of all landscaping shown and the continued maintenance and replacement of the landscaping for a period of two (2) years after installation. The guarantee shall be in the form of a cash escrow with the City, or a bank or savings and loan association, or an irrevocable sight draft or letter of commitment from a financially responsible lender and shall give the City the uncon- ditional right upon demand to partially or fully complete or pay for any improvements or pay any outstanding bills, or to withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fully complete or pay for any improvements or pay for any improvement or pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party. As portions of the landscaping improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements, except that ten percent Â· ( 10%) which shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved, and an additional twenty- five percent (25%), which shall be retained until the improvements have been maintained in a satisfactory condition for two (2) years. D. Public Facilities Guarantee. In order to ensure installation of necessary public facilities planned to accommodate the development, the City Council shall require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the current estimated cost of such public improvements, as es- timated by the City Engineer. The guarantee shall be in the form specified in Sec. 7-904(c) and may be drawn upon by the City as therein specified. As portions of the public facilities improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements, except that ten percent (10%) which shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved. Staff Recommendations: GMQS Exemption/Conditional Use: The Planning Office Recommends approval of Conditional Use for one Accessory Dwelling Unit in each residence with the following conditions: 1. Each accessory dwelling unit shall contain not less than 300 16 .. - and not more than 700 square feet of net livable area and be located within or attached to a principal residence. It shall meet the housing designee's guidelines for such units, is required to be deed restricted by Owner, to meet the definition of a Resident Occupied Unit and be rented for period of six months or longer. The Owner of the principal residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling unit. Occupancy of the accessory dwelling unit is not mandatory. The tenant shall meet the definition of a working resident and is qualified by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority prior to occupancy. For purpose of this provision, a unit shall be considered rented if it is occupied pursuant to a lease or rental agreement which requires a payment by the tenant of more than a nominal amount of rent. 2. Prior to issuance of any building permits for construction of each residence, the applicant shall provide a deed restriction to the Housing Authority for approval. The restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and shall be rented for periods of six months or longer. Upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Authority, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office. 3. A copy of the recorded deed restrictions must be forwarded to the Planning Office. 8040 Greenline: The Planning Office recommends approval of 8040 Greenline review with the following conditions: 4) The grading plan must be changed so that any grade alterations must be completely contained within the property lines of this parcel. 5) When this property is connected to the City's water system, any water rights associated with this property shall be conveyed to the City. 6) Calculations for the drywell must be submitted to the Engineering Department. 7) Construction techniques for rockfall mitigation suggested by Nick Lampiris must be followed and inspected. These techniques include: the rear foundation walls should be designed to protrude at least four feet above finished grade and be without doors or windows on the up-slope sides; they should be able to withstand 200 lbs/s.f.. Positive landscaping should be done at the rear of the homes during or shortly after construction. 8) Further study by an avalanche specialist is required in 17 .. addition to Mr. Lampirists information. 9) Recommendations by Chen-Northern concerning construction impacts on the slopes, drainage, erosion control, and retaining walls must be followed and inspected during construction. 10) The mine waste/tailings must be capped with 2-3' of clean soil fill. Subdivision: The Planning Office recommends approval of subdivision with the following conditions: 11) All plat requirements as stated in Section 7-1004 C. and D. shall be shown on plat prior to approval by the Engineering Office. 12) Any required plans for the necessary improvements in Section 7-1004 C.3.a. must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 13) Easements for Spar Gulch drainage, 12' nordic/pedestrian trail, and two waterlines, as described in Engineering's referral comments must be shown on the plat. 14) The applicant shall agree in writing on the plat to join the Ute Ave. Improvement District that is being formed to address the roadway, lighting, drainage, and snow removal/parking problems. 15) The Subdivision Agreement and Plat must be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval by City Council. Failure to do so will render the approvals invalid. PUD Development Plan: The Planning Office Recommends approval of this development plan with the following conditions: 16) The lot line separating Lots 1 and 2 shall be moved to the east approximately 5 feet so that the Lot 1 side setback can be achieved without a variation. 17) Fourteen parking spaces must be identified on the Final Development Plan. 18) The driveway curbcut on Ute Ave. shall not exceed 18' in width. 19) A trash service are must be shown on the plan. 20) Gas Fireplaces and wood stoves must be certified and approved through the Environmental Health department. 21) A 50' minimum radius for the cul-de-sac is required. If the 18 .. radius cannot meet the appropriate dimension, the structures must be protected by fire sprinkler systems. 22) The pedestrian access shall be redesigned to be less urban in character. The sidewalk adjacent to the driveway shall be eliminated. 23) The applicant shall participate in improvements in the Sanitation Department's lines by a payment of $6,000.00 (in addition to the regular connection fees. 24) All clear water connections such as roof and foundation drains cannot enter the District's system. Surface run-off must be handled on-site or by the City's storm water system, if available. 25) Sewer lines/connections shall meet the approval of the Sanitation District. All associated fees and agreements must be paid and recorded prior to connection onto the District's system. 26) The tennis court lot shall be reconfigured to remove the extraineous area to the west of the pedestrian access point. 27) A Final Development.Plan and PUD Agreement must be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval by City Council or the approval will be rendered invalid. Attachments: "All- Proposed PUD Development Plan, Plat, "B"- Comments from Referral Agencies "C"- 3/13/91 letter from Glenn Horn regarding Subdivision process "D"- 3/18/91 letter from Glenn Horn to Tim Whitsitt/Cindy Houben 19 i iÂ· ./ 2 4.-44 4 : 1 '\I\/LL.: 1.. 2 S 2 4 j ,/67 3 7 5 -- / 8.Nuâ€ž.ArsAL,#MWD :yq !11 \>,~Ir /1 ~13 \ / 1 1 1 it \ RA<Â·.f. <\Â·Â·. -9542*fl+11 ~061 1 ' 2*Ad'H"'L' 0 i'b /r)2. .'. ~ ...5:GH~'fr-.f#rifNJIK,\,4 Ilit 1 * thip'\\ ./1 \4.44 \\\\ 03\124 Â·,1 ~~..25 j, 3 1 - 292)Ii I %\ 9 \ . 4\ \ - - - h. If \ A C- -9'6'. .f.'a,;23...2(1936~S::-5~/-'-4 ,-- %:,2 %\6\ \\ilii~\9\ 1 '' \ ..1,0*(I)(J~?, .Obt\\ 1/.//l~ Ii;,//til~ \ \ 3 1 \\\ \\\\ i \\\ \ 1 Ab * \~* \\\ ifum ~Â·u/-44127 1 /N// 4, .14..El' 11:--- . $\34\ ..~/ 1 4//1// 61.f-41/ 1 6 2 lili 11\111\\\\ \ 1 1 1 1 11 '51 \<\\24--4 i ihi';,A./{ liA 'f /.01 i"1.- i GE '1 't 9 444Nhk 94 C // 4\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\ \\ \ 0 4\\\\\1 =4 1 2/ 1 11114Â·,+44,4444 1,11111 I l ili 9 0.30 4 i.4 AEY 4 1\' \\ 1 \\\\~i lÂ«~\A \\ *11\41*EM##2---3:lirki#t.*Chrjki'j"Ti , , 1 . "'" ' ' '2 4'hUr 2. Al, 2 j 2,,1 hi'.I I\~1 1' ' rrfim Pr*V...A Â·. .. lilli \ 1 \ \ 1/ 1 /1 1 - -9$.lifirgitj i 1 1 11 4 --- ---2 - ...-911.&7) Â« i Â¥ Z â‚¬ "~ 12523.7 1...i- n_ ATTACHMENT "A" 16.202-El M.r: ==rE - . . B --- . --I -- 3 g ltl \\%,\\\\\\\ M\\\\\\\ \\\\ 1 , \\\\ \\\ 1\\l\ f fvi~ ~~ ~~ j 1 E\ 1\ 1 l \ \ \ - r , Z 1124 71(/1 ( 1\1 / 1 /n / 01 0/ ' \\ .....jl, ' . gr(' r~--=:m=31/ '.1 " lk:, \, i \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\4 \\4 . \ )>,\1 '4*..1 1/1- 1 11 1 -IB'\1/1/ i/ / 11 11 .JI l// // //,-rlito t./ ia\, \1..,t':1~ \ , \\.'\\\\\ / Iii lilli /4 / c LÂ»tiAÂ«-1 . f:'11 111 Mi 1 ~,-7~47*4<- jbf/~/~///~F-* \4 / ~ il~i lill\1/hf Win'1111\\\\4 4 I dll l,, ; 1 ' I'lh!; il/~â€žÂ·11â€ž//, F '\2*66, i,. r p l)'.~El\'li, lii 1*\1\'1 'iIi 't~ hii'Ii{ )4 1 i. li! I FIW*j :1 111 j 11 Â· 42..l ..~Â·91' I ijl i' ! 1\'\li\\,1 i 1.4 i / /l/,u j , 41/ 11/ iii. 7 3 8 11 1.,1 0 1 VI, t :\I \ 1-\ ...1 \ \\\ 11 \.\\\\\9<993\ l/,/ t. %I,(1~-1.~.t\\.-~1~4\% )\\\ \ \1 \,\ / \4 \4 \ ld'\ i i#11\\i\4 li\ \\ \\\ \\\\ \\t\\\\ )%\ 9~2 , fÂ»k__Â»911Â»504Â»46Â« ~FI,<I<#2"~~~\ ~~~f~~~Y~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ <~>~ ~ *~ C: C ARb,"-,0 ,?140' \\ \\4\\ %\. j \\<-----= *\2-* . -JI,pll~Â·. .2,.\UtuÂ». .16 .:%. \\402 \ \)\ \\\\\\\\j\\ \24\\ // \Rt\.\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\ --4- 611 1.>2-----.02-~42.--/76.2.2.- I \ \ \,\ \\ \\\\\\\\\\\3. Â» ~~l~~~i~vjt~-fi~ J~PtUUIUtif~~ ~~~~h~~)~~~ A,VA All,priÂ· 3 ,â€ž1 , RA,,i*#41 r: 1144-1- ' \ \ \Or\\\\\\\\\3 M-Ill~ \Â«- / 11 a ' -//1- 140>:fit\9444342<\\ \~\i::t- 1 \BAi i\\\\\4-5.4 j - . '~~~<#14\ 1\ 1\â€žfi~( ,<~~~~~~~\~~~~ ~~~~ TÂ»HLe---- /1Â»36*1~3, %4tfil \Jii 1 1 ......U b ....11# 1\ \ \\ i lit- "- 1 j'~: , , 9 1/ & 0 qi \i\ i~\ filiji I 'Ud \ 44 '\ 1. 1 \ 0/41. ;A.\41* Lu>0-'r -r -3544/39 h 43Â»s:ti\\\ fri iit'. / *i \4 f- 1 whhid, lit . 1 ' / / ' - / 1 ir. 1.1 1 1 iii 0 / . % ..1. 2 ..00- 1001 UTE AVENUE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION ......... '4 42' O I. â€¢ ...... '- 14,2, " . ${1 -â€¢ C-O.-M-â€¢' SITE PLAN . \ .....1 1 wt>Â· \ k LOT 1 \ 8.4. 4 E.VE'.K 43 r 71 1 h \ I, Fm ~VIVÂ« La,1,1~ C~ -0 1-11, \ F. 7 \ AMENDED >7* / â‚¬2\ . COUNTY \~ TENNIS iq PARCEL ' Â·- \ COURT ' a >/6. U \ i \ - -/3 1 il 4 LEASE \ LOT 2 1 . 4 172â€¢ 1 . \ *............ fi L 9 \ j .1 14.1 6 LOT 2 \ : lei . 9 \ 1 .12 1./ 'i ,.9-3/ i . 1 11 1 iii ! 1 raÂ» E-floPE ir- Z . 9 . /" 3. rf-% - 11 . 8 1 41 11 . 9. 5 1 \\\ r----*--.4 /1 ......0., , 1. 00, 6--1-7 1. . AL . 1 iIi 4 U i i ...1.- 1.~.. 1 1 I _ 1Ly'~'a'.11~ te"1l,Ifi - ' -r-Ii'louy?1.. Â· - -1- --- La 0 ! i .'- ---.- i i-- , .. I,â€ž,1 ,Â£Clu "~"-- P#- \ .. I . N .. - ! 3AN3AY 310 . ATTACHMENT 1/8// V . MEMORANDUM TO: *Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbatd, Engineering Department *> DATE: January 3, 1991 RE: 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split, Consolidated PUD, 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use Review and GMQS Exemption Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The draft of the final subdivision plat which was submitted still needs the following information: a. A description of all survey monuments both found and set. b. A statement explaining the basis for bearings. c. A certificate showing approval by the Planning Director. d. The statement about the No. 4 rebar must read that it must be set prior to recording of the final plat ,- or prior to issuance of any building permit, depending on the timing. 2. Water and Fire Departments confirmed that there will be ~ sufficient water pressure. When water service is connected, it is required that the applicant convey to the City any water rights that are included with the ownership of this property. The Engineering Department utility location map indicates there . is access to all other utilities at this location. 3. The applicant needs to agree to join the Ute Avenue Improvement District that is presently being formed. This district will address road widening, Street lighting, parking as it relates to snow removal and drainage problems which relate to road maintenance. This agreement needs to Me shown on the plat. 4. The Engineering Department has a question about the portion of this parcel that is in the County. Is this part of the lot split? Also, should the area of the tennis court lease be a separate lot? In previous instances, legal staff has advised that a 99 year lease constitutes a lot split in . the intent of the Code. .. 5. The report by Robert Fletcher indicates that the proposed drywell Will maintain the historic drainage. The Engineering Departmeht will need the calculations which support that report. 6. The Spar Gulch drainage easement the applicant proposes to grant to the City needs to be shown on the plat. This easement needs to be 15 feet in width and needs to be aligned with the Midland railroad right-of-way. 0.- . 7. The Engineering Department recommends a water easement across the northwest corner of the property for 1" pipeline to the*Linda Edwards property. a -8.Â·The slope density reduction analysis calculations done by a registered surveyor which were submitted meet- the requirements of this section. 9. The existing traffic circulation on Ute Avenue is poor, -- especially in the winter time. If the applicant agrees to join the Ute Avenue Improvement District, this problem will be addressed. -- -10. The applicant has given a conceptual outline o f how the development will be served by the appropriate publiq facilities to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. 11.* The detailed plan submitted by the applicant needs to shoi, the .location of proposed off-street paFking. The applicant has proposed 14 off-street parking spaces but the location of all of these-spaces is not shown. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 12. The applicant needs to show the trail easement he is proposing to grant on the plat. 13. The applicant needs to show the 20 foot water easement that is being proposed through lot 1 to the Aspen Chance on the plat. 14. The recommendation made in the report by Nick Lampiris on rock fall mitigation must be followed and this must be substantiated before final inspection. n 15. The USGS Avalanche Hazard map shows that the proposed ~building envelopes are located within an area where there is potential for .small avalanches. The Engineering Department requires a recommendation on avalanche potential for this area from a consultant specializing in this field in addition to the one submitted by Nick Lampiris. 4 . 16. The following recommendations made in the report by Chen-Northern, Inc. need to be followed and this must be substantiated at appropriate times during the building permit and inspection process: a. Mitigation of construction induced slope instability. b. Mitigation. of flooding and debris flow potential. c. Drainage for the proposed driveway and the two structures. d. Revegetation for erosion control. e. Concerning cut and fill of the driveway and for the structures. f. Construction of the retaining wall for the driveway. 17. The Engineering Department confirms that there is adequate ingress and egress. The.applicant hasÂ·proposed to construct a 20 foot wide driveway which is what the * requirement is for emergency access. However, Code requires that there can be only an 18 curb cut for this driveway, so : it is recommended that the 20 foot wide drive be necked down at Utd Avenue. 18. The proposed cul-de-sac has an inadequate turning radius for fire trucks. This must be increased to 50 feet. If the applicant proposes the additional off-street parking for this cul-de-sac, then the radius needs to be increased even more. Because the location of this cul-de-sac would make it difficult to make this size increase, it is recommended that the structures have fire protection sprinkler systems installed which would eliminate the need for fire truck access. 19. The applicant needs to show the location of proposed a trash area. jg/1001ute cc: Chuck Roth .. JAN 3 1.-; 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning FROM: Yvonne Blocker, Housing DATE: December 28, 1990 RE: 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split; Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use Review, and GMQS Exemption Parcel ID # 2737-182-00-063 SUMMARY: Applicant proposes to subdivide a portion of the project site which consist of approximately 293,160 sq. ft. into two single family lots. The proposed lots are to be located in the portion of the site currently occupied by mine tailings from the Lower Durant Tunnel. APPLICANT: Neil Myers APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Davis Horn Incorporated LOCATION: Site is bordered by Ute Avenue to the north, City of Aspen Park and Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision to the-east, Aspen Mountain to the south, and Aspen Chance Subdivision to the east. ZONING: Portion located in Pitkin county is AF-1 and the Portion located in the City of Aspen is zoned R-15 (PUD) and C (Conservation). REQUEST: Applicant requests Residential GMQS Exemption for a Lot : Split pursuant to Section 8-104(C)-(a), Residential GMQS Exemption for the Accessory Dwelling Units as per Section 8-104(B) (d), Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split as per Section 7-1003 (A) (2), Consolidated Planned Unit Development as per Section 8-903, Development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) 8040 Greenline Review as per Section 7-503, and Conditional Use Approval for the Accessory Dwelling Units as per Section 5-508. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR LOT SPLIT - Applicant requests subdivision exemption for a lot split pursuant to Section 8-104(C)(a) which allows the development of one (1) detached residential dwelling on a vacant lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977 pursuant to Section 7-1003 In order to be eligible for this exemption the property need not contain any development on the original lot: .. Section-7-1003 (a)(2) requires that the split of a lot for the purpose of the development of only one detached single-family dwelling on a lot by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, were all of the following conditions 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; Applicant has provided information that the lots as proposed for the split are undeveloped land with no prior approvals from either City of County. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split; both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district and the applicant commits that any lot for which development is proposed will contain an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Applicant has requested approval for the development of an accessory dwelling unit for each lot to be constructed within the main residence. Applicant provides information on page 47 of the submission that ~ " the data in Table 2 indicate that 10,270 square feet may be constructed in the PUD distributed between the two lots". Also, applicant provides informationÂ· that the requirements of one space/bedroom will be met for a total of fourteen spaces which would indicate that the two lots will contain a combined total.of fourteen bedrooms. However, other then this information, applicant does not provide the actual proposed square footage of the two residential dwelling units to determine that the underlying zone requirements are met as to square footage not. to exceed 6,600 square feet of floor area for a lot of 15,000 - 50,000 sq. ft. Applicant requests approval be granted for the construction of one accessory dwelling unit per lot as per Section 5-508 which requires that the accessory dwelling unit shall not be subject to the minimum lot area requirement of Art. 5, Div. 2., but shall be subject to all other underlying zone district. Parking shall not be required if the unit is a studio or one bedroom unit, but one (1) parking space shall be prÂ©vided on-site if the unit contains two ( 2)Â· bedrooms and one ( 1) additional space shall be required for each additional two (2) bedrooms in the unit. The Accessory Dwelling Units shall contain not less than 300 square feet of net livable area and be located within or attached to a principal residehce. It shall meet the housing designee's guidelines for. such units, meet the definition of a Resident Occupied Unit and be rented for periods of six months or longer. The owner of the principal residence shall have the right to place .. aÂ· qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the Accessory Dwelling Unit. Applicant has not provided any information as to the net livable square footage of the accessory dwelling units. HOUSING RECOMMENDATION: Housing requests approval for one accessory dwelling unit per lot for the 1001 Ute Avenue PUD Subdivision application based on the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall be required to provide actual floor plans of the accessory dwelling units to determine location, net livable square footage, and bedroom count. 2. The Accessory Dwelling Units shall be required to meet the definition of "dwelling unit" as per Aspen City Code to be a separately enterable, self-sufficient room or combination of rooms which contain a kitchen and bath facilities and which are designed for or used as a residence by a single family or residents. The 'dwelling units shall be independent of other family or guests. 3. A site inspection shall be- performed by representatives of the Housing and Zoning offices to determine that all above requirements are met*prior to final inspection by Building department. 4. Applicant shall be required to provide a deed restriction as to form as per Section 5-508 of the Aspen City Code for approval by the Housing Office and shall be required to record approved deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office prior to issuance of any building permits for.the approved lots. .. MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planner Planning Office From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director Environmental*Health Department Date: October 18, 1989 Re: 1001 Ute Ave. 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use Review for Accessory Dwelling Unit and GMQS Exemption. Parcel ID# 2737-182-00-063 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above-mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This conforms with Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to ' areas that are not feasible for public sewers". ADEOUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the munici- pal water utility system". AIR QUALITY: construction: The applicant has indicated in the submittal that there will be major reconstruction of the site. This Will involve redistribution of mine tailings and relocation/rebuilding of the existing tennis courts. The applicant may be required to develop a fugitive dust control plan to address windblown dust since the site is larger than 5 acres (one of the criteria for developing such a plan as defined in the Colorado Air Oualitv Control Regulations and Ambient Air Quality Standards, Regulation 1). Prior to construction the applicant shall contact this office for a final determination of this requirement. .. 1001 Ute 8040 Greenline Review October 18, 1989 Page 2 Solid Fuel Burning Devices: The application states "The proposed residence will contain no wood burning devices. Gas fireplaces and/or certified gas appliances, however, may be installed." As. o f the date o f this review, such a commitment will offer compliance with current solid fuel burning ordinances. As of this date each building can have one certified wood stove, one gas log and unlimited gas appliances. Further, all such devices must be registered with this office. Prior to development of the dwellings the project proponents should review the status of applicable laws since they have changed frequently. NOISE: Short term noise impacts can be anticipated to be felt in the immediate neighborhood during excavation and construction. Long term negative noise impacts are not anticipated after construction. However, should noise complaints be received by this office, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, titled Noise Abatement will be the document used in the investigation. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS: None that are applicable from this office. CONTAMINATED SOILS: The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. This is not a' requirement, but simply a request based on past experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative impacts to humans. The soil report from Chen-Northern, Inc revealed lead levels in the soil ranging from 213 to 16,600 parts per million (ppm). This is not uncommon given the concentration of mine waste present on the site. Given that, precautions should be taken by anyone working, and ultimately living on the site to not inhale or ingest soils containing such high levels of lead (those over 1,000 ppm). It will be the suggestion of this office that the applicant become familiar with the remediation standards recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency for the Smuggler Mountain Hazardous Waste Site. Similar lead concentrations in soils exist at Smuggler Mountain which .. 1001 Ute Subd Exemption December 12, 1990 Page 2 However, use of a driveway snowmelt system has a large negative air quality benefit. This is due to the contribution of natural gas to global warming (or electricty generation if an electric snowmelt system were used). Snowmelt systems use a very large amount of energy to accomplish a task which can be done in other, more environmentally beneficial ways. We would strongly encourage the applicant to forego the use of such a system. If a snowmelt system is insisted on, we urge the applicant to use a solar snowmelt system instead of a gas or electric one. While this site does not have good sun exposure, the applicant should investigate the use of solar collectors or solar panels to melt the snow on driveways. Another measure which would minimize the air quality impacts of this.project would be use of high-efficiency compact fluorescent lights both inside and outside the project. These lights use so much less Â· energy that they result in less air pollution from electricity generation. Each of the two buildings (containing a single family home and attached caretaker unit) is allowed two gas log fireplaces (or one gas log fireplace and one certified woodstove) and unlimited numbers of natural gas fireplace appliances. NOISE: Ch Noise generated during construction will have an impact on the /(\' immediate neighborhood. However, long term impacts are not anticipated given the resideritial use of the property. Should this office receive complaints, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code - Noise Abatement, will be the document used in the investigation. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: Â·Â·~4~ None that are enforced by this o ffice. CONTAMINATED SOILS: 1Â«. The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment 4\/ ~ should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative impacts to humans. .. 1001 Ute Subd Exemption December 12, 1990 Page 3 This office has had conversations with the applicant regarding the proper handling of soils on the site which contain greater than 1000 parts per million (PPM) lead. The applicant is familiar with the Environmental Protection Agency recommended remedy for soils with similiar contamination at the base of Smuggler Mountain. The remedy proposed in the Chen-Northern, Inc reports which recommends the retention on-site Of all contaminated material, and covering the contaminated soils with clean fill material to a depth of between 2 and 3 feet is acceptable to this office. Clean fill shall not have concentrations of lead above 250 PPM. This is the same remedy suggested in the October 18, 1989 8040 Greenline Review done by this office on the same property. .. 1001 Ute 8040 Greenline Review october 18, 1989 Page 3 generated toxicological reports and remedy suggestions. The observation by Chen-Northern Geologist to retain all "contaminated soils and mine waste on-site and providing an imported noncontaminated soil to cap the materials" to a depth of 2 to 3 feet, is in conformance with recommendations of this office. .. MEMORANDUM TO: KIM JOHNSTON, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: LARRY BALLENGER, WATER DEPARTMENT,~-1 DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1990 g SUBJECT: 1001 UTE AVENUE I have reviewed the Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Exemption Application from FMG Incorporated. The Water Department has the same concern with this application as it has with the 1986 and 1988 Submittals. If a developer is going to extend a water main within the City of Aspen or the Aspen Water Service Area, that water main extension must follow the criteria established--in Aspen's Water Main Extension Policy. Specifically, looping the new system into an existing system. In the past, the developer was not able to reach agreement with the neighboring property, "The ,Aspen Chance", to obtain an easeinent to effect a connection with the existing 6" installation on their property. FMG President, Neal Myers, developed the Aspen Chance property. Since he is developing the 1001 Ute property, maybe a way can be found to now loop this proposed system. Kim, if this water system looping would be the only hold on this property, I would permit the proposed "dead end", 8" installation. The Water Departmdnt would like to see the looped system, but we also appreciate the hassals of obtaining easement/right-of-ways on private property. Fire hydrant 742, located at 1010 Ute Avenue, flows at 2985 gallons per minute with a static head Of 82.0 PSI. There would be sufficient flows, pressures, and volumes to supply this development. LB:11 .. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 22, 1991 GRANBTING SUBDIVISION, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A LOT SPLIT, AND FINAL PUD PLAN APPROVAL AND VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT FOR 1001 UTE AVENUE was read by the city clerk Kim Johnson, planning office, told Council the applicant is seeking development rights for two single family residences and to establish a third lot to encompass tennis courts occupaying a long term lease by the Gant. P&Zis recommending approval of final PUD and subidiviosn. P&Z approved 8040 greenline reivew and conditional use for addessory dwelling units. Ms. Johnson said the lease on the tennis courts constitutes a de facto subdivison already and this project cannot come back for a lot split as intended. Staff included the two-step subdivision process to allow for a 3 lot division and subdivison exemption for 2 development rights for the single family dwellings. In 1988 this lot was reviewed under 8040 greenline for one single family house. Before that this was taken through conceptual but was abandoned before final approval. glenn Horn told Council in 1985 an applicant came in for a GMP allocation for 4 free market and 4 employee units. This was denied after it failed to meet the threshold. Rich Neiley, representing the applicant, told Council the tennis court lease was in place in the late 1970's when other applications were filed. The interpretation was that this lease constituted a lot split. The tennis courts will be deed restricted as will a separate parcel in the county against further development rights. Horn pointed out the mine tailings start behind the tennis courts and go up steeply. The houses will sink down into the tailings rather than sit up on top of them. The tailings will be covered as required by environmental health department. The tailings will be dug out and regraded. Horn told Council they would like to understand how the sanitation district has come up with the $6,000 charge before second reading. Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #10, Series of 1991, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Gassman, yes; Peters, yes; Pendleton, yes; Tuite, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. 10 .. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AND RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION AND FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE 1001 UTE AVENUE PROJECT Resolution No. 91-11 WHEREAS, Peter Conventry submitted an application for 8040 Greenline review, Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling Units, Subdivision, Final PUD Development Plan, and Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split for the parcel located at 1001 Ute Avenue, a metes and bounds parcel which is a portion of the 1001 mining claim; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Department, Environmental Health Department, Sanitation District, Fire Marshal, Pitkin County Planning, and the City Attorney reviewed the application and forwarded referral comments to the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office reviewed the referral comments and forwarded to the Commission a recommendation for approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission met on April 2, 1991 at a noticed public hearing and having considered the < to approve 8040 Greenline review and Conditional Use pursuant to Planning Office's recommendation and referral comments, voted 7-0 Sections 7-503 and 5-508 of the Aspen Land Use Code with conditions; and WHEREAS, with the same 7-0 vote the Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended to City Council approval Of Subdivision and Final PUD Development Plan with conditions pursuant to the standards in Division 9 and 10 of the Aspen Land Use Code. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission approves 8040 Greenline review for 1001 Ute Avenue with the following conditions: 1) The grading plan must be changed SO that any grade alterations must be completely contained within the property lines of this parcel. 2) When this property is connected to the City's water system, any water rights associated with this property shall be conveyed to the City. 3) Calculations for the drywell must be submitted to the Engineering Department. 4) Construction techniques for rockfall mitigation suggested by Nick Lampiris must be approved and inspected by staff. Positive drainage should be done at the rear of the homes 1 .. during or shortly after construction. 5) Prior to issuance of any building permits, further study by an avalanche specialist is required in addition to Mr. Lampiris's information. 6) Recommendations by Chen-Northern concerning construction impacts on the slopes, drainage, erosion control, and retaining walls must be followed and inspected during construction. 7) The mine waste/tailings must be capped with 2-3' of clean soil fill. ALSO BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission approves Conditional Use for an accessory dwelling unit on each of the two proposed residential lots with the following conditions: 1) Each accessory dwelling unit shall contain not less than 300 and not more than 700 square feet of net livable area and be located within or attached to a principal residence. It shall meet the housing designee's guidelines for such units, is required to be deed restricted by Owner, to meet the definition of a Resident Occupied Unit and be rented for period of six months or longer. The Owner of the principal residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling unit. Occupancy of the accessory dwelling unit is not mandatory. The tenant shall meet the definition of a working resident and is qualified by the Aspen/Pitkin County r. Â¢ 1 Housing Authority prior to occupancy. For purpose of this provision, a unit shall be considered rented if it is occupied pursuant to a lease or rental agreement which requires a payment by the tenant of more than a nominal amount of rent. 2) Prior to issuance of any building permits for construction of each residence, the applicant shall provide a deed restriction to the Housing Authority for approval. The restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and shall be rented for periods of six months or longer. Upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Authority, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office. 3) A copy of the recorded deed restrictions must be forwarded to the Planning Office. ALSO BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission forwards a recommendation to City Council for approval of Subdivision and Final PUD Development Plan approval. 2 .. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 8, 1991. Attesti planning Aod pepin4 Commission: 1i Lky utt,2,~1Â£061 ,- Oltp (rtÂ» Jan C ,"'ney, Deputy Ci~* Clerk Welton Ander~o< Chairman jtkvj/utelool.reso 3 f(i .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 1991 Chairman Welton Anderson call meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. MINUTES MARCH 12. 1991 Bruce Kerr made a motion to approve minutes of March 12, 1991. Mari Peyton seconded the motion with all in favor except Jasmine who was not in attendance at that meeting. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Kim: Clarification on Seymour project: I haven't brought back a reso to you yet so that technically there is an approval in place but no documentation of that. I was wondering if the Commission had any feelings about allowing a permit to be pulled specific to improving the small miner's cottage prior to the platting efforts that would then be tied to the building permit for the main residence. There was general concensus of approval for this. Kim: I would just amend the language in the resolution to reflect this clarification. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PUD CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW OF 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Kim Johnson made presentation as attached in record. Roger: On this I see there are 2 lots in the same parcel. Kim: The applicant realizes that extension right along Ute Ave is an awkward situation. What they propose is moving the .. PZM4.2.91 pedestrian access--erasing that little spur off of Lot 2 there and making it contiguous to the real Lot 2 which contains the building envelope. It will end up being all of one Lot 2. What they had to do was provide pedestrian access through here so what they had left was this little thing which they call Lot 2. What they are going to end up doing most likely is move the access somewhere along in here so that Lot 2 actually comes around and wraps down around here. Roger: In other words you are surrounding the tennis courts which I assume is Lot 3? Kim: That will need to be called Lot 3. We will have to apply a legal description to it. Welton: Is there a place in the conditions where we can add "That easement shall exist and is not going to run next tot he adjoining property but will run adjacent to the roadway or adjacent to a 45 degree roughly from the tennis courts". Kim: Condition #26 on page 19 of the memo describes the tennis court lot being reconfigured to remove extraneous areas to the west of the pedestrian accessway. We could add another sentence that says "An access easement shall be including along the entry drive or adjacent to the entry drive". Glenn Horn, representative for applicant: That sounds great. MOTION: Glenn: We have a few comments. Condition #7. This is our recommendation from Nick Lamparis who is the consulting geoligist for US. He suggested that there be foundation walls that protrude 4ft above finish grade and there be no doors or windows on the up-slope side of the house. That is going to present problems for us. What we would like to do is try to work with Nick to come up with some other way to retain potential rock fall that might come down the hillside into this yard. We would like to be able to have access from the house out the back door into the back yard and we are thinking that perhaps we could come up with another way to mitigate the potential rock fall through a retaining wall or rock wall up in this area here above the yard. We are asking for some flexibility to come up with some other recommedation that would take care of this potential rock fall problem. 2 .. PZM4.2.91 Welton: Does anybody have a problem with allwoing them the flexibility to work with their engineer to come up with additional techniques for rock fall? Kim: I would prefer not to see major wall structure. If they are talking about access at the rear of the house perhaps some kind of entry court with a brick wall or something that might look more part of the structure. That is major construction to put walls all along the back there. Rick Neiley, representing applicant: Certainly if we were proposing to put in a major rertaining wall I think we have to come back in for reconsideration on the 8040 because that would be an additional improvement. That is not our intention. Our intention is to have the flexibility and may be that when they look at it and the letter from Nick says it is a minimal hazard. He may say if we are 4ft up, you can put windows up there. We don't want to preclude thepossibility of having ingress and egress back there or having some light come into the back of the house. We don't mind compying with the engineer's recfommendation as far as construction techniques and mitigation. But we don't want to be stuck with one alternative. Sara: I feel strongly about that look of that retaining wall. I think that would be unfortunate. Rick: My understanding would be if we proposed additional improvements which would require a building permit that is different from what is approved that we would have to come in for reconsideration of the 8040 Greenline Review. ' Kim: That is true. What about eliminating the second sentence describing those specific techniques. And then Nick can submit that to you and you can forward to us his updated report. Bruce: So we would add after the word "inspected" add something like "And approved by staff" and eliminate the second sentence and keep in the third sentence about the landscaping. Kim: Right. Should we change landscaping to drainage? Glenn: That would be fine with us. Then Condition #8--this request about the avalanche study has come up before when this application was looked at. Nick says in his letter that there is very minor chance of avalanche on this site. Showed pictures of very old Spruce trees right behind the mine tailings. You can see from the Spruce 3 .. PZM4.2.91 trees there is certainly little likelyhood of an avalanche on this site. It doesn't seem to make sense to do an avalanche study when it is obvious the avalanche shute is not avbove this property. Welton: I don't want to delete #8 because you never can tell when an avalanche is going to prove us to be fools. Roger: It wouldn't hurt for an avalanche expert to write off on the thing saying there is no avalanche problem Richard: It is right on the edge of the shute that we discussed when we were talking about the Hoag application. So I think it would be worth having somebody inspect it and make a statement about any danger. Kim: We would need thatbefore building permit issuance. Glenn: On item #13--the Spar Gulch drainage for the Nordic Trail and the water lines. We would have described on the plat, but we didn't know where the City line is. Kim: I think it would have to be to their satisfaction so you need to get back with them when you have some conceptual things worked out. Glenn: Then on #17--we don't think we can get 14 off street parking spaces. We think we can get 12 on there. There was agreement on 1 per bedroom or 12 parking spaces. Glenn then presented evidence of public notice. (attached in record) Welton opened thepublic hearing and asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. Roger: I am still unhappy with the ammended 26. You got rather specific as to where that trail was going to be on that northern flag of Lot 2. I would prefer that be left open saying that easement shall be provided across the northern flag of Lot 2 to provide for access to the tennis courts. Rick Neiley: That is all right with us. 4 .. PZM4.2.91 MOTION Welton: I will entertain a motion to approve conditional use for one accessory dwelling unit in each residence with the conditions of #1 through #3 in accordance with the Planning Office memo dated March 22, 1991. (Attached in record) Approve 8040 Greenline Review with th4e conditions #4 through #10 as amended. #7 from the same memo. Approve Subdivision with the conditions #11 through #15 from the same memo. Approve PUD Development plan with the conditions #16 through #27 with #17 and #26 being revised as amended. Richard: I so move. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. ASPEN MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL GMOS, FINAL SPA AND REZONING Welton opened the public portion of the hearing. Amy Margerum, Planning Office: Made presentation as attached in record. Parry Harvey: The Masterplan that yu have seen before with the access and the single families--this evolved basically from analyzing the perspective of what it is like when you are inside the dampus. To keep everyting up ont he bluffs, on theedges of the property and to keep thisopen feeling when you are moving back and forth between the meeting facilities, music tend the lodge facilities. To keep the residential to the edge of the campus to thepaved area here and as an attachment maintaining the same architectural style there and the sam ething with the new lodging facilities. This needs the Conceputal approval and meets the Masterplan in that 7th St is now the access. It comes through North St ROW, comes across part of Charlie Marquesee's land. We will give back to Charlie the required land so that his non-conforming lot doesn't get any morenon-conforming. It comes up and paralells the row of Cottonwoods. The existing Meadows Rd will be saw cut and re-into a 12 ft wide trail with vegetation on the side of it. Thises driveways are going to be combined so that there is fewer driveways coming across than there are currently accessing Meadows Rd. 5 .. PZM4.2.91 The new road then re-joins the existing Institute and Meadows Rd at this point at the beginning of the property on the west side. The Institute will go throught he parking structure and their new buildings will go through the tennis townhomes and give you site plans and elevations on that. We will go through the additions to the Trustee Houses and how the parking is laid out in the site plan. The City is purchasing 25 acres referred to as the Conservation Land. We are suggesting that we create 4 SPA's. The reason for this--when you have an SPA youy have to ave every one of the land owners in the SPA agreeing to an application for any change. For example if Physics 5 years down the road wanted to do a research library and they wanted to add a new building 6 Â«li, ' #â€ža,A s-I,r~ir.Â·230~ ....32:~~PelliliffilifpfR3$Wfra<4.~-I~~â‚¬~94..44 36 -' ~ ~.Lf*f :7.-:3Â·.1Â·.nÂ·:3~ ..~c~tcÂ·'jc4iiÂ»L.,re -41 -~. 9. .,2 2.1.-Al. 341 ..0 - DEC 1 3 1990 4,-#444.u irtl~~au:41Â§1,enÂ· 6-014Â§0lidiftfdÂ»a#Qwmylll:JlstticlUii-.-.ia.=-=~ . -, . '-9-33- P". 1 -Â· v Â·, --Aspen, Coloidilo'81611-Â·':44'.1- . .,4-7,5. Â·---:. - Â·-- â€¢.*IJ. 44,rele. (303) 925-3601 x Â· â€¢'te*~16*4;..0-W, Tele. (303) 925-2537---- --Â· Â·:Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·-r.Â·;eÂ·--December 119-531990 ---Â£Â· t...,tÂ·Â·49-1- r :,--3-374.k-t*#,kB&(AK=-44&c<4Â¥43 ARÂ·42.- Â·.,; 3.:.:<.....2=AM>,n-Â·-* Â·.ij-Â·0----Â·:9'----'' ~'. .41:14-2*â‚¬1 .' # '~a I /'1'.DE...Sd:= 2. Â· - Planning Off ice - , - -I '' I 'Â·,â‚¬'Â¥,C ./rÂ·v. I * 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 av . 4#*29*,R e : i#10 00 1 R U t e''j A v e nu e * L o t?1 S p l, i t. ide**4222 4 i K 4W R A k mwhÂ»â€¢Y*0%Â¥*0â‚¬_*-hig . - : = Â·.Â· : . I.1 7*. ; v - 4â€ž74 4 Dear Kim: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has ;sufficient-- line and treatment,-capacity +to serve this project. 0.:2 -. *A:Â·u-.:.~ Thereare ~.â€ž_minor>downstream n:constraints,in the Uter Avenue main - ---I..2- that>-would requite the applicant' s :financial participation.Â«Â·The to 0 ' be applicant's share of this expense . is estimated approximately $6000. This cost would be in addition to our r'egu,tar'connection fees. - ---#'-<---- Â· ~.74.---'Â».. Â·Â·Â·-.9:9 0 3 The District would normally require the development to be served by a short 8" line extension terminating somewhere near- the * building footprints, but due to the significant surface improvements that are being considered within and adjacent to the ~ private-driveway, we will approve connection by either bringing two 4" service lines down the driveway, each individually tapped into our collection system located in Ute Avenue, or installing a manhole at the top of the driveway with two 4" service lines tapped into the manhole and the manhole connected to our main in , - Ute- Avenue by way of a 6" shared service line. In the latter case the District requires the completion of a shared service line agreement, copies of which are available at the District offices. In both cases the lines would be considered private service lines - maintained by the owner. All clear water connections such as roof and foundation drains cannot be connected tO the District's system. burrace run-off must be collected and treated on-site or handled by the City's 4-2--'4*.~Â·4*-5**!stormÂ·*waterwcollection'Â·system,tri fi.-ava i lable. 4*gs.eÂ«>*4*j*t*k,Â°9.2,Â· :*444-&4Â¢YS'l*~AÂ»CEÂ»,- 1- All-assoAiated fees must be--paid and agreements recorded prior> to connection to=the District;system. Sincerely, '~1Â»-u,~~'LAG-#ip Bruce MatherUy District Manager cc: Glenn Horn. 300 E. Hyman. Aspen, CO .. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council 0 rj THRU: Carol O' Dowd, City Managet>62 THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director ~/4 FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: April 22, 1991 RE: 1001 Ute - Subdivision, Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split, and Final PUD Development Plan Review SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision and Final PUD Development Plan with conditions. The Planning Office recommends approval of Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split with conditions. COUNCIL GOALS: This process addresses goal #14 which stresses consistent and fair government process. BACKGROUND: This parcel has been reviewed for various land use applications in the last several years including a 8040 Greenline review, GMQS for a four lot subdivision, PUD and lot split. The only approval granted was for 8040 Greenline for the construction of one residence. No development has occurred at the site resulting from this approval. When this current application was submitted for a lot split, the City Attorney determined that the long term lease on the tennis courts held by The Gant Condominiums constitutes a defacto subdivision under the language of the land use code. Therefore, staff has processed this project using the two-step Subdivision criteria to legitimize the three lot proposal. However, the one-step Lot Split process is also being pursued in order to allow for exemption from growth management for only two residences as provided in Section 8-104 A.1.c. The applicant seeks only two single family development rights, so the third lot (tennis courts) will be deed restricted against any future development as a Growth Management Exemption by the Planning Director. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 2, 1991 and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Subdivision and the consolidated Final PUD Development Plan. In addition, the Commission approved with conditions 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling Units. Resolution # documents these approvals and recommendations. See Attachment "B". .. further information regarding rockfall mitigation and avalanche potential. They also want Lot 2 reconfigured below the tennis courts and an access easement between the road and the courts. The applicant accepts the conditions approved by the Commission. STAFF COMMENTS: As mentioned, this project is rather unique in that the applicant only seeks to develop two residences, but must follow the more detailed Subdivision process because of the existence of the 99 year tennis court lease. Because a typical lot split process secures two development rights for single family dwellings without Growth Management competition, staff and the applicant decided to include a lot split request to accomplish this goal. Section 7-1003 A.2 establishes review criteria for Lot Splits: 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; and Response: The title commitment show that this parcel is a portion of the 1001 mining claim and is an unplatted parcel created before the City's subdivision regulations. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district and the applicant commits that any lot for which development is proposed will contain an Accessory Dwelling Unit. When there is demolition on the property which makes it subject to the provisions of Art. 5, Div. 7, Replacement Housing Program, the standards of that program shall supersede these requirements; and Response: As discussed earlier, the proposal creates two lots for residential development and one lot for the tennis courts which will be deed restricted against any future development. The Subdivision process will accomplish the division for the third lot. The applicant commits that each lot will contain an accessory dwelling unit and the Planning Commission approved these proposed units with conditions (see Resolution # c The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this article or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Sec. 8-104 (C) (1) (a) ; and Response: In 1988, a previous owner proposed a PUD Plan with a Lot Split but abandoned the project before final approvals were granted. Therefore the current proposal meets this criteria. d A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor Will additional units be built without 2 .. these lots nor Will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Article and growth management allocation pursuant to Art. 8. Response: The applicant has submitted a draft plat and will make final corrections to it as required by the Engineering Department and any conditions resulting from Council's Subdivision approval. As a single family residence is proposed for each lot resulting from this split, growth management allocations are not necessary. The Planning Office recommends the following conditions specific to the Lot Split application: 1. An Accessory Dwelling Unit must be included on each lot for which a residence is proposed as a requirement of this Lot Split. 2. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit for a residence on either lot, the Accessory Dwelling Unit must be deed restricted and comply with the conditions of approval contained in the Planning and Zoning Commission's Resolution #91- RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the Subdivision and Final PUD with conditions. In addition, the Planning Office recommends approval of the Lot Split for the development Of two residential parcels with conditions. ALTERNATIVES: The Council could elect to not approve the Lot Split, requiring the applicant to compete for two residential development rights. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have First Reading of Ordinance /0 for the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision, Final PUD Development Plan, and Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: "A" - 3/22/91 Staff Memo to Planning Commission including graphics and referral comments "B" - Planning and Zoning Commission Draft Resolution #91- Ordinance / 0 for consideration jtkvj/ute1001.ccmemo 3 AA Attachment "A" MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: 1001 Ute Avenue - 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling Units, and Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan (as consolidated two- step review) DATE: March 22, 1991 Summary: The Planning Office recommends approval of the 1001 Ute 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling Units, and Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan with conditions. Applicant: Peter Coventry, represented by Glenn Horn Location: 6.73 acres on Ute Avenue. uphill from and including the tennis courts leased by the Gant Condominiums. To the East is the Aspen Chance Subdivision and to the west is Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision and City-owned park land. Zoning: Land below the 8040 elevation is zoned R-15 PUD (109,110 s.f.). Land above the 8040 line is zoned C Conservation (7,480 s.f.). The portion of the parcel extending uphill from the city limits carries the county zoning of AF-1. Applicant's Request: This project requires several land use reviews. The Commission will be called upon to act on 8040 Greenline review and Conditional Use for the accessory dwelling units. The Commission will also forward a recommendation for GMQS Exemption for the affordable housing (A.D Subdivision/Planned Unit Development (PUD) to City Council. The applicant has requested that the PUD review, normally a four step process, be consolidated into two steps. In addition, the tennis court lot must receive GMQS Exemption from the Planning Director under Section 8-104 A.1.e. For the two residential lots, GMQS Exemption for Lot Split from City Council is needed under Section 8-104 C.1.a. Proposal: The applicant seeks to divide the portion of the parcel within the city limits into three lots, two to each contain a single family residence and accessory dwelling unit, and the third containing three tennis courts held in a long term lease by The Gant. The existing tennis courts will be moved to the west approximately 50 feet to accommodate the access drive to the homesites. The tennis courts are proposed to be deed restricted against further development and will be available for use as common open space by the two residential lots. This court area .. is not used to calculate density, floor area nor open space. The property outside of the city limits is proposed to be deed restricted against future development also. Please see Attachment "A" for application information, site and elevation sketches. Referral Comments: Attachment "B" contains the complete referral submissions. Highlights of these are as follows: Engineering: 1) The subdivision plat still lacks certain information about monuments, bearings, rebar, and Planning Director signature block. 2) Easements are required and shall be shown on the plat for the following: a 15' Spar Gulch drainage easement, aligned with the Midland r.o.w.; a waterline easement for the pipeline to the Linda Edwards property; trail easement as proposed by the applicant; and a 20' water easement proposed through Lot 1 to Aspen Chance. 3) Water pressure is adequate to this property. When this property is connected to the City's water system, any water rights associated with this property shall be conveyed to the City. 4) The applicant shall agree in writing on the plat to join the Ute Ave. Improvement District that is being formed to address the roadway, lighting, drainage, and snow removal/parking problems. 5) Calculations for the drywell must be submitted to the Engineering Department. 6) Parking space locations must be identified on the site plan/final plat. 7) Construction techniques for rockfall mitigation suggested by Nick Lampiris must be followed and inspected. 8) The USGS Avalanche Hazard map indicates the possibility of small avalanches occurring within the proposed building envelopes. Further study by an avalanche specialist is required in addition to Mr. Lampiris's information. 9) Recommendations by Chen-Northern concerning construction impacts on slopes, drainage, erosion control, and retaining walls must be followed and inspected during construction. 10) The driveway curb cut on Ute Ave. shall not exceed 18' in width. 2 .. 11) The proposed cul-de-sac is inadequate for fire trucks turning radius. A 50' minimum radius is required. If parking is located on the cul-de-sac, more radius is required. If the radius cannot meet the appropriate dimension, the structures must be protected by fire sprinkler systems. 12) A trash service area must be shown on the plan. 13) There is a question regarding the tennis court as a separate lot because a 99 year lease exists for that area. Previous legal interpretation indicated that a 99 year lease constitutes a lot split in the intent of the Code. City Attorney: As per discussions with Jed Caswall, the existing lease for the tennis courts constitutes a subdivision under the definition in the Land Use Code. Therefore, the applicant has had to amend the proposal to include full Subdivision review. Please see Attachments llc" and "D" for Glen Horn' s change of request. County Planning: In discussions with Cindy Houben, the situation regarding the land in the County does not represent a problem, especially considering the owner's intent to deed restrict the land against any future development. Fire Marshall: As discussed in Engineering comments, the proposed radius of the cul-de-sac does not meet minimum turning requirements for fire trucks. Additional radius is required, otherwise the buildings must be sprinklered. Environmental Health: 1) By granting an easement for a nordic/bike trail, alternative transportation modes are encouraged, with potential benefits to air quality. 2) The Snowmelt driveway is not recommended because the energy required to operate it adds to global pollution and warming. If snowmelt is insisted upon, a solar powered system should be used. 3) Each home may contain two gas log fireplaces or one gas log and one certified woodstove, and unlimited numbers of natural gas fireplace appliances. 4) The applicant should contact this office for comment should mine waste or mine dumps be encountered. Proper handling on-site, as proposed by Chen-northern, is acceptable to this office. Two to three feet of clean fill material shall cover contaminated soils. Water: 3 .. 1) In order to comply with the criteria contained in Aspen's Water Main Extension Policy, this proposed addition should be looped into the existing water system. The applicant should work with the adjacent Aspen Chance subdivision to obtain an easement to allow a looping to occur in connection with the 6" line on Aspen Chance. If the looping effort fails, the Water Department would accept the proposed "dead end", 8" installation. 2) The fire hydrant at 1010 Ute can supply sufficient flow, pressure and volume to this proposed development. Sanitation District: 1) Minor downstream constraints will require the applicant's financial participation of approximately $6,000 in addition to the regular connection fees. 2) Two 4" service lines individually connected to the main or a manhole installation at the top of the driveway connecting the two 4" lines with a 6" shared service line to the main is acceptable. A shared service line agreement would be required for the latter option. Either option will require maintenance by the owner. 3) All clear water connections such as roof and foundation drains cannot enter the District's system. Surface run-off must be handled on-site or by the City's storm water system, if available. 4) All associated fees and agreements must be paid/recorded prior to connection onto the District's system. Staff Comments: 8040 Greenline Review As the proposed development is within 150 feet of the 8,040 elevation line, it must satisfy the standards of the Greenline review: 1) The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Response: The proposed location of the two homes is on a mine dump from the Lower Durant Tunnel. Upon final grading, the toxic soils will have to be capped with 2-3 feet of 4 .. clean soil fill and revegetated to help prevent wind and water erosion. According to the Chen-Northern report submitted with the application, the possibility of mud and debris flows, mine subsidence, and major landslides is small. Nick Lampiris, in his 1989 letter, suggests designs for the rear walls to protect against occasional rock fall (see conditions of approval). 2) The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff,drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Response: A sizable increase of impervious surface results from this proposal. Historic drainage rates must be maintained through a drywell system or other detention methods. It appears that along the eastern side of the site, grading is carried onto the adjacent property and the swale created takes run-off away from the subject parcel. This situation must be changed. The applicant proposes granting to the City of Aspen a drainage easement uphill of the homesites to accommodate Spar Gulch run-off. During construction and revegetation periods, soil erosion techniques must be used to limit sediment deposition off- site. 3) The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. Response: The residences shall comply with all regulations pertaining to woodburning/gas devices. 4) The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Response: The proposed building sites will be on a graded, level area on the top of the mine tailings. The existence of the tennis courts precludes the homesites being located on the lower shelf. The proposed driveway serves the two residences, and is steep (10% to 12% grade). There is staff concern about the height and appearance of retaining walls required above the cul-de-sac and tennis courts. The visual impact of the wall behind the tennis courts is especially important as it is nearly at street level and will be highly visible. It will be up to 17 feet tall at the rear. Site sections and detailed drawings be submitted specific to these referenced walls. A trail easement is offered by the applicant and needs to be shown on the plat and development plan. 5) Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Response: As previously mentioned, the retaining walls required for the tennis courts and cul-de-sac are major impacts to the terrain. Consideration should be made to 5 .. raising the floor level of the courts, terracing, and landscape screening along the street to reduce the visual impact of the walls. Landscape treatment of the full length of the slope above the tennis courts is suggested., with shrubs and drooping formed plants cascading over the wall. This would help to reduce the impact of the abrupt changes to the topography. 6) The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Response: The existing conditions on the site (tennis courts, atypical shape, steep slopes) are real problems. The placement of the two homes is pretty much dictated to be on the upper shelf. The paved and landscaped entry to the tennis court seems too urban for this site, but the basic idea is a good one. Would a cinder path work as well? Also, it is questionable whether a 5' paved sidewalk along the 20' wide driveway is really necessary. 7) Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Response: The applicant proposes that the architectural controls contained in the deed restrictions be those which are in effect for the neighboring Aspen Chance Subdivision. Materials allowed are wood siding, wood shingles, stone, and glass, in earth tones, with cedar shingles for pitched roofs. Elevation sketches of the north sides of the homes are provided but they are too conceptual to provide much insight to design. The application states that the level of the mine tailings will be significantly lowered, thus lowering the buildings on the hillside. It is unclear what the net impact will be as the application does not contain existing and proposed site sections. The height is proposed to be 25' from new grade, and will not exceed the height of the house at Lot 6 Aspen Chance. Maximum height in the R-15 zone is 25'. 8) Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Response: Referral comments from the Water Department indicate that water pressure and volume are adequate. Sewer is available with certain improvements to the main line as previously discussed. 9) Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Response: Ute Avenue is in poor condition. The Engineering Department requires that the applicant commit to joining the Ute Ave. Improvement District which is being formed to address necessary road widening, drainage improvements, 6 .. lighting, etc. 10) Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Response: A 20' wide snowmelt driveway is proposed. This will satisfy the Fire Marshal's office, but there is question as to the adequacy of the cul-de-sac radius for fire equipment. If both structures are protected by fire sprinklers, the 20' driveway and larger cul-de-sac are not required. The Engineering Department stated that the curb cut on Ute Ave. can only be 18' wide. 11) Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Response: The applicant commits to dedicating a 12' wide public trail/nordic ski easement corresponding with the existing nordic/pedestrian trail. This easement will be located on the land in the county which will be deed restricted against future development. Conditional Use As this proposal includes a subdivision exemption for a Lot Split, accessory dwelling units must be included in any development occurring on these lots (Section 7-1003 A.2.c.) Accessory dwelling units are Conditional Uses in the R-15 zone. Section 5-508 establishes review standards for these units. Exact building design and floorplans have yet to be developed. For the purposes of this review, the units are proposed to be located within the two residences. The following responses apply to these units: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located; and Response: Accessory dwelling units are consistent with the residential uses allowed in the R-15 zone. The City deems that affordable housing be provided when the impact of new development occurs. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and Response: Caretaker units will compliment the residential uses in the neighborhood. 7 .. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and Response: No additional visual impacts will result as the units Will be located inside the residences. Each unit Will be provided with one off-street parking space. The Engineering Department is working on implementation of an improvement program for Ute Ave., so any increase resulting from this development will be calculated and provided for. The site is approximately 5 blocks from the commercial core. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: The proposed units will not increase needs for public facilities above and beyond the single family development. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. response: The accessory units will compensate for any employee generation resulting from the residential uses. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. response: These units comply with Council's goals for provision of affordable housing in residential areas. SUBDIVISION REVIEW STANDARDS The following standards shall be applied to proposed subdivisions. 1. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: This area is described as low density residential in the AACP. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Response: Existing uses in the neighborhood are low to medium density. This proposal is consistent with this pattern. C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Response: No adverse affects should occur as a result of this .. subdivision. One of the aspects of this proposal is to deed restrict both the tennis court lot and the sloped area within the County against any further development as a measure to protect the character and environment of the surrounding area. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter. Response: The proposal is seeking PUD, 8040, and Conditional Use/GMQS approvals as required by the Land Use Code. 2. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Response: Please see 8040 review discussion above for this information. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Response: No public inefficiencies Will result from this proposal. Access to the homes are via private drive. The applicant must commit to participate in any improvement district if formed. 3. Improvements. a. Required improvements. Response: The improvements such as property pins, water lines, fire hydrants, etc. as listed in this Code section shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. b. Approved plans. Construction shall not commence on any of the improvements required by Sec. 7-1004(C)(3)(a) until a plan, profile, and specifications have been received and approved by the City Engineer and, when appropriate, the relevant utility company. Response: Any required plans for the necessary improvements in Section 7-1004 C.3.a. must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 4. Design standards. The following design standards shall be required for all subdivisions. Except as discussed specifically below, the entire series of standards do not apply to this project, or have been addressed on the site plan. 9 .. a. Easements. (3) Potable water and sewer easements. Response: The Engineering Department will require a Spar Gulch drainage easement and two waterline easements to be shown on the plat. See referral comments above. (4) Planned utility or drainaqe system. Response: The applicant commits to dedicating an easement for drainage system traversing the south side of the property. (6) Fire lanes and emergency access easements. Fire lanes and emergency access easements twenty (20') feet in width shall be provided where required by the City Fire Marshal. Response: The Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposal and states that the cul-de-sac radius is not adequate. Unless the radius can meet his requirement, all residences must be sprinklered. (8) Planned trail system. Whenever a subdivision embraces any part of a bikeway, bridle path, cross country ski trail or hiking trail designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan Map, an easement shall be provided to accommodate the plan within the subdivision. Response: As discussed, a 12' trail easement shall be dedicated on the part of this parcel in the county. c. Lots and blocks. Response: The plat shall include three lots: Lots 1 and 2 as residential, and Lot 3 being the tennis courts (deed restricted against any future development.) b. Utilities. Response: The applicant commits to complying with the easement and construction requirements of the utility agencies which serve this parcel. See referral comments. Also, historic drainage on site will be maintained. Upon submission of a Final Plat for City approval, all of the standards of Section 7-1004(c) must be met, or it shall be denied. Sec. 7-1006. Subdivision Agreement. The following Code sections describe the elements required within a Subdivision Agreement. A. General. Prior to approval of Plat for a subdivision , the applicant and City Council shall enter into a Subdivision 10 .. Agreement binding the subdivision to any conditions placed on the development order. B. Common Park and Recreation Areas. The Subdivision Agreement shall outline any agreement on the part of the applicant, to deed public lands, open space, public facilities, and other improvements to the City or other entity. C. Landscape Guarantee. In order to ensure implementation and maintenance of the landscape plan, the City Council may require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred twenty-five percent ( 125%) of the current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements in the approved landscape plan, as estimated by the City Engineer, to ensure the installation of all landscaping shown and the continued maintenance and replacement of the landscaping for a period of two (2) years after installation. The guarantee shall be in the form of a cash escrow with the City, or a bank or savings and loan association, or an irrevocable sight draft or letter of commitment from a financially responsible lender and shall give the City the unconditional right upon demand to partially or fully complete or pay for any improvements or pay any outstanding bills, or to withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fully complete or pay for any improvements or pay for any improvement or pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party. As portions of the landscaping improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements, except that ten percent (10%) shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved, and an additional twenty-five percent (25%), which shall be retained until the improvements have been maintained in a satisfactory condition for two (2) years. D. Public Facilities Guarantee. In order to ensure installation of necessary public facilities planned to accommodate the subdivision, the City Council shall require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the current estimated cost of such public improvements, as estimated by the City Engineer. The guarantee shall be in the form specified in Sec. 7-1006(c) and may be drawn upon by the City as specified therein. As portions of the public facilities improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements, except ten percent (10%) which shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved. 11 .. E. Recordation. The Subdivision Agreement and Plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the Plat within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the Plat invalid and reconsideration and approval of the Plat by the Commission and City Council will be required before its acceptance and recording, unless an extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. Planned Unit Development (PUD) The subject parcel has a PUD overlay and is subject to the following purpose and standards contained in Section 7-901. Section 7-903 C.3. allows for a two-step consolidated review. At the time the applicant and staff conducted the pre-application conference, it was staff's determination that the applicant should request the consolidated process. The reasons were that a four step review for a project with minimal community impact would be redundant and serve no public purpose. The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes greater variety in the type, design, and layout of buildings. B. Improves the design, character and quality of development. C. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services. D. Preserves open space to the greatest extent practicable. E. Achieves a compatibility of land uses; and F. Provides procedures so that the type, design, and layout of development encourages the preservation of natural and scenic features. PUD REVIEW STANDARDS 1. General Requirements. Response: As the PUD General Requirements are nearly the same as Subdivision, please see Subdivision General Requirements above. In addition, PUD General Requirements expect that: "Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the 12 .. extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant." Response: Although the project is going through a Subdivision review, the net result is to obtain development rights for two single family residences. Originally the applicant only sought a Lot Split (GMQS Exemption) to develop the two residences. The City Attorney ruled that the presence of the long-term tennis court lease constituted an existing subdivision, and only a Lot Split would therefore not be applicable. In light of this decision, it was decided by Planning staff that if a three lot subdivision was processed (two residential, one deed restricted against any future development rights), the Planning Director would grant a GMQS exemption for the project under Section 8-104 A.1.e. This language reads: All development not limited: All development not limited by the provisions of Section 8-103. (This section sets forth the Growth Management Quotas for Commercial, Lodge, and Residential uses.) In effect, the Planning Office recognizes the intent of the application to acquire two single family development rights and the problems encountered because of the tennis court lease. Staff acknowledges that as part of the proposal 4.05 acres of land in the county that are part of this parcel will be deed restricted against future site development (see 3/13/91 letter from Glenn Horn). The tennis court area (proposed Lot 3) will also be restricted against any future development. This solution appears to be a win/win proposition which will benefit both the applicant and the citizens of the community. When this application is forwarded to City Council, they will consider a GMQS Exemption for the two residential lots based on the standards for Lot Split. Although this appears to be a redundancy, staff wishes to consider the spirit of the owner's request as well as the intent of the growth management sections of the Code. 2. Density. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying Zone District. Response: The R-15 zone allows one house per 15,000 s.f. of lot area. Densities do not have to be reduced for this proposal for steep slopes as per the consulting Landscape Architect. There are no other density reductions required for this parcel. 3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying Zone District. Response: Detached residential units are permitted in the R-15 zone. They may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but that is not a request of the applicant. 13 .. 4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying Zone District except through a PUD variation process. Any variation permitted shall be clearly indicated on the final development plan. Response: A variation to the R-15 side setback is being requested for the east side of Lot 1. 10 feet is required, 5 feet is requested. Staff feels that since the lot line is being established as part of a new subdivision, the line should adjusted now rather than allowing a variation. 5. Off-street parking. Response: 14 spaces are being provided on site. These must be identified on the recorded PUD plan. No variations are being sought. 6. Open Space. Response: No open space requirement exists in the R-15 zone. However, this proposal calls for the lot containing the tennis courts to be used by the residents as open space. It shall be deed restricted against any future development. Additionally, of the 6.7 acres in this parcel, 4.05 acres are in the County. The applicant commits to deed restrict this land area against any future site development. As required by the Code, "any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned facilities." 7. Landscape Plan. Response: The applicant submitted a landscape plan as part of this application. Please see discussion of landscape treatment in the 8040 section above. A less urban treatment of the pedestrian entry at the tennis courts is recommended by staff. 8. Architectural Site Plan. Response: As discussed in the 8040 standards, the designs of the two homes will use the architectural guidelines for the Aspen Chance Subdivision. This will steer designs toward use of appropriate materials, roof pitches, etc. to harmonize with the surrounding area. 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Response: The applicant commits to complying with this standard. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. Response: The two homes are both set on the shelf created by the tailings pile. This is a relatively clustered arrangement. 11. Public Facilities. The proposed development shall be 14 .. designed SO that adequate public facilities Will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Response: According to comments from Engineering, the Fire Marshal and utilities, basic needs are met except where noted and conditioned. 12. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation. Response: As discussed in referral comments, vehicular access is acceptable with conditions. Staff would like a reconsideration of pedestrian access, that being a less "urban" treatment on the entry, and even removal of the sidewalk along the driveway. The additional pavement seems excessive given the width of the private drive. It will also require plowing in the winter to keep it useful. 13. Final Development Plan. Response: The applicant has provided an acceptable plan for review purposes. Staff has requested some additional site section information from the architect and this should be available at the meeting if not sooner. Sec. 7-904. PUD Agreement. The following information is required to be filed concurrently with the PUD Development Plan and Subdivision Plat. As the Subdivision Agreement is a similar document, the Agreement could be a consolidation of the two as long as all required information and commitments are contained within. A. General. Upon approval of a Final Development Plan for the Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant and City Council shall enter into a Planned Unit Develop- ment (PUD) Agreement binding the PUD to any conditions placed on the development order. B. Common Park and Recreation Areas. The PUD Agreement shall outline any agreement on the part of the ap- plicant, to deed to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the Planned Unit Development (PUD), an undivided interest in all common park and recreations areas, together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. C. Landscape Guarantee. In order to ensure implementation and maintenance of the landscape plan, the City Council may require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements in the approved landscape plan, as estimated by the 15 .. City Engineer, to ensure the installation of all landscaping shown and the continued maintenance and replacement of the landscaping for a period of two (2) years after installation. The guarantee shall be in the form of a cash escrow with the City, or a bank or savings and loan association, or an irrevocable sight draft or letter Of commitment from a financially responsible lender and shall give the City the uncon- ditional right upon demand to partially or fully complete or pay for any improvements or pay any outstanding bills, or to withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fully complete or pay for any improvements or pay for any improvement or pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party. As portions of the landscaping improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements, except that ten percent * C 10%) which shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved, and an additional twenty- five percent ( 25%), which shall be retained until the improvements have been maintained in a satisfactory condition for two (2) years. D. Public Facilities Guarantee. In order to ensure installation of necessary public facilities planned to accommodate the development, the City Council shall require the applicant to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the current estimated cost of such public improvements, as es- timated by the City Engineer. The guarantee shall be in the form specified in Sec. 7-904(c) and may be drawn upon by the City as therein specified. As portions of the public facilities improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements, except that ten percent (10%) which shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved. Staff Recommendations: GMOS Exemption/Conditional Use: The Planning Office Recommends approval of Conditional Use for one Accessory Dwelling Unit in each residence with the following conditions: 1. Each accessory dwelling unit shall contain not less than 300 16 .. and not more than 700 square feet of net livable area and be located within or attached to a principal residence. It shall meet the housing designee's guidelines for such units, is required to be deed restricted by Owner, to meet the definition of a Resident Occupied Unit and be rented for period of six months or longer. The Owner of the principal residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling unit. Occupancy of the accessory dwelling unit is not mandatory. The tenant shall meet the definition of a working resident and is qualified by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority prior to occupancy. For purpose of this provision, a unit shall be considered rented if it is occupied pursuant to a lease or rental agreement which requires a payment by the tenant of more than a nominal amount of rent. 2. Prior to issuance of any building permits for construction of each residence, the applicant shall provide a deed restriction to the Housing Authority for approval. The restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and shall be rented for periods of six months or longer. Upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Authority, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office. 3. A copy of the recorded deed restrictions must be forwarded to the Planning Office. 8040 Greenline: The Planning Office recommends approval of 8040 Greenline review with the following conditions: 4) The grading plan must be changed so that any grade alterations must be completely contained within the property lines of this parcel. 5) When this property is connected to the City's water system, any water rights associated with this property shall be conveyed to the City. 6) Calculations for the drywell must be submitted to the Engineering Department. 7) Construction techniques for rockfall mitigation suggested by Nick Lampiris must be followed and inspected. These techniques include: the rear foundation walls should be designed to protrude at least four feet above finished grade and be without doors or windows on the up-slope sides; they should be able to withstand 200 lbs/s.f.. Positive landscaping should be done at the rear of the homes during or shortly after construction. 8) Further study by an avalanche specialist is required in 17 .. addition to Mr. Lampiris's information. 9) Recommendations by Chen-Northern concerning construction impacts on the slopes, drainage, erosion control, and retaining walls must be followed and inspected during construction. 10) The mine waste/tailings must be capped with 2-3' of clean soil fill. Subdivision: The Planning Office recommends approval Of subdivision with the following conditions: 11) All plat requirements as stated in Section 7-1004 C. and D. shall be shown on plat prior to approval by the Engineering Office. 12) Any required plans for the necessary improvements in Section 7-1004 C.3.a. must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 13) Easements for Spar Gulch drainage, 12' nordic/pedestrian trail, and two waterlines, as described in Engineering's referral comments must be shown on the plat. 14) The applicant shall agree in writing on the plat to join the Ute Ave. Improvement District that is being formed to address the roadway, lighting, drainage, and snow removal/parking problems. 15) The Subdivision Agreement and Plat must be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval by City Council. Failure to do so will render the approvals invalid. PUD Development Plan: The Planning Office Recommends approval of this development plan with the following conditions: 16) The lot line separating Lots 1 and 2 shall be moved to the east approximately 5 feet so that the Lot 1 side setback can be achieved without a variation. 17) Fourteen parking spaces must be identified on the Final Development Plan. 18) The driveway curbcut on Ute Ave. shall not exceed 18' in width. 19) A trash service are must be shown on the plan. 20) Gas Fireplaces and wood stoves must be certified and approved through the Environmental Health department. 21) A 50' minimum radius for the cul-de-sac is required. If the 18 .. radius cannot meet the appropriate dimension, the structures must be protected by fire sprinkler systems. 22) The pedestrian access shall be redesigned to be less urban in character. The sidewalk adjacent to the driveway shall be eliminated. 23) The applicant shall participate in improvements in the Sanitation Department's lines by a payment of $6,000.00 (in addition to the regular connection fees. 24) All clear water connections such as roof and foundation drains cannot enter the District's system. Surface run-off must be handled on-site or by the City's storm water system, if available. 25) Sewer lines/connections shall meet the approval of the Sanitation District. All associated fees and agreements must be paid and recorded prior to connection onto the District's system. 26) The tennis court lot shall be reconfigured to remove the extraineous area to the west of the pedestrian access point. 27) A Final Development Plan and PUD Agreement must be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval by City Council or the approval will be rendered invalid. Attachments: "A"- Proposed PUD Development Plan, Plat, "B"- Comments from Referral Agencies llc"- 3/13/91 letter from Glenn Horn regarding Subdivision process "D"- 3/18/91 letter from Glenn Horn to Tim Whitsitt/Cindy Houben 19 & . 10,0 -;7 12% 'A, / . Â·- 65.*O _;~y=NQUELA/91â‚¬ff< 5 -- --0-I'lt- .060 -41*:-6 ~ ATTACHMENT 'LAI' --- 'X743 : -i *ou~-LE _19â‚¬tn--Enr=-Ings- - *060 -_- '-10 < _-- c .C. -- ~ EYEÂ«~3-21:924iatÂ»9-// , :~: 1- , - - .0.0 V , I'Â°-33933924333*AÂ»- -Â· 0 - q Â· 4- --Â· - -*63 E -*-----6*- Â»--/ . 1.11 - .41- ./i-- .rn=-23rn_L.,o / ...0/3----&â‚¬11-Uft -9- .o.o/-/ -M/#5 -1- 2- ---16 6 f. 11~Mrrp*VT #641)/iwki ' 3 / - Â·-.n #8 * 2 \INÂ·. ..1 \ i,#MN:I . 1 K lilli \ 1 WV--*--L --- Or--EL- -404&41Â· 7 -20 -33397232,-- 26~:Ki -X4: ./h l\ i i i ! \ -.-324&Dil \ I i i /C// i Â· I -1 --t:34 1 rift,cmi i wr-lme- 47+44 2--rÂ¥' /I p lw-zilit-NC- CDD-- ~'54'~:*17-44.-b;P~ .- -,-- 1 ..6 It&E'=\ F ....0 --1-_=1926=:.t..f#~LIT~.d-J-fJ~EiLCLUÂ·4973~f /'/ /E:~ UNS;ntlmi.Â·aÂ·A-.41,k=--------Â·-Â·.wid~*%3*INFmnA/ / t#A 7980 pa 14 / AIIÂ¥95Â»6*'OL '4 1 Â· \LY *'Â·/t i / } 1 1 1 :Â· . f 1 i 4 41 Â£/ I 1 i li 'Il \\\1 11 /,-7Â¢F 4 - t - E 3 7 4 - 4) 3 h I yst- --- _ 1 1 Dtr-W- 2 ' ---3~ C./C-:-/ '11\ 1 d \,"0 1 'r-jef , -- 3.~1 Â· / Â»4 034 j 1 j 4Lf ': . ,- to .cj,_PhÂ« , *.-r--..1 f I 8 1 1 lt-----'*I %-- -T Ir C.7 .; E .3 1 -7 1 -4.t-/ 1 j 43// / - 704110/ 11. -'..,r>447--f me , . fi*Â» V'\ ' W-* _MittE,Ltfk-10.-ttiti W-4-24 4 24Â»34 4 91 -LF 0 7 / 4224'/ir' - 6/5c;462â‚¬93434Â»112 Â· -' ,-- UNK>ES>Z / --- 1-5 ZIER-â‚¬ R - - - 1/3333%330-53 -koÂ»%3fj / -/- /53'i@63#5-\ ~0~0 --wuts__21---7-7-21 --71-6--52/57Â»S a,/0 .///-//// *-1--'~ /MCIES 4---5-trestr~---,- 0525-9-0--535-3-3--- -1-til/9-139%~44.-_,0,0 // - * - 7 -- // // I / $040 /0 'Â°*Â°----fiEF-*En_-7 -_-- -- ---~ '<~ --~~/-0 -52/ ///,~ 14LT- -- dpi--, --45.-3-3.-1940 #s=r-~-~fgfl. '05*/--C\ /-2252-Fi-ZI~fEEI-6224<4322394235Â«.,Â»UZ>< h=/ r_ t -- -*-UILLL E---E*-5---r_-6----If. --- -3---*---.i....... Al 1 r-1 L54 0991Â«12-3--- Ph>- --1 WÂ°-'1553 - ---scalir -- -- - 97~31% .8020 43â‚¬9-234*h- ~crt>'0Â· t , O-Â«23-Â·f-2.//4535''iii /90--/ 1- 1*-of 50_1 - /~~\\'flf P f .,o,/544. NN71.0.77-' / / L.---Â·L- / 9,, -'.3-52.-z-: ZIX-- 44-43%3~Â» CA?Â·iÂ·~ (Pil I i f c 3252-2/ZZL -- I- n v/litii Â£--- 0-- t!/1.4 i . 3#fill_3=21~14//~57~. 1 --.-fl~44â‚¬~52ff?ff-9-\\7,90 ~-~\ p-Â·21:CÂ·7445>.*7,/4/1/fÂ·Â·'/7 1.H." N/Â». .0/ ~,5-2 /-/.Â·--I-O'YUNWU~thÂ«11 Â« 1Â©4&2-+MfiA 32------./ , /4 vi >A.~r--1*UN===---2:~~illl<41\.\ - 'I1t 1Â¢ 1111 i -/ 1 1 1 29\\ 1/(/-41*2341/02\ 4-3 -- 1 ti | L'/i/,111*ES--/tilt/A \ I f f Jr \ 1 Â· 1\07//f/12~ 1 1111~ % , '*S:21, -7-*<K- \ 1 r-._- ./ ... . 1 '' .1 // 13~ ir 1 - L 81--<32.--' -0348>' 499 1 4// ".0 1 1 - 1 ~1 2.----- V / //- --1 f- ~Nitz, Lk?\ v- 1 Tr-k x11-L] 1 1 ,/C 9 -Yrfj/&4\ RAT> f j 1 1 I VX----/ L~ - - ---IL- -- .L - f 1 - --- 9 \ \\ \~ \\ % \\ \\\\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\ 1001 UTE AVENUE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION 0 Â£. â€¢ ... â€¢11/ Câ€¢. 1â€¢12, U.. L * ; 4.0, I. .1 %. C-Ilic,4 --It SITE PLAN -A N ./O,Â·004 ...... \ /2421,-- -- / \ \ 1 -# â€ž LOT I : 1 < 'UU,/. 14 \ -'.f i \ .%-- 1 9 P M'.1 20- ..1. E.,0" n:.3..D \ '- ~Im,E U-,0~ I â€¢4= -1. . 4. \ r 9,19,1 / \ 1- , ! '' 47,7*$349 AMENDED ' COUNTY \~ \ TENNIS M . PARCEL ' \ COURT /20.. \ il k i a i Ii LEASE ~ LOT 2 \ a ! 0 16 Sq ... 1 -00,.w#..4 ------2'e Ill f , It' I I \1 1 1...1 Â·' 4 LOT 2 1 141 ..1 8 1 09-3-0- 1. - I r I f ' Ill'INâ€¢ 5/Trifl'. i iiI 1 1 9 2 0,1.'0 'r 91 i I % 1 111 15 1 1. CO. 4 \ \ 1 , . . 0\.r - --- 1 -w'.--NI'-,-4,1...... 1 . i \ - - *Ii - - - - - - - 1. / - 1 '. .3 Â· 4 . 30NNAY 31ft ATTACHMENT "B" ~ V T MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department *" DATE: January 3, 1991 RE: 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split, Consolidated PUD, 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use Review and GMQS Exemption Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The draft of the final subdivision plat which was submitted still needs the following information: a. A description of all survey monuments both found and set. b. A statement explaining the basis for bearings. c. A certificate showing approval by the Pl,anning Director. d. The statement about the No. 4 rebar must read that it must be set prior to recording of the final plat ,- or prior to issuance of any building permit, depending on the timing. 2. Water and Fire Departments confirmed that there will be sufficient water pressure. When water service is connected, it is required that the applicant convey to the City any water rights that are included with the ownership of this property. The Engineering Department utility location map indicates there is access to all other utilities at this location. 3. The applicant needs to agree to join the Ute Avenue Improvement District that is presently being formed. This district will address road widening, street lighting, parking as it relates to snow removal and drainage problems which relate to road maintenance. This agreement needs to Be shown on the plat. 4. The Engineering Department has a question about the portion of this parcel that is in the County. Is this part of the lot split? Also, should the area of the tennis court lease be a separate lot? In previous instances, legal staff has advised that a 99 year lease constitutes a lot split in the intent of the Code. .. 5. The report by Robert Fletcher indicates that the proposed drywell will maintain the historic drainage. The Engineering Departmeht will need the calculations which support that report. 6. The Spar Gulch drainage easement the applicant proposes to grant to the City needs to be shown on the plat. This easement needs to be 15 feet in width and needs to be aligned with the Midland railroad right-of-way. 7. The Engineering Department recommends a water easement across the northwest corner of the property for 1" pipeline to the Linda Edwards property. 4 -_ 8.Â·The slope density reduction analysis calculations done by a" registered surveyor which were submitted meet the requirements of this section. 9. The existing traffic circulation on Ute Avenue is poor, - especially in the winter time. If the applicant agrees to join the Ute Avenue Improvement District, this problem will be addressed. 10. The applicant has given a conceptual outline of how the development will be served by the appropriate public facilities to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. 11.- The detailed plan submitted by the applicant needs to shoW the .location of proposed off-street parking. The applicant has proposed 14 off-street parking spaces but the location of all of these spaces is not shown. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 12. The applicant needs to show the trail easement he is proposing to grant on the plat. 13. The applicant needs to show the 20 foot water easement that is being proposed through lot 1 to the Aspen Chance on the plat. 14. The recommendation made in the report by Nick Lampiris on rock fall mitigation must be followed and this must be substantiated before final inspection. n 15. The USGS Avalanche Hazard map shows that the proposed ~building envelopes are located within an area where there is potential for .small avalanches. The Engineering Department requires a recommendation on avalanche potential for this area from a consultant specializing in this field in addition to the one submitted by Nick Lampiris. .. 16. The following recommendations made in the report by Chen-Northern, Inc. need to be followed and this must be substantiated at appropriate times during the building permit and inspection process: a. Mitigation of construction induced slope instability. b. Mitigation.of flooding and debris flow potential. c. Drainage for the proposed driveway and the two structures. d. Revegetation for erosion control. e. Concerning cut and fill of the driveway and for the structures. f. Construction of the retaining wall for the driveway. 17. The Engineering Department confirms that there is adequate ingress and egress. The.applicant hasÂ·proposed to construct a 20 foot wide driveway which is what the requirement is for emergency access. However, Code requires that there can be only an 18 curb cut for this driveway, so : it is recommended that the 20 foot wide drive be necked down at Ute Avenue. 18. The proposed cul-de-sac has an inadequate turning radius for fire trucks. This must be increased to 50 feet. If the applicant proposes the additional off-street parking for this cul-de-sac, then the radius needs to be increased even more. Because the location of this cul-de-sac would make it difficult to make this size increase, it is recommended that the structures have fire protection sprinkler systems installed which would eliminate the need for fire truck access. 19. The applicant needs to show the location of proposed a trash area. jg/1001ute cc: Chuck Roth .. J,Ak 3 1. .,i MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning FROM: Yvonne Blocker, Housing DATE: December 28, 1990 RE: 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split; Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use Review, and GMQS Exemption Parcel ID # 2737-182-00-063 SUMMARY: Applicant proposes to subdivide a portion of the project site which consist of approximately 293,160 sq. ft. into two single family lots. The proposed lots are to be located in the portion of the site currently occupied by mine tailings from the Lower Durant Tunnel. APPLICANT: Neil Myers APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Davis Horn Incorporated LOCATION: Site is bordered by Ute Avenue to the north, City of Aspen Park and Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision to theÂ·east, Aspen Mountain to the south, and Aspen Chance Subdivision to the east. ZONING: Portion located in Pitkin county is AF-1 and the Portion located in the City of Aspen is zoned R-15 (PUD) and C (Conservation). REQUEST: Applicant requests Residential GMQS Exemption for a Lot - Split pursuant to Section 8-104(C)(a), Residential GMQS Exemption for the Accessory Dwelling Units as per Section 8-104(B) (d), Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split as per Section 7-1003 (A) (2), Consolidated Planned Unit Development as per Section 8-903, Development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) 8040 Greenline Review as per Section 7-503, and Conditional Use Approval for the Accessory Dwelling Units as per Section 5-508. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR LOT SPLIT - Applicant requests subdivision exemption for a lot split pursuant to Section 8-104(C)(a) which allows the development of one (1) detached residential dwelling on a vacant lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977 pursuant to Section 7-1003 In order to be eligible for this exemption the property need not contain any development on the original *lot: .. Section-7-1003 (a)(2) requires that the split of a lot for the purpose of the development of only one detached single-family dwelling on a lot by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, were all of the following conditions 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; Applicant has provided information that the lots as proposed for the split are undeveloped land with no prior approvals from either City of County. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split; both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district and the applicant commits that any lot for which development is proposed will contain an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Applicant has requested approval for the development of an accessory dwelling unit for each lot to be constructed within the main residence. Applicant provides information on page 47 of the submission that- " the data in Table 2 indicate that 10,270 square feet may be constructed in the PUD distributed between the two lots". Also, applicant provides informationÂ· that the requirements of one space/bedroom will be met for a total of fourteen spaces which would indicate that the two lots will contain a combined total.of fourteen bedrooms. However, other then this information, applicant does not provide the actual proposed square footage of the two residential dwelling units to determine that the underlying zone requirements are met as to square footage not. to exceed 6,600 square feet of floor area for a lot of 15,000 - 50,000 sq. ft. Applicant requests approval be granted for the construction of one accessory dwelling unit per lot as per Section 5-508 which requires that the accessory dwelling unit shall not be subject to the minimum lot area requirement of Art. 5, Div. 2., but shall be subject to all other underlying zone district. Parking shall not be required if the unit is a studio or one bedroom unit, but one (1) parking space shall be prÂ©vided on-site if the unit contains two (2) bedrooms and one (1) additional space shall be required for each additional two (2) bedrooms in the unit. The Accessory Dwelling Units shall contain not less than 300 square feet of net livable area and be located within or attached to a principal residehce. It shall meet the housing designee's guidelines for, such units, meet the definition of a Resident Occupied Unit and be rented for periods of six months or longer. The owner of the principal residence shall have the right to place aÂ· qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the Accessory Dwelling Unit. Applicant has not provided any information as to the net livable square footage of the accessory dwelling units. HOUSING RECOMMENDATION: Housing requests approval for one accessory dwelling unit per lot for the 1001 Ute Avenue PUD Subdivision application based on the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall be required to provide actual floor plans of the accessory dwelling units to determine location, net livable square footage, and bedroom count. 2. The Accessory Dwelling Units shall be required to meet the definition of "dwelling unit" as per Aspen City Code to be a separately enterable, self-sufficient room or combination of rooms which contain a kitchen and bath facilities and which are designed for or used as a residence by a single family or residents. The dwelling units shall be independent of other family or guests. 3. A site inspection shall be- performed by representatives of the Housing and Zoning offices to determine that all above requirements are met prior to final inspection by Building department. 4. Applicant shall be required to provide a deed restriction as to form as per Section 5-508 of the Aspen City Code for approval by the Housing Office and shall be required to record approved deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office prior to issuance of any building permits for. the approved lots. .. MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planner Planning Office From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director Environmental Health Department Date: October 18, 1989 Re: 1001 Ute Ave. 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use Review for Accessory Dwelling Unit and GMQS Exemption. Parcel ID# 2737-182-00-063 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above-mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This conforms with Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public sewers". ADEOUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the munici- pal water utility system". AIR QUALITY: Construction: The applicant has indicated in the submittal that there will be major reconstruction of the site. This Will involve redistribution of mine tailings and relocation/rebuilding of the existing tennis courts. The applicant may be required to develop a fugitive dust control plan to address windblown dust since the site is larger than 5 acres (one of the criteria for developing such a plan as defined in the Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient-Air Quality Standards, Regulation 1). Prior to construction the applicant shall contact this office for a final determination of this Fequirement. .. 1001 Ute 8040 Greenline Review October 18, 1989 Page 2 Solid Fuel Burning Devices: The application states "The proposed residence will contain no wood burning devices. Gas fireplaces and/or certified gas appliances, however, may be installed." As. of the date of this review, such a commitment will offer compliance with current solid fuel burning ordinances. As of this date each building can have one certified wood stove, one gas log and unlimited gas appliances. Further, all such devices must be registered with this office. Prior to development of the dwellings the project proponents should review the status of applicable laws since they have changed frequently. NOISE: Short term noise impacts can be anticipated to be felt in the immediate neighborhood during excavation and construction. Long term negative noise impacts* are not anticipated after construction. However, should noise complaints be received by this office, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, titled Noise Abatement will be the document used in the investigation. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS: None that are applicable from this office. CONTAMINATED SOILS: The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. This is not a' requirement, but simply a request based on past experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative impacts to humans. The soil report from Chen-Northern, Inc revealed lead levels in the soil ranging from 213 to 16,600 parts per million (ppm). This is not uncommon giveh the concentration of mine waste present on the site. Given that, precautions should be taken by anyone working, and ultimately living on the site to not inhale or ingest soils containing such high levels of lead (those over 1,000 ppm). It will be the suggestion of this office that the applicant become familiar with the remediation standards recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency for the Smuggler Mountain Hazardous Waste Site. Similar lead concentrations in soils exist at Smuggler Mountain which .. 1001 Ute Subd Exemption December 12, 1990 Page 2 However, use of a driveway snowmelt system has a large negative air quality benefit. This is due to the contribution of natural gas to global warming (or electricty generation if an electric snowmelt system were used). Snowmelt systems use a very large amount of energy to accomplish a task which can be done in other, more environmentally beneficial ways. We would strongly encourage the applicant to forego the use of such a system. If a snowmelt system is insisted on, we urge the applicant to use a solar snowmelt system instead of a gas or electric one. While this site does not have good sun exposure, the applicant should investigate the use of solar collectors or solar panels to melt the snow on driveways. Another measure which would minimize the air quality impacts of this.project would be use of high-efficiency compact fluorescent lights both inside and outside the project. These lights use so much less Â· energy that they result in less air pollution from electricity generation. Each of the two buildings (containing a single family home and attached caretaker unit) is allowed two gas log fireplaces (or one gas log fireplace and one certified woodstove) and unlimited numbers of natural gas fireplace appliances. NOISE: 4-3 Noise generated during construction will have an impact on the /(\ immediate neighborhood. However, long term impacts are not anticipated given the residential use of the property. Should this office receive complaints, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code - Noise Abatement, will be the document used in the investigation. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: ,~4~ None that are enforced by this office. CONTAMINATED SOILS: L): The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment /iv Â· should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative impacts to humans. .. 1001 Ute Subd Exemption December 12, 1990 Page 3 This office has had conversations with the applicant regarding the proper handling of soils on the site which contain greater than 1000 parts per million (PPM) lead. The applicant is familiar with the Environmental Protection Agency recommended remedy for soils with similiar contamination at the base of Smuggler Mountain. The remedy proposed in the Chen-Northern, Inc reports which recommends the retention on-site of all contaminated material, and covering the contaminated soils with clean fill material to a depth of between 2 and 3 feet is acceptable to this office. Clean fill shall not have concentrations of lead above 250 PPM. This is the same remedy suggested in the October 18, 1989 8040 Greenline Review done by this office on the same property. .. 1001 Ute 8040 Greenline Review October 18, 1989 Page 3 generated toxicological reports and remedy suggestions. The observation by Chen-Northern Geologist to retain all "contaminated soils and mine waste on-site and providing an imported noncontaminated soil to cap the materials" to a depth of 2 to 3 feet, is in conformance with recommendations of this office. .. MEMORANDUM TO: KIM JOHNSTON, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: LARRY BALLENGER, WATER DEPARTMENT~~7 '' DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1990 g SUBJECT: 1001 UTE AVENUE I have reviewed the Planned Unit Development/Subdivision .Exemption Application from FMG Incorporated. The Water Department has the same concern with this application as it has with the 1986 and 1988 Submittals. If a developer is going to extend a water main within the City of Aspen or the Aspen Water Service Area, that water main extension must follow the criteria established--in Aspen's Water Main Extension Policy. Specifically, looping the new system into an existing system. In the past, the developer was not able to reach agreement with the neighboring property, "The Aspen Chance", to obtain an easement to effect a connection with the existing 6" installation on their property. FMG President, Neal Myers, developed the Aspen Chance property. Since he is developing the 1001 Ute property, maybe a way can be found to now loop this proposed system. Kim, if this water system looping would be the only hold on this property, I would permit the proposed "dead end", 8" installation. The Water Departmeint would like to see the looped system, but we also appreciate the hassals of obtaining easement/right-of-ways on private property. Fire hydrant 742, located at 1010 Ute Avenue, flows at 2985 gallons per minute with a static head of 82.0 PSI. There would be sufficient flows, pressures, and volumes to supply this development. LB:11 *0042 ~~33 213:':11.-L~...1-~~fleno~~. Pn4AenliAA+AN 1277:7~-IRt+;Xll*hie+"ir+:. f:A~ Â· -:s-e:Â· - ' w ' < '~ :'' Â·-1, ..94.4 4...:-:r _~â€žY . 1,1... ..... ...7.,tk.'TAâ€¢ Â· Â·-' . Â· Â·-e. Â·- Â·~ ,-.4,1~ ,1*U!*0 l. . . : 565 North Mill Street i,+....... -.,.. h e. . 1 Aspen, Coloradd 81611 ' Â·44 9.*4.A - '51 - - "*Tele. (303) 925-3601 , 94#& 4-'Â» Â· Â·i:Â· , Tele. (303) 925-2537 4332*. !.i.-Â· ..Kim Johnson - C. ~~~~~~~~~~~ ; -'Â·3~;2(,F.2-~~Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·.-Â·:.,Â·... ~~- ~- ~....~~~~~:;~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~:~~~~~~ ~~~~~ - Planning Office , . .C . 1 -â‚¬2~. 51 4 '6' 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 44-4.-44Â»:R-Re: 810001 .Ute Avenue Â·~Lot?-: S p lÂ·i t ~4*4Â·'uu#%:.dg<,MAE~**4**Â·Â·aÂ«:4,='~>~Â¢NÂ¥*;Râ‚¬yÂ¢>.0.{5-'C: :.Â·-- -.1, Â·-,s~ '..A. ....'.,f.2.:4.-:A: L Dear Kim: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has ~~~~ ~~sufficient--Â·~line and treatment capacity to serve this project. .a . nÂ»uy.Jhere are :-minor.downstream .constraints in the .Ute Avenue main ~ ~that would require the applicant's financial participation.':The to be applicant's share of this expense Â· is estimated approximately $6000. This cost would be in addition to our - regular connection fees. The District would normally require the development to be served by a short 8" line extension terminating somewhere near- the building footprints, but due .t O the significant surface improvements that are being considered within and adjacent to the private driveway, we will approve connection by either bringing two 4" service lines down the driveway, each individually tapped into our collection system located in Ute Avenue, or installing a manhole at the top of the driveway with two 4" service lines tapped into the manhole and the manhole connected to our main in = Ute Avenue by way of a 6" shared service line. In the latter case the District requires the completion of a shared service line agreement, copies of which are available at the District offices. In both cases the lines would be considered private service lines - maintained by the owner. All clear water connections such as roof and foundation drains cannot be connected to the District's system. SUPIBC run-off must be collected and treated on-site or handled by the City's 4.-i-w/449*1Â»*'storm G water *Acollectiorr'system,*ifiava ilab.le. â€¢>ew:...~* v#-42*19Â·7*W,- )6Â«:fpRPÂ¥642â‚¬,446*Â»+1.~ 1% I All associated fees must be paid and tagreements recorded prior to Â«= "_~f connection to the District system.* -Â«'Â·r.-Â· . r. Sincerely, Bruce MatherVy District Manager cc: Glenn Horn. 300 E. Hyman, Aspen. CO f.<rke'./. /Â£.,1.'--â€¢ -7.- - ~ -~ .. MEMORANDUM - DEC _-4 1990 TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director AspenÂ·Water Department Environmental Health Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Parks Department + Fire Marshal / -7- / FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office (0 j - - RE: 100~1 Ute Avenue Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split, Consolidated PUD, 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use Review and GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-00-063 DATE: December 3, 1990 Attached for your review and comments is an application from Neal - Myers requesting approval for a Lot Split etc. Please return your comments to *me no later than December 28, 1990. Thank you. /Ze-- cevÂ»g,~24 -----.4Â«/c' 6Â»u-<9 ~ ~ ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT DEC 1 31990 MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Environmental Health Department Date: December 12, 1990 Re: 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split, Consolidated PUD, 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use Review and GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-00-063 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above-mentioned land use submittal for the following doncerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: 6,~ The applicant has agreed to serve the proj ect with public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This conforms with Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public sewers". ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: A The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided CI by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system". AIR QUALITY: 0, Provision of two accessory dwelling units (if deed restricted fQr U employees) will have a beneficial potential air quality benefit by providing employee housing so close to the downtown area. Provision of employee housing so close to downtown is one of the best air quality measures that can be employed, by making it uneccessary to use a car. Granting of an easement for the nordic/bike trail also has an potential air quality benefit by encouraging alternative types of transportation. 130 South Gatena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-5070 ATTACHMENT "C" ~ Davis Horn*. MAR 14. PLANNING - APPRAISING Â· REAL ESTATE CONSULTING March 13, 1991 Kim Johnson Amy Margerum 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Amendment to the 1001 Ute Avenue Application Dear Kim and Amy: I apologize for taking so long to get back to you regarding the status of the 1001 Ute Avenue application. Neal Meyer's (FMG Incorporated) option to acquire the property from Peter Coventry has expired. He was unsuccessful in negotiating a new agreement and Peter Coventry has retained all rights to the property. Peter Coventry has decided to continue to process the application originally submitted by Neal Meyers. Peter has authorized me to officially amend the Â·application as suggested in your February 7, 1991 letter and described below. 1. Full Subdivision/PUD - Please process the application as a full subdivision/PUD pursuant to Sections 7-1004 C and 7-9 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The applicant will be seeking approval for three lots. Lots 1 and 2 will each be developed with a single-family dwelling and an accessory unit. Lot 3, the tennis court, will be deed restricted against any future development and serve as the common open space for the subdivision. The land area within Lot 3 shall not be utilized to calculate lot area for the PUD. We considered bisecting the tennis courts with the lot line for Lots 1 and 2 as Amy suggested, however the Aspen Land Use Regulations prohibit the lease of the tennis courts to the Gant unless they are subdivided from Lots 1 and 2. 2. Growth Management Quota System Exemption pursuant Â· to Section 8-104 A.1 [e] - The applicant requests a GMQS exemption to create the tennis court lot (Lot 3). The lot Will be deed restricted against any further development, owned by the homeowners and leased to the Gant. AUCE DAVIS, RM $ GLENN HORN, AICP 300 EAST HYMAN Â· SUITE B Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Â· 303/925-6587 .. Kim Johnson and Amy'Margerum March 13, 1991 Page 2 3. Residential Growth Management Quota System Exemption (GMQS) fora Lot Split pursuantto Section 8-104 C.1.[a]- The applicant request a lot split GMQS exemption for Lots 1 and 2. 4. Unincorporated Land - The applicant commits to deed restrict the unincorporated land against any future development. The unincorporated land will not be used to calculate maximum potential site development. Since the land will be deed restricted against future development it should not be necessary to process a subdivision exemption with the County. We have discovered a two foot survey discrepancy on the east property line bordering the City Park. Rick Neiley, Peter Coventry's Attorney, will contact Jed Caswall to resolve this problem. David Finholm is preparing a north elevation drawing of the subdivision as viewed from Ute Avenue. I will contact you to let you know when the drawing will be completed. Thank your for being so cooperative with this application. Give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED Cl--1 GLENN HORN AICP cc: Rick Neiley A &Â©~ 0Â¥_EM ~ ATTACHMENT "D" 1 1 14 \/ J Davis HornWS- 4 w ~ ~~* lilli ]\\1 PLANNING - APPRAISING Â· REAL ESTATE CONSUUING March 18, 1991 Tim Whitsitt Cindy Houben Pitkin County 506 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision/PUD Dear Tim and Cindy: I represent Peter Coventry, the applicant for the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision/PUD. The subject site is split by the Aspen City limits. Approximately 2.7 acres are located within the City and the remaining 4.05 acres are located in unincorporated Pitkin County. Within his land use application to the City of Aspen, the applicant has committed to deed restrict the unincorporated portion- of the site against any future development. This restriction would be noted on theÂ·City approved subdivision plat. Previously, the applicant had contemplated conveying the unincorporated parcel to a third party, perhaps Park Trust Ltd. The staff felt that it may be appropriate for the applicant to obtain a subdivision exemption from the County prior to conveying the parcel to a non-profit organization. In light of the applicant's decision to deed restrict the unincorporated land rather than conveying it to a third party, I do not believe that it is necessary to obtain County land use approvals for this site. Do you concur me? The City Planning and Zoning Commission will be considering the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision/PUD on April 2, 1991. It would be very helpful it you could let me know what you think about this situation prior to the City public hearing. Thanks for your help. Give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED /OLA- GLENN HORN AICP cc: Rick Neiley ALICE DAVIS, RM i GLENN HORN, AICP 300 EAST HYMAN - SUITE B Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Â· 303/925-6587 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Christensen, Planning Office RE: Upcoming Meetings DATE: March 28, 1991 This is a list of your scheduled upcoming meetings. Special Meeting, April 9th * The Aspen Meadows (continued) Regular Meeting, April 16th * Gordon -Stream-Ma*:gin--Re*iewÂ· and Conditional Use Review for , an Accessory Dwelling Unit (PH) (KJ/LL) ~1- Lily Reid Special Review and GMQS Exemption (KJ/LL) * 716 West Francis, 620 West Hallam & 214 Wesat Bleeker Historic Designation (PH) (RE) * The Aspen Meadows (continued) Regular Meeting, May 7th Aspen Villas PUD Amendment for Trash/Mail Enclosure (KJ) Clarendon PUD Amendment (PH) (LL) Christiania Lodge GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing (LL) Messiah Lutheran Church Amended Conditional Use and GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing (PH) (KJ) * Square Footage Code Amendment (PH) (LL) a.nex **** .. ORDINANCE NO . /O (SERIES OF 1991) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, GRANTING SUBDIVISION AND FINAL PUD PLAN APPROVAL AND VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR 1001 UTE AVENUE WHEREAS, Peter Coventry submitted an application for a Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split, 8040 Greenline review, Conditional Use and PUD Development Plan Review (as consolidated Final review) to the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, referral comments were received from Engineering Department, Environmental Health Department, Sanitation District, Fire Marshal, Pitkin County Planning, and the City Attorney; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney made an interpretation based on the definition of "Subdivision" in the Aspen Land Use Code that the existing long term lease held by The Gant Condominiums for the area containing the three tennis courts already constitutes a subdivision and therefore this project was not eligible for processing only as a Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split; and WHEREAS, the Applicant amended his application to add a two- step Subdivision process for three lots, with development review for two single family lots and the tennis court lot deed restricted against any future development. The applicant also retained his submittal for a Lot Split for the development rights for the two single family residences; and WHEREAS , on April 2, 1991, a public hearing was held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and having reviewed the application pursuant to the applicable code sections, the Commission voted 7-0 to approve with conditions the Conditional .. Uses for an Accessory Dwelling Unit in each single family residence and 8040 Greenline Review. Resolution # memorializes these approvals; and WHEREAS, with the same vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to City Council approval with conditions for the Subdivision and Final PUD Development Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Aspen Land Use Code, the City Council may grant approvals to PUD (Division 9), Subdivision and Subdivision Exemption (Division 10) and Vesting of Development Rights (Section 6-207); and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning Commission's recommendations for Subdivision and Final PUD approval does wish to grant these approvals for the 1001 Ute Avenue Project and vest the development rights for a period of three years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That it does hereby grant Subdivision and Final PUD Approval for the 1001 Ute Avenue project with the following conditions: 1) All plat requirements as stated in Section 7-1004 C. and D. shall be shown on plat prior to approval by the Engineering Office. 2) Any required plans for the necessary improvements in Section 7-1004 C.3.a. must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 3) Easements for Spar Gulch drainage, 12' nordic/pedestrian .. trail, and two waterlines, as described in Engineering's referral comments must be shown on the plat. 4) The applicant shall agree in writing on the plat to join the Ute Ave. Improvement District that is being formed to address the roadway, lighting, drainage, and snow removal/parking problems. 5) The lot line separating Lots 1 and 2 shall be moved to the east approximately 5 feet so that the Lot 1 side setback can be achieved without a variation. 6) One space per bedroom or twelve parking spaces must be identified on the Final Development Plan. 7) The driveway curbcut on Ute Ave. shall not exceed 18' in width. 8) A trash service are must be shown on the plan. 9) Gas Fireplaces and wood stoves must be certified and approved through the Environmental Health department. 10) A 50' minimum radius for the cul-de-sac is required. If the radius cannot meet the appropriate dimension, the structures must be protected by fire sprinkler systems. 11) The pedestrian access shall be redesigned to be less urban in character. The sidewalk adjacent to the driveway shall be eliminated. 12) The applicant shall participate in improvements in the Sanitation Department's lines by a payment of $6,000.00 (in addition to the regular connection fees. 13) All clear water connections such as roof and foundation drains cannot enter the District's system. Surface run-off .. must be handled on-site or by the City's storm water system, if available. 14) Sewer lines/connections shall meet the approval of the Sanitation District. All associated fees and agreements must be paid and recorded prior to connection onto the District's system. 15) The tennis court lot shall be reconfigured to remove the extraneous area to the west of the pedestrian access point. Access to the tennis courts shall be by easement across Lot 2. 16) The Subdivision Plat, Final PUD Development Plan, and Subdivision/SPA Agreement must be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval by City Council. Failure to do so will render the approvals invalid. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Aspen pursuant to Section 7- 1003 A.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen, wishes to grant Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split with the following conditions: 1. An Accessory Dwelling Unit must be included on each lot for which a residence is proposed as a requirement of this Lot Split. 2. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit for a residence on either lot, the Accessory Dwelling Unit must be deed restricted and comply with the conditions of approval contained in the Planning and Zoning Commission's Resolution .. #91- Section 3: The City Council of the City of Aspen pursuant to Section 6- 207 of the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen, wishes to vest development rights for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Section 4: That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1991 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1991. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1991. William L. Stirling, Mayor .. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk jtkvj/utelool.ord 6 .. Davis Hornlug. JAN 2 9 PLANNING Â·APPRAISING Â· REAL ESTATE CONSULTING January 29, 1991 Kim Johnson Amy Margerum Jed Caswall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Second Follow-up to 1001 Ute Avenue Meeting Dear.Kim, Amy and Jed: use files. This letter summarizes my findings. I have researched the Little Nell and Aspen Club City of Aspen land The Aspen Club was developed on land owned by Fritz Benedict and the Little Nell Hotel was developed on land owned by the Aspen Skiing Company. Both Benedict and the Aspen Skiing Company owned unincorporated contiguous land and applied for subdivision approval from the City for only the incorporated portion of their land. The status of the contiguous unincorporated land was not an issue of discussion in either land use application. 14 It is also my understanding that during the City's review of the Aspen Chance Subdivision the unincorporated land was not addressed. Based upon this research it does not appear that there is a precedent for the City to require County land use approvals for the unincorporated lands associated with the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision. Please consider this information in developing your position regarding the pending 1001 Ute Avenue land use application. Thank you. Sincerely, DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED fla_OL GLENN HORN AICP CC: Neal Meyers ALICE DAVIS, RM j GLENN HORN, AICP 300 EAST HYMAN Â· SUITE B Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Â· 303/925-6587 . Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Oistrict 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 Tele, (303) 925-2537 ~ IN Â©-8 oN [â‚¬ w - '---- -- -;,1 ' May 6, 1991 Kim Johnson ~~ MAY - 7 1991 City/County Planning - 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Clarification of ACSD Comments on 1001 Ute Ave. Application Dear Kim, The $6000.00 downstream impact fee for this project is based on the development of future projects that will impact this section of the wastewater collection system. Instead of making this applicant bear the total burden of the $80,000.00 cost of replacing two sections of the collection system, we determine the cost of the total project, divide the number of EQRs that could be developed in the future on this section of intercepter line, and then determine the appropriate share of the total cost that each applicant must contribute. Since we have not seen a set of plans to determine the tap fees for this project, the impact fee at this time is an approximate figure. Please let me know if Â¥,eu need additional information. SincÂ¥tely, /j\ ( 10 ( V C rÂ»v-1 4 4 5 8- ...6-**v L/~ Thomas R. Bracewell Collection Systems Superintendent 01/14/91 11: ki F -r-: Tri-17.-277~i- s,1,â€ž'v-â€ž9.-4,/.9,i... Ii- 111 P. 02 .. MEKORANDUM To; r : ._ 7.4+4Â·41 , 1 * 7. .9 4 . FROX, VK f.r>n:06Â© 7:- 4 4.1.11 - J 91,11' fig DATE: 281=ii:(emb*r : 0 , ? 53-0 RE: 1 0 *= 8 -11 p 11, it.~1:2Â£ T,t 4 J .4 1 *:41 Fil,L 4 U / 1-r a Lot Split, .Â· S,t: d'Â«+4,1 < '4 1 1 Up xt > 1 op , and GMQS -.. - U I . . / Exampt.uta P .1:Â·12 4'!Â· 1.12 4'232**0*=2*==== .=t 61 ../ Solit.All-z A- -11-1.. 't 1,1. ':C..30 4. t, 21'2 ie :, .- k: 1 40.10 . cu- the project 1 - Site aphic:h - D-*- + u -4 Â·9?241<ime' 9L:Â· :9 + 5.5.: 94 ft .into two Single - I falr 1 li; 1 c,te . 1-7 i ltÂ¢ 5 4.-ta -Â¥9 C =6 ' *--4 11 4,1. .9 4 -- k 1 -,in 1 - bl e portion Of the 1 Z 'tit U'.Fllen.- 11- f:Â«i Le=d Ll, 11.1,-= ' 81 1 ' 1.B,Kwil y -c:(1,3.n Lle Lower Durant - r Tunnel. APPLICANT: 3=un 1.-00:1,-'-jo.t. Lad 1,Â· J APPLIC=ANOrs O.>0 :ElÂ· 21 1/2 :hi north, City of OÂ¢AII Otti ; El-1 8 & cit .- ted- P>y Lf ft-1.21 31=3:.4.- 114 00 L Aspen Mountain terk And =:I: 20 -.g -1'16 gi Â·1Dn '1 tha lut O 9- 1 -2-1 - , 31 d L gig Ch - ft=-3â‚¬ ili.~: ,1. i-; _,-- icÂ·2- ti 'the -aaet. , -ri ' . MtÂ·ti,Wn Â»f -4Â·= 01 :'.-: and the Portion ONYNC: k. .- 1 1 ... 1, T 41. i. - r 1. f- 4. ' L .. . f 3 21.- ocatod in 1 Â· A it :. c , - 1 ka :, r, r 4,7 -1 I. f 1~ ' PUD ) and C r = i -41 1. bÂ· 1 g. E'- '2Â· a=. I .. .. 7T â€¢ I. r . Coneervatior). ECU ENT 2:j.1 :L 1 etittl F. 91 1 -: *ic: - t., t' 1.6 Exâ‚¬1:.otion for a Lot plit Illit'stivt --0 3 .- n 3-10 , r. 13,) f 1,4,4.iderrt:61 GMQS Exemption .or tft* Acillts i.lt:V AH ,-121:3 , r=[a 20 :,for 4-4::t.'.n 8-104(B) (d), Subdiplulon Ega- 2: .r ., 6 J. 7 Cr w i.*.1 ne < Â» 1 6Â£,r E-.i tic.:., 7:=-1.003 (A)(2), Corts<.-idafel 91 1-=d init, 0.9 .fil:- , 6<t 2115$ 24~r: Section 8-903, Devel: *:3+81< .f , te' , Â·aÂ· , 91=-.-=2: o ,; ~,)ti-~Â· ''' ." A.','99+ rES./,* 8040 Greenline k26_1;*J.- 16 , A:# , .==t,= ,- ReviÂ¢47 219 t) e'r 3 1.,tt~ :.Dit -503 : 5, .1 -c;,33:- ional !7Â·38 Approval for the AcceÂ£.acry ED.1.11..'. 11 1 Uflits! as ce-Â·+ .5.4.=. .tic:j{- 5- ZOE . CUBMVISION EXETPI. >11 4 03-. LOT P.,PI-ij 'Â·L Applicant r z Il']el :.:-1 911:04=<19 1-6 1.:DI 41?i.i)~T Litiort iler a lc:t split pursuant to Section 3-1.4 ; int whic.1 all!,0....s =2'ta devel,DEment of one (1) deteÂ»ecl redicle iti.â‚¬. dwell,ing et' a vaclart lot C.(,rm,d by a lot split - -.abar 14, ' 474 granted aubs+0440< 40 Ne"20 pur,U<ir E to Section 7-1003 In ordal to be eliaibla For his axempt:on the property need net cent:al:t 31, level:>pmenc un the oidginal lot. 4 0 00 .*... IÂ·J t.44 rt > 0 01/14 9. 11:09 4 E i- HOLGI NG AUTE'. LE>- Â·9..2-3 0380 P. 03 .. Secu,ion 7 -1003 (.t) C.l,j =tacrâ‚¬.1 i,reÂ·ji that i:hq ip].-2:. Cl a lot for the purpose of th@ 18 2Â·â‚¬1,<i- 161?t s f Or:ly aa de :ac:he-,3 mingle-family dwellÂ·na on 6 1-1'3 4 -:, -=Â· t. api i. 13= *, r.9:03,2 5.nheevan+ to November 14, . 1977, b-tra xil of Lit ;'9110'4121 Ct-3-trÂ·j~h &23,0 M*: a. Cht lan-] 0 1 14= 1-:gated .Li a f :d viaion approved by either the Pitkin b: t. -iliI , 3< 1-51 C; 43 --'' :)11 ; '<.D:AMis D inne r a or the City COUNC:1 or 414 592':~3 -Â°8" C, T Intate â‚¬ aÂ« bounds parcel Whion has n. 12 1 :,5 1- 1 -1-, ivie{4,1 #.1 -te l.ti ad<,Â· - Le . of subdivision regalutions hy 3-Â·t 1 i -1 (>1 A :ip , ct 154 n.34 24 , 19Â¢56 : , 1 Appilc ant h:r f '12, 'O / 7 4 9 ..11 Â·_5 :ae j.oÂ· tt the .c,:st :ta proposed for thÂ¢ Â·31:1 f t. aÂ» 1-4 le r ~ 2 3 Jitit{1 =til:k nt, , cifti' t Â©>>:Cceala from either - City of County. b , t.. <#4 vÂ· -: /4,1 - 11 61 6 4 -4 - 1 : 1 1.032 Art. 1,2 ..09 -01 .11+ lot split; both . lots unform. tr -7.- th -111-~4>Ate: =6 5. 11' l: ~111* - +Ti....1 zone district and 1,16 apilact .: an' 1 Â· :50> 7 ic dwvelopment is 3 I E.1 2 ..1 --4 ' I i : P. ;7-t. *I prep:>to wi-1 '1-1 i *4 : .AL=-~ ~ Â·92 Â·Â· i:16.- API . 3 nah t 1 AS (cÂ· 1.01 . S it j 1-0 -- .1 41:7 11 Lie 28,Â·- lopment of an -.. acces,er< ouilt LJ 7 1527 42,,1 .,,- to Cor 1%7 1 :ted within the main rewid,ance. 1 A .3 -9 22 .. .5 Applitiat-t r-U,7:1 ifÂ·32 -t'! 96: 101' tpit ~ i.ty '*, ,=;Â·~.. -im Babmission that n the date in Pit .9 inclice 4 4,- i J, 6 :13 4(f: 3:e feet may be cor-structed 1.3 ihil F.} - 11 sti 2 'te i 13Â·Â·rd Â·, :,1-6 15 x t. , lots". Also, applicant Grai.2 5 1 ' a Er e '2:Ii,' ements of one 1 . .' I I Spt fre , rE-Â·Iarot:.r, 1.. 1 11 11 * O ' 14 .rtomÂ·n spaces which ~~31 6 uÂ·t wou l C i IllÂ· 1,2134 .:h i i: ti,- 10 .61 :ill .0023 ir 1 Â¢:-unbined total of for.rteâ‚¬-1 -t)432 70'5 .00 14:.0 ft '*r, 31. :â‚¬Â·4.r' ' 1, hi 4 1, Jibrption, applicant doe :'-ie-1 5 juÂ·'10 6 p z.1'tu.61 2 -:-_ =p,3 -1-1''jact Youtage of the two - re p, i Gan t 1- 3 1 :VT â‚¬- a i - :t i : 0 5 6.: *Y - 6149 the underlying zone re*-'' *'~ 'anÂ¢=,2 F- .1 ~.' 1 2/1 â€¢ p 3' 114! 4,3 -lot. 00 exceed 6,600 e I ' SqualÂ» CÂ»*. .. ..c '000 sq. ft. 4% 12 1= I Y 1 - . .- a tor 1. - c i 15,000 - 5. Apl.di -36 vt. racut? [t. 1 7, va be Â·.rd -1 ., "1)'t 1--.1,9 cor,f triction of one 1 .L . - aciff--ti-lt=I i dÂ·:41.1. :r J .- - 1 )*7 1-4,4-, 16 , j t.w 3 - 5f s which requires r.01 be subject to the 4 - mil=tri:x. ,=L i . + - 2- = 'L 1-C- - 9* # 26. et !1. ./ r E . 4,Â· .= = 'f 2 , but shall be subjew:t. to all Â·.Â·t:k let'vird Â£ 4 6.1,it:ict. .. Parking sh-' 71 103 48 0,7u~re i,t th,- w..,lt i.a s studio or One bedzÂ·cori vÂ·'-- Â· ., M;11* 1414 -; parj, . ict :g,t.-= mÂ°-al.: 1:,4 provided on-site if -k--- o rib -Â·Â·Â·+ Â·,;' t. - ,Â·-Â· ,>.,.4 â€¢4-"v- -,Â·=1 Â«*1 Â·t ) additional space -, Ty Ifte-2-= 4 1,,4,&Â· f'. 4, Â¢Â· 4 4 'Â· l & ; .,t ,.9,FÂ·. ,..;M 41 -4 shall be rt 3,0..r-d for n :h 2.-3141'13101'61 tra f,23 1>0-~~r.Doms in the unit. I . . The Accessor.2 7 * 1.- Irl, 711'441 81.Â·011 J :,2...... . i.n not Z ag.4 than 300 SqUare feet of nat livat:14 *rea And 54 .: C,Â£ 41 within or attached to a .. principal raif:terÂ·ca. ft snail meat the houbing designee's guidelines for Stern volts, nest tht, defi:rition of a Resident Occupied Unit 603 be 1 . 'ted for nerlods of six months or longer. The owner of tha 3, rcipbl resideDCA 5hall have the right to place 01/14/91 ' 1 : Al A F nOUSING ANTE 323 920 7580 P. 04 . 0 a qualified 1Â·312,(32 .<-a -:r *liti:1101*@.ad of his or her choosing in the Acceasory 34*lling Unit Applicant hÂ·a44 no-t : -try l ''ed 831; inti=:Â·70:-0~7:0.dcn'~ ab to yhe net livable square foot,4.9* r= 1 ~ 04 41.=1.04912â‚¬10/-' d'04.-t k :,3 1-,1.ti:..R Â· HOUSIE:@ RECOMME .Â·I : M :4* e .2. 1 1 " - I. =: 1 1 ' ' 1 ert.â‚¬ 4:& 1.6 <.ippr'Dval for one acced#Cry 214.44' 1- Â£ c p#t ot lor th. 1011 :fte Avenue PUD Subdivielan Â«12 1 b-i, 131 .Â·f. t.. 1 Y. Llc:,Â·011}1-Â·.* 20 1ditionmt 4, in/11,2511 In' 1 ria'.2-1 iff-5,1 -u, ids et -'ral-_ floor plans of the e..iciesdic.:1 c ed] .1 'i. ir; .t=c. t:, 3 +0 irir. 12 *it .-n, net livable 4/ I eqU.af, foot -ltiâ‚¬, ,L &31 2:tÂ·:= ~047>11 10.'Lt . 2, The Ac.:23Â£4,6 ty' , Chig-4 .,11.- ~:J i:lit$ 14 ' .,54 - i. 3-li ...ad to meet the deficit Z>&1 11: 'dt'{1- 1.- -! '-4,4,Â¢, 05 .t 7. fJi,en N.t: Code to be a ./ I â€¢Â®parctâ‚¬.17 -:fld Â·31,1 4-- a > 1 9 -=sur--IC-1 4 3% + 4'11 or' -:tral :t{~ation Of rooms whi 9 "nu -1 8 K.: ' 01111 11,0 7.a'i 1 r 6.1 ..171 1Â¢1 â€¢1 8: 4 Wt ch are designed -t for er 1/*d 38 71 E 251.: 12â‚¬ 4' 1 9 3 4-1-, 3611.-, *r ;:*sidents. The dwe 1 1 -ne i. 1.... ..1 1 in< )44 , 1 4/â‚¬ Â·el' .,char :Aml )- / or guests. - i ~81 i_ -CEE : iiI Â· Jj.:+11Â· 11 ov' rks~ I -6- 4.ititives of the 4* 2, Site inel- H: t i > . 4 Housir,9 3.- J Len: 4:- : 21 -,4 te 3-Â·0.41 - n.8 hit: a 31',Tve requirements 1 . F. .$9 are Ket 0112' c f .1. De,act An 34 2..10111 'lea-:tment. - Li Yr' 4 4 - 3 - i r r a va 14 0 1 2: fica a lail=F rastriction as 3 .1 . -M-- - 'to 3-01 1 &42 3.74 r F :r.-1 -1 -+54 Â° 01 t.lirÂ· -30,Â» . f lty {H :13â€¢ for appr'oval by the Bousing <,di r: 3 :'I ' lhE. 1 14 t:*ijÂ·.C~:f: 41 1.5 Â·'cac .1 approved deed -2- 6 ,[ 11 rest: .Ctler: wit, 11. f . 41: C.:c :.1 < d : daÂ»-1 itÂ· -ji,-or', -irs Office prior .j = to iet-UP.lice .2. ti-F .1 =1:2? 7 34;.34 21 U U. 4, blt. s :. ~.â€¢E, ed lots. 4 - 1)2Â« . DEC 2 7 I990 Davis Horn*15- PLANNING Â· APPRAISING Â· REAL ESTATE CONSULTING December 27, 1990 Jim Gibbard City of Aspen Engineering 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 1001 Ute Avenue Dear Jim: Attached for your files is a legible copy of Nick Lampiris' letter addressing the 1001 Ute Avenue parcel. I will get you a new copy of the plat as soon as Dave MeBride is done with it. Please call if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED AL A- GLENN HORN AICP cc: Kim Johnson ALICE DAVIS, RM i GLENN HORN, AICP 300 EAST HYMAN Â· SUITE B Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Â· 303/925-6587 .. I . MEMORANDUM - DEC _-4 1990 .TO: CityÂ·Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Â·Water Department 0 Environmental Health Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Parks Department i Fire Marshal (-T 1 FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office , to 3 -- - RE: 100~1 Ute Avenue Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split, Consolidated PUD, 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use Review and GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-00-063 DATE: December 3, 1990 Attached for your review and comments is an application from Heal - Myers requesting approval for a Lot Split etc. Please return your comments to me no later than December 28, 1990. Thank you. /ZD- 604Â«'Â»2..03~ _- 6Â»u<(2 4 . re/Â»/Le .. Davis Hornlug- JAN 2 9 PLANNING Â· APPRAISING Â· REAL ESTATE CONSULTING January 29, 1991 Kim Johnson Amy Margerum Jed Caswall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Second Follow-up to 1001 Ute Avenue Meeting Dear Kim, Amy and Jed: I have researched the Little Nell and Aspen Club City of Aspen land use files. This letter summarizes my findings. The Aspen Club was developed on land owned by Fritz Benedict and the Little Nell Hotel was developed on land owned by the Aspen Skiing Company. Both Benedict and the Aspen Skiing Company owned unincorporated contiguous land and applied for subdivision approval from the City for only the incorporated portion of their land. The status of the contiguous unincorporated land was not an issue of discussion in either land use application. It is also my understanding that during the City's review of the Aspen Chance Subdivision the unincorporated land was not addressed. Based upon this research it does not appear that there is a precedent for the City to require County land use approvals for the unincorporated lands associated with the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision. Please consider this information in developing your position regarding the pending 1001 Ute Avenue land use application. Thank you. Sincerely, DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED GLENN HORN AICP CC: Neal Meyers AUCE DAMS, RM i GLENN HORN, AICP 300 EAST HYMAN Â· SUITE B Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Â· 303/925-6587 IC./ 1 4 1 -Ow,w. i-&Â»rk 9crt /- 1. 14Â· W./ A G,MA.t~Q~;1 4<,t , a,~,cuf~44(,f o f 1 --flui:Â·c, Fr Davis Horn*- , 0 r + 04 \ , j PLANNING Â· APPR/USING Â· REAL ESTATE CONSULTING ~ 0-' ''/'uÂ·''bU t- f /-1,1,?.91 6 January 24, 1991 1 /6- f Kim Johnson Amy Margerum Jed Caswall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Follow-up to 1001 Ute Avenue Meeting Dear Kim, Amy and Jed: Thank you for meeting with me on Tuesday, January 22 to discuss options for addressing the procedural subdivision problems associated with the 1001 Ute Avenue land use application. During the meeting we discussed several options for addressing the Gant tennis court lease and the unincorporated portion of the subject site. At the end of the meeting Amy suggested a procedural approach to the tennis court problem and indicated that she would discuss the problem of the unincorporated section of the site with Francis and Cindy. = 2/1 + .,4 r A Procedural Approach to the Tennis Court Parcel , .~\El- Mi 6.,1 1 / The City will process the application as a Residential Growth Management Quota System exemption (GMQS) for a Lot Split pursuant to Section 8-104 C.1.[a]. The Lot Split application will be V processed as a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption pursuant to Section 7-1003 A.2.. The applicant will agree that the tennis court parcel will not be included in lot area for the purpose of calculating, 01 density and floor area. Simultaneously with the consideration of the preceding requests, 37Â· â‚¬ the City will process a full subdivision application for the 4 Q/.0 creation of a lot to accommodate the tennis courts. The applicant 9/Â· Will also request the Planning Director to grant a Growth Management Quota System Exemption pursuant to Section 8-104 A.1 [e] to create a legally subdivided parcel for the tennis court. I have carefully reviewed the referenced sections of the Aspen Land Use Regulations and,it appears to me that this procedural approach may be justified. The Unincorporated Portion of the Site I indicated that the fathering parcel for Aspen Chance Subdivision is the only parcel I can recall that was split by the Aspen City limit line at the time of subdivision. Since our meeting I have been trying to think of similar parcels. The fathering parcel for ALICE DAVIS, RM 1 GLENN HORN, AICP 300 EAST HYMAN Â· SUITE B Â· ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 Â· 303/925-6587 .. Kim Johnson January 24, 1991 Page 2 the Little Nell Hotel is located in the City of Aspen and unincorporated Pitkin County. I also think the fathering parcel for the Aspen Club crossed the City limits. I will research the procedure followed for these two subdivisions. Summary Please consider the procedural approach to the tennis court parcel summarized in this letter and let me know as soon as possible if it will be acceptable. Also see what Francis and Cindy think about the jurisdictional problems affecting the site. I will research the Little Nell Hotel and Aspen Club land use applications and let you know what I find. My client, Neal Meyers, is anxious to resolve the procedural issues affecting the 1001 Ute Avenue land use application so that the application may be considered by the City Planning and Zoning Commission on February 5, 1991. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance in resolving this matter. Thanks again for your cooperation in developing a solution to the problems affecting this land use application. Sincerely, DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED C./\ /1 \ GLENN HORN AICP CC: Neal Meyers 4 . . r. , Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0793 VALLEY ROAD CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (303) 963-3600 (24 HOURS) February 13, 1989 Sunny Vann 210 South Galena Aspen CO 81611 RE: 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision Dear Sunny: I have completed my limited geologic investigation concerning only the potential for rock fall and snow sliding on the above referenced property on the north-facing slope of Aspen Mountain above Ute Avenue as shown on the accompanying map. Chen and Associates has already addressed the other issuesâ€ž This is along the southern edge of the Town of Aspen within the Aspen 7 1/2 minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado. . r - The dual envelope or proposed site is at the base of a steep, conifer-covered hillside on a large tailing pile which will be modified. There are two rights-of-way above the sites as shown. The ridge line just above the property is held up by bedrock. The geology above the site (which will be located on mine tailings) consists of a thin veneer of colluvial deposits containing angular blocks of limestone, sandstone and some granitic rocks. The matrix is mostly silty sand. This surficial deposit has been mapped by Bruce Bryant, 1971, as a talus deposit but I believe that the term colluvium is more accurate at this location. The underlying bedrock could not be determined because of lack of nearby outcrops, but is probably the Cambrian age Sawatch Quartzite or one of the Lower Paleozoic carbonate units. Because of the steep attitude of bedrock units in thisÂ·area and the faulting present, the bedrock could even be the Precambrian age quartz monzonite. Snow sliding and minor rock fall is a possibility on this property and there is a well established chute on the northwest side of the site. This small chute can be well seen and its relationship to th@ site evaluated from across the valley in the Smuggler area. It appears to be directed more toward the neighboring property to the northwest. bnOW sliding can occur elsewhere as well but will be minor. The extensive tree cover above the sites should minimize the potential hazard. There is simply not enough relief or catchment area above the sites to produce a major a val.anche. .. Rock fall can occur at this location from the outcrops above but they are not much fractured and therefore not likely to contribute frequent loose rocks to the hillside. The low elevation of the outcrops and the significant tree cover will not allow rocks to gain much momentum. Nevertheless, the rear foundation walls should be designed to protrude at least four feet above finished grade and be without doors or windows on this upslope-facing side of the proposed homes. They should be strong enough to withstand forces of at least 200 pounds per square foot. This should provide a large measure of protection from either rolling rocks or snow slides that may reach the sites. Any positive landscaping which can be done at the rear of the homes during or soon after construction would also be helpful. If there are further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 114/46/2 Nicholas Lampiris Consulting Geologist .. Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 (303) 920-5090 Glenn Horn Davis Horn, Inc. 300 East Hyman Suite B Aspen, Co. 81611 February 7, 1991 RE: 1001 Ute Project Schedule Change Dear Glenn, As I had told you on Friday Jed Caswall, Amy Margerum and I met to discuss the appropriate process for seeking approval for two homesites at 1001 Ute. Aspen Land Use Code Section 3-101 defines Subdivision as: "Land which is divided into two or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites separate interests (including leasehold interests)..." As a long term lease exists for the tennis courts, the 1001 Ute parcel is already subdivided under this definition. Lot Splits, as exemptions from full Subdivision review by Section 7-1003 A.2. require that "...land 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..." and "No more than two lots are created by the lot split..." The existence of the tennis court lease and the portion of the parcel in the county in effect would create a four parcel division, making the Lot Split process inapplicable. The history of previous approvals for the parcel has been colorful to say the least. We are all anxious to have your application follow the most appropriate process given your client's goals and the current Land Use Code. With this thought in mind, Jed, Amy and I feel that the full Subdivision Process applies in light of the existing tennis court lease. This will require a two-step review instead of the one-step review required by the Lot Split Process. The Planning Commission can hear the Subdivision request concurrently with the 8040 Greenline and Final PUD reviews. The Council will then hear the Subdivision and PUD requests. Another outcome of our meeting was discussion of the lot configurations resulting from the subdivision effort. The City's concern is that the tennis court area not contain any future development potential. In order to accomplish this, Amy feels that the lot line separating the two residential lots should bisect the tennis courts. The land area of the courts will be excluded from the land area for FAR calculations as your application already proposes. Please call me when you get back .. to town so we can discuss this idea in more detail. I also brought this project before Tim Whitsitt and Cindy Houben. They both feel that the Board of County Commissioners should review a subdivision exemption for the one lot resulting in the County. Both are anticipating hearing from you and expediting your application. At this time, due to some major projects already scheduled before the Aspen Planning Commission, the earliest we can get 1001 Ute to public hearing is April 2. Debbie Skehan will be sending your updated notice of public hearing to reflect the date change and adding the Subdivision review. Please contact me at 920-5090 if I can be of service to you in the meantime. Sincerely, Kim Johnson Planner cc: Chuck Brandt, Holland and Hart Jed Caswall, City Attorney Cindy Houben, County Planner Amy Margerum, Planning Director 4.- t. I t, 9 - . 1.4. I Â¥ r r ' 44,3, I N -4 'kÂ« 1 $ I H V.1 5 ~-'~,32 ~ - . I 'â€¢ : -51,44'k... Al. . 4 14-- -/ 2 .*li z Diq 9.tâ€¢. -.1. 4.5 . t' 1 {, 1 . . ! 4 6 1 11 . 4 /0 ' ' I ... I. I 0 -. .1 t. . 0 - *i , 1.91(rb- I 4 1 . . ./ 3,t. ?;t L . , 6 . - 4 10 'M . r - . -yer. . , '4. 8 - *0 4 , 0 4, f 4 4 . *,4:*91 . 1 . 4.,, i. + 9.. 4 8. , r ., i. 0 + 74 - + -*~.64434'0~ ~ , A.. I 1 $ , ..1 4, , I. '., I.* . .f 1, t , / 26. 1~ 1 .31%,i* 0 W . 2 I : /4/, : p ~ IrÂ· $ *I u.:Ii,EE i-U. -4*AW * 0 t.k~~.5* *52 JAil 41â€¢' 1'~ ,~ 4.. ' .4 4-. Â·4..Â·i .A #r: # 224-1. A- .43 - 1, - 14*54*2/9-- 444- 31 ' .P.4 . 4- . 411: 0.14 7 2 'fitÂ«P. 1% ./ j -t~'91/:. --/Ng*Â·jill.1 -4,22. , , : '414, , % . .io.t,>i'4>Ral Â·L . 34':.r.. 7364 <7 +49'201Â»,1 .... Â·Â·:Sple:i.TL -1 ' 3 if.3,/.44 + Â· 8 1 'Cf: 7446#2.. I . A t.. 444 - 41. Â«t 4 . . I - 1~ .4 1 I '4> 4 â€¢CAÂ· ~ Â¥ 0, E.,2:**t.ys'~geÂ· 74*4 Â« , 37,'b- 4 ' Nifi,722#E~3~*.- -/ et.42* Â».17, 3:112 t 44Â· Â·th j , - Â¥;1Â·79; fil~~~~:~ ,{041,-Aill.W &IWD*.45*42%b1b - =tgr :le:il,/591'll,11*40 .4 ...4 - At. . '+4* Â£'Wri , j.Â¢â€ž CM'KI#~O. . ..:te/*0. . - - 9.9- ,... Â¥2 4. 441 '194#JM"liI~r#Latf#F~*fit'p / /- ' *4.24 ./.ikp.e: 2.-7_ /e/&'F'I"' /0.41 k . 145 t'...2.4/, . , I %â‚¬- 74 4,7 IMJ</6~1.,F4ibliv4,;'AF.-0 ./ 9 - 12%*4% 'i.;,W~~ 4 - '214~*92,1,*t: A +Vijf j .f W'*4..%-1 ..........,/D ... ' * )*Iefq~d, .Â·'<-â‚¬Â·44.- '/~~~&4Â£~//~4u - ;9Â¥kâ‚¬S:,6- *49%9484* --* _ pfA .1 - 9 --~ , ~~ ~,~e.a ~<Â»2 - 7 0,Â¢b- ~ ~ ~44 ., <1~~.tiMA+W f~, r - " ..9.1 - .1 .,~-4't . 1.0 . *44*,#ff i*'7<4+. . . 4. ".-2/AE.W.. I 'C- L ----- .._ 4/ th,94..a<3'E- _214%9/*) -7 be> , y. 1.8.4 ....e>-COADM<.1.1 , . 1, , I . / -. t'.&4 ..# ' 4~~Â« 4-~~ ~, ' h.44â€¢ 4 0 - 1~44*6'fj25*4&$9./HI'le 4313:01 *j*2*#rf;1*~~vÂ·,i~Â¢~~tf~Â§Â¢'~%/tÂ«r - ..Cer<tit â‚¬... -Â»- 44-; . 220*; 7-=22'2214~.7 4/zjgd~~f:Wi;..i.i.ii 1. *- *4 J hic .0 ..ri r. 1 -*,0, , 4#A 939/Al"&11}- ~F 44.61 1 1.--44-'1Â· AfteÂ¢, .''Vt 6,402 Ay .56:. - 1:b :244 . . . . I J"Ah .14. . . .H.,Ix,ALAT&,4- 4 4 00,1.4,15 yiff -r.,1 .- -,3 %5 5/ 1 , 9,51 ' h.*M 1% -,- rtl.... 4~ ..3*te. , , , , , . a .' Als .5....0.........#.Â¥.0- I.:- iv. .., I r ., ... ..... 4- . I,#2~ - 42311-2 'A ..>* Jm/&*75/6.42*0/Aâ‚¬â‚¬ CM'+ 4 ~ . .- -6,Al -- Im/%1141"~06*f ~ ' ' ' * ' 745:'i'4*~~ .~ ~ ~ ~ 19.1,6.==46,â‚¬./VurÂ»t.47Â¥9.99 .04 Â· 43Â©94:40"Imagia"Jabl:9.:. I . . . 0 INâ€¢-1-'/aÂ«-9*4Â¥C Tif'* - -0 g~.~~&~1~~3*1Fâ€¢61#l~ # -24+0#WA@,1,01~24*1,c:I- >'3 " -J*:i.23*IMIi) 11~~;93*~~ 0 , , e , , , 1 t X.... ~3-0:.~Â£ 1&*Af#' 1.1.N/\ . C,-A'Tk~ - be-<ey*Fidk#<*4~-4: , 4,â€¢Â·,1 Er- 'Akap<041:r:.'7~Â·ML .1Â·*W':.f,1-7Â«t. 'fi,~" I.'~~-'-1,9rti *j~*;;F-i~';Hir~*,2*1~~"~~~~--1=------- 00 -4-0~-: ct#ary-i=3'4129,~:61+4,+,4. A.ds;dinwhA,%~UdipUbjf, :, '6~,..6Â·,AÂ·,: ~4'~4:tL,f:. . . ... I '.1.7./...."0.I-- W-d . I J I. i ~1~-1.- ?N'"Ell.42.Lir *JIâ‚¬*agial'llillilillird.~.1~ES'ri'""/1.."149#Q~ . ind"tatal#~ Â·94.= NnleGglt. Â·Â».rdurmwdm~k#7LC 44 TOÂ¥7-- ' ' R~,*i:i;i;issÂ»*s*>x*x*>x*x.>x*Â»ipÂ·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·.....:Â·Â»Â·.Â·ixÂ·xÂ·:*x*Â»>'Â·'Â»24**Â»S::iÂ»>SSS*2424'w'kt:;:>*S<SS*SSAr f'NW-*A7,74*:t<k i'-f~~~~APR~-~ ~, 9,2.;*~~JM*~2~ ".t'Â»~ ~- m;~~ ~ - , r .421.r, *&4 2 Â· *Â· --~/34.1*P- .. .31'.0r4(aL*dit>â€¢Â·â€¢6â€¢â€¢i./< - <flif,/~0'VE<$4177314~1*il:iki.*3+.*1'%#dimil-4... ..k 14, ~7 G,LO/*lue~. ~i.49 :6144&2 WN / " - ../. 16*, ... st# i)2744-1&,2 15:22%11'.#i-)*LLBA'+MMI:,95'*i.*-,uw..Â» & ..~4-24 . : Itt - 4 L --' 7825>cr~,buil Â· Â·.Â·; Â·Â·,Â·.Â·~.Â·-Â·.Â·:Â·:Â·Â·Â·Â·..::::i*10*.fi::~i:.:~:1:::t~-*.~$ irtrfol,~U~~~~~1,4%24014::4Ft~3**~~2rZ-*t Â·Li i1i~6~- ~ ~* â„¢'~43*k=.Â»;$;3.i~ ?3*U#rs.51-1-9 , "' F 4 0 ... vII':'C. 1, 4.-2.,Goe:*er..b"T*afgMWOMâ€¢Â« 11.-t. ,' - . AA. AA, AJAA '41?t9%. A . ..a A . Au u 6 '11 - '140*l9 - -: -4*5*97-,SÂ¥ 1[iR*47 ..: Ul/ AA.AA ., *AL.. - ' litup - 00 0 . (9 - I U.J U.J 1- L.U Z ....2. Ll-1 7 h .40 2 U..1 CL ir.,9 t.1,2 0 0 -15 0 * NORDIC :93~1, 484. =1- '*I TRAIL~14, Â¥kh, /4.4 0 7 0 w 4 , - Y ... 6 .. id Â·DiiÂ¥ 41. Â·~02, ' 1,:,r .r. .., Ell , 1, I 4 4 I 4 , >tp. 1Â£23 ;4 : 2.4 2. . 19 .., e., .2.-2.5 7 0 .2 9 -123 . -4*71<41*Â· MIDLAND 32 -- #.#4: aÂ¥146 PUR R.O.W. -4 . 1 ,VAÂ« c - ...1. 1. . -, tÂ·AÂ·~90Â· .7.-2~2,Â« :.' Jf Â·10 -4 t. -: W * 42 .... 4 , I Â·Â· t k ** '. f~ .r f ~ ~i~~ ~~ ~~ -r, -ri,f,A!Â· ~ -~ -~-~- 1 ~ . 't -Z 5 7 I 1. V- '- 2 * ",3.f 1 rit '. L - . 42:, 6 PRIVATE DRIVE t. 4 e +.... , Â·Â·2,;-1. : _ /4,4 - 7. * 14.% .r ' 9 14 2- 2, A .'.i .03,2. - '..4.11, 04~ --4:2:I-.:.~."'f'~.1~;r:-5-4.-:1ip/:4(15?.''i 4<024 1 4Â«60// .9,40 All designs, ideas, arrangements and plans indicated by these drawings and specificationi are the property and copyright of the Architect : -*18261~4/7-4: .-,,4~ if~~R .~t~*'-,- C, and shall ne,ther beused onanyotherworknor be used by any other person for any use what- - 16/~47*f . loever without written permission. Written TENNIS COURTS --- dimensions shall take precedence over scaled Any dimensional discrepancy shall be brought dimensions and shall be verified at the job site to the attention of the Architect prior to com- UTE AVENUE ~-< ~ mencement of work PROJECT NO DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: ISSUE DATES-27-91 ~ SHEET TITLE: 0 510 20 50 75 SITE SECTION 3(1 NliAV 31A IOOI 99~ 03 'uadsy 12,4â€¢020â€¢Â£0[ 31)MISOV:1 ttl$â€¢521â€¢50Â£ 2k~kI OOVIO100 N3dSÂ¥ 1Â£12 X09 00 ONIS31Â¥13 OSSÂ¥ 0 nlOHNId 01AVO VIV DNIN Nvld ONV, ONÂ¥ aW ni03 1,HOWÂ¥