The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1010 Ute Ave.49B86-87lolo U.YEAvt. 2737-/84-00-044 -\ Ut 41636 -67 -14-e.1~minary 7/,ct 2737-/92-06- 07.9 r J 5*1046.pidon/PULD .2737- isa-66~- 005- ' 1 , ---1Lf 1 1 U L -4 27 j - l .4 1 1-1:te Â« 74_J ~ 1 J I.1-- 1 li iÂ· , - - --4-- 1 6.. Pl 1Â·14 rk A U 1 4' 9. f. e /to ~J (51 . 41% e J. . 9 215%4 i~ 1 2~ . CAS ELOAD SUMMARY SH EET &131- /84- 00- 044 -~ City of Aspen 4701- &87- 00- 078 1- /22- 62- 005 PATE RECEIVED: 3/3/97 LAS E NO. 49 8 (86) 87 DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE: STAFF: Gti paojaer NAME: /0/0 (Cle A v.enwe du,bol 1 V.64 0 h 'FU-O prt; _,;ninery Plat 2/ 1PPL ICANT: /~OA) 6 bevtloprnen-1 Corp. 0/0 4-Mip -Athrhonst Applicant Address/Phone: 630* 9046, flaf <A: (D .5-6537 REPRESENTATIVE: Gicl con Mal,cf/M o. n Representative Address/Phone : 3/3- E- Alyma,1, ~yu,7 e 'DOS- Aspen 5- 8/66 Type of Application: I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD 1. Conceptual Submission 20 $2,730.00 2. Pr el imi na ry Pl a t 121 1,6 40.J-Q 3. Final Plat 6 820.00 II. Subdivision/PUD 1. Conceptual Submission-- -- - -- 7 4 $1,900.00 2. Preliminary Plat 9 1,220.00 3. Final Plat 6 820.00 III. All "Two Step" Applications 11 $1,490.00 IV. All "One Step" Applications 5 $ 680.00 V. Referral Fees - Environmental Health, Housing Office ( 1. Minor Applications 2 $ 50.00 2. Major Applications - '.25 $ 125.00 Referral Fees- Engineering Minor Applications - --- 80.00 Major Applications 200.00 AO ec MEETING DATE: Nk-.11 1 PU B L IC H EAR ING : ~~~ NO DATE REFERRED 1-~fl/, 1,3 4 ,'Jâ‚¬ , /f-,3-IN IT IALS 01.0- / REFERRALS: 3 4 City Atty Aspen Consol. S.D. School District i 4 City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Dir. v" Phrks Dept. State Iiwy Dept (Glerwd) 707' Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric State Iiwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) City Electric /' Fire Marshall ~ Bldg: Zoning/Inspect:~n Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other: - Roaring Fork Transit Roaring Fork Energy Center < P INAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 1 44 -37 IN IT IA cd! f o City Atty City Engineer ___ Building Dept. - Other: - Oth er: ED> 0 <, 0 1- {1 O ~'Lt â‚¬ 1-0 cxnÂ»t O '1 t- FILE STATUS AND LOCAT ION: ~ Q VÂ»~10 C-vrn-1 C ~-trlÂ·T Caseload Disposition for 1010 Ute Avenue preliminary plat/PUD Planner Glenn Horn The preliminary pplat was approved with a series of conditions. the conditions are not relevant because they were all incorporat- ed into the final plat and appear in that file. - I 0 7.----1 <9 THE GANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. 610 W. END ST. P.O. BOX K-3 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -~IM Â© E Owl=lifp (303) 925-5000 April 20, 1987 _~ ~ ABR 21 887 Iti: Mr. Welton Anderson, Chairman Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 1010 Ute Avenue Development Dear Mr. Anderson: We have recently reviewed the various walking/biking trail options (A, B, and C) for the 1010 Ute Avenue development with Lowe Development Corporation and Skip Behrhorst. We still support the alignment of the walking/ biking trail along its present path down Ute Avenue and beside Ute Park to the Bennedict building, then north along the river to the proposed Gordon bridge ~'option A), for the various reasons which were expressed in our letter to Mr. Steve Berstein dated November 19, 1986 (copy attached). With regard to options B and C, it is difficult for us to understand why three residential subdivisions should be separated by a walking/bike path. A bike path through residential back yards does not seem to be pleasing aesthetically, and I am certain that you would not appreciate this lack of privacy. There have been numerous incidents of motorcycles using the trails in our area. One can adopt regulations to discourage that, but absent effective enforcement it appears bike trails are in fact misused--with noise and privacy problems for neighbors. Further, by creating a bike path through these residential areas, Gant's eastern most pool would be exposed to view by anyone wanting to swim and the risks inherent therein. This pool is currently only fenced along the area where it abuts Calderwood subdivision, and even if it is fenced due east past the G building, it is only as safe as someone's lack of determination to enter the area. The pool has no lifeguard. Knowing the foregoing. I question whether you would want your small children using this path. Between options B and C, the latter is obviously better, due to the additional space, landscaping, and mounding created between the end of the G building and the eastern most swimming pool and the bike trail. In preparation for your meeting on Tuesday, April 21, 1987, we have been working with Lowe Development to satisfy our concerns. I have Mr. Welton Anderson, Chairman Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission April 20, 1987 Page 2 included a copy of sheet 10b prepared by Sutherland Fallin, Inc., dated April 10, 1987 titled Addendum to Trail Option C which is substantially acceptable to us. If you approve option C, we request that you make the newest amendments to option C a condition of your approval. In summary, our preference is still for option A which is safer and has less potential for inherent liability. Thank you for considering our request. Very truly yours, 46- 6 je ((evt / IJNâ€¢K Glenn B. Jeffers, President CC: J. Nicholas McGrath, Esq. Mr. George W. Bartlett gangj415.ltr THE GANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. 610 W. END ST. P.O. BOX K-3 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5000 November 19, 1986 Mr. Steve Berstein Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Berstein: The Board of Directors of The Gant Condominium Association, Inc. have recently had the opportunity to review both the bike and Nordic trail alignments for the conceptual plan of the 1010 Ute Avenue development. We felt that it was important to notify you in writing as to the position of this Board, repre- senting the Gant owners, regarding these two plans. We strongly object to any alignment of a bike/Nordic trail through the 1010 Ute Avenue development from Ute Avenue to the Roaring Fork River. We do favor the alignment of this pro- posed trail extension along Ute Park from the existing bike path at the Benedict Building and along the river to the proposed Gordon Bridge. We feel that the alignment from Ute park is far superior to any trail alignment through the 1010 Ute Avenue development for the following reasons: 1. There is already an existing bike path adjacent to The Gant which serves The Gant and the neighborhood very adequately. 2. Any bike trail through the 1010 Ute Avenue develop- ment to the river would conflict with the neighbor- hood backyards and privacy of The Gant and Calderwood Subdivision. There continues to be an increased security problem in Aspen, and to encourage easier public access and traffic through the middle of pri- vate property is inviting additional security prob- lems for us and others. - 4 . Mr. Steve Burstein November 19, 1986 Page Two 3. There is greater public benefit of the Ute Park alignment because the trail goes by and through a public park and down along the river. 4. The Ute Park trail alignment is a more logical connection with the existing and expanded Nordic trail system. 5. The Ute Park alignment meets the objectives of the July 1985, Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/ Recreation/Open Space/Trail Element. 6. The developer's willingness to pay for the cost of the new trail bed along Ute Park and along the river to the proposed bridge saves the City money which they can spend elsewhere for construction of new trails or acquiring additional rights-of-way. 7. The Ute Park trail alignment along the park and river is a greater expression of the open space concept, and a far superior experience for the pedestrian, biker, fisherman and Nordic skier. We appreciate the opportunity to review the plan, and hope that you and the public reviewing bodies will seriously consider the points we have made in this letter. Sincerely, The Gant Condominium Associates, Inc. By: Glenn B. Jeffers, President GBJ/bn l . / \ / .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision PUD/Preliminary Plat DATE: April 21, 1987 BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICANT: Lowe Development Construction Corporation, Skip Behrhorst. LOCATION: Northside of Ute Avenue, just east of the Gant Condominiums, west of Ute Cemetery and south of Roaring Fork River. ZONING: R-15 PUD. SIZE: 7.6 acres, 332,880 square feet. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subdivision/PUD-Preliminary Plat, 8040 - Greenline, Stream Margin Review. -- PAST ACTIONS In February, the City Council granted the 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision Conceptual Subdivision/PUD approval and an allocation for 16 free market residential dwelling units. Several condi- tions were associated with the conceptual approval which the applicant was required to address as part of the preliminary plat review. The applicant has addressed all of the conditions which are discussed in this memorandum. We also provide you with an evaluation of the preliminary plat submission based upon Muni- cipal Code criteria. When the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) reviewed the conceptual submission, 8040 Greenline and Stream Margin Reviews, were postponed until the preliminary plat review, and so these are also reviewed herein. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CODE Sections 20-11 (Preliminary Plat - Procedures) and 20-12 (Prelim- inary Plat - Contents) establish the procedure and contents of the preliminary plat review. Because the 1010 property is a mandatory PUD, Section 24-8.9 of the Land Use Code is also applicable to the review. Architecture, landscaping and design features are considerations based upon this section of the Code. Additionally, slope density reduction must be calculated based upon Section 24-8.18. Due to the location of the subject property in proximity to the Roaring Fork River and the 8040 elevation line, the application is required to address code sections 24-6.2 (8040 Greenline Review) and 24-6.3 (Stream Margin Review). REFERRAL COMMENTS Engineering Department - Major concerns stated in Jay Hammond's April 10, 1987 memorandum include: 1) Preliminary approval should be conditioned upon: a. Submission of final plat in conformance with Section 20-15. b. Inclusion of drawing index on final plat. C. Note on final plat indicating roadway with a public utility easement. d. Notations on final utility plan, to indicate that where water and sewer lines cross, separation shall be maintained or lines will be encased per city standards. e. The final grading plan should more clearly define the limits of cut and fill areas within the development. 2) Review of the proposed grading plan for the proposed trail linking Ute Avenue to the nordic trail above the park site with final plan submission. 3) The stream margin review approval should be subject to continued involvement by Chen Associates or another Engineer and adherence to Chen's recommendations, particularly regarding construction techniques and temporary protection of natural slopes, the Wheeler, ditch and river. 4) The Engineer also recommends that the applicant guarantee the completion of utility/road/trail and landscaping improvements to Ute Avenue in the form of a cash escrow with the City or a bank in accordance with Section 20-16.(C). The guarantee should be negotiated with the City Engineer and Attorney as part of the subdivision improvements agreement. 2 1 J \ Water Department - The replacement and relocation of fire hydrant #742 on Ute Avenue is to be coordinated in the field between the developer and water department. A new mueller fire hydrant is recommended. Parks Department - Parks Superintendent, Bill Ness, comments that the Parks Department prefers trail option C because it is the best trail alignment to the proposed pedestrian bridge. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER COMMENTS Ms. Valerie Richter, Gant Condominium owner, comments in the attached letter that she would like to preserve the views from the Gant of the west meadow. She is particularly concerned about visual impacts of buildings located on lots two and three. PIANNING OFFICE COMMENTS Stream Margin Review As requested by the staff, the applicant has provided us with a letter from a professional engineer attesting to the fact that construction will not interfere with the 100 year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River. The City Engineer has also reviewed the application and recommends approval of the Stream Margin Review. The Planning Office recommends approval of the stream margin review. 8040 Greenline Review The Code requires the City to review all development within 50 years of the 8040 elevation line. Lot 1 of the Hoag Subdivision, a portion of this application, is proposed to be dedicated to the City as a public park. A parking lot, which constitutes develop- ment, is proposed to be constructed in the proposed park within 50 yards of the 8040 contour line. Consequently, the 8040 greenline review is required. < During the conceptual plan review, a representative of the property owner just to the east of the proposed park, objected to the location of the proposed parking lot adjacent to the east ,â€¢Ij j property line. At the time, City Council determined that the ~design of the proposed park should be addressed during the 8040 1 greenline review. The landscaping plan shows that the parking *54-/ lot has been relocated twenty-feet from the property line, bermed ( and landscaped. On Wednesday of last week, Skip Behrhorst told l us that he had met with representatives of the adjacent landowner l and agreed to relocate the parking lot another 10 feet to the j west. This conversation has not been confirmed by the adjacent l property owners representatives, but it is anticipated that they ~will be in attendance at your meeting. 3 1 I The Planning Office has no problems with the 8040 Greenline Review request and recommends approval. Preliminary Subdivision Plat The Preliminary Subdivision Plat satisfies section 20-17 of the Land Use Code. Minor changes in accordance with the City Engineer's comments should be made prior to final plan submis- sion. -Preliminary PUD Plan Architectural/Review/Design ~ Since the 1010 Subdivision will be~ob land subdivision, the t-AÂ» J~_developer does not intend to_buildlthe residence-s; However, 44 w /-7 the application contains architectural covenants and a ~ 3 30%/ \ proposal for a design committee to guide the construe- AE ef ~ tion of houses. The staff has reviewed the proposed Afth â‚¬-C covenants and find them to be comprehensive and adequate to (00â‚¬11*.45 l,-40 0 meet the City's PUD requirements. The covenants address j site plans, floor plans, exterior elevation, cross-sections, 1 ~ color samples, exterior lighting, landscaping and grading, ~ and will be presented in detail at your meeting. )Â£ Landscaping Plan Section 24-8.16 requires the applicant to submit a land- scaping plan. The proposed landscaping plan seeks to preserve as much existing vegetation as possible and enhance the attractiveness of the site with some new vegetation particularly adjacent to the Gant, and the construction of three ponds. The landscaping is scheduled to occur over a period of two years. It is anticipated that additional landscaping will occur on individual lots as they are 1..41 k .P developed. In our opinion, the landscaping plan is more D #-C than adequate and if implemented will be very attractive. Certain aspects of the landscaping and improvements plan LAÂ· t.< affects the public. The staff recommends that a guarantee "JU be negotiated as part of the subdivision agreement to insure f-tb 1 4 that improvements to public areas such as landscaping on Ute Avenue, trail andutilitY__location, Ute Avenue recon- struction and parks improvement occur in a timely manner, and that financial resources are available to the public to complete the improvements in the unlikely event that the project should be unable to do so. C. Development Schedule All improvements are anticipated to be completed during the summer of 1987 and 1988 with the exception of the actual construction of residences. Pursuant to the applicant's GMP 4 3 e>(rirc.â€ž0 allocation, the residences must be under building permit < review within 33 months of the original GMP submission date 1 corresponding to September 1, 1989, unless an extension is granted by Council at that time. - 5 e<- s e.c Â·r lon 1. 9- \ \ .1 J o F c.cle- Outstanding Issues/Conditions From Past Approval a. Trails The applicant was required to return at preliminary plat submission with three trail options for the proposed trail which will link Ute Avenue to the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Roaring Fork River. Three options have been prepared and are attached for your review. The applicant has committed to provide a trail easement for trail options B,C or D in lieu of constructing trail option A on City property. It is the staff position that the acquisition of trail easements across private property are more valuable to u,)In 1 the City than commitments to construct trails on City u.,elt Ke property. The City may budget to build trail option A at Â·rfut \ any point in the future, however, after the 1010 Subdivision C- is approved, the City will permanently lose their oppor-G~ tunity to provide a trail easement at no cost across the subdivision. In evaluating trail options B, C and D, the staff has considered the potential trail experience and privacy for subdivision residents and neighbors. Based upon these considerations, the staff believes that trail option C is the best trail alignment. b. City Raw Water Use Agreement The applicant has finalized a raw water use agreement with 0': the City of Aspen for use of irrigation water from the â‚¬, Wheeler Ditch, consistent with City Council' s condition of - approval. C. Building Envelopes/Bedroom Counts Building Improvement Envelopes have been specified as requested. Bedroom counts were requested in order to determine park dedication fees. Since the proposal is to 855 subdivide lots and not build houses, it is difficult to 10% estimate the proposed number of bedrooms. The park dedica- |~ A\\ C tion fee is calculated based upon a maximum of four bedrooms < <4~ per residence. The applicant proposes to pay the maximum ~ fee conditioned upon the City refunding fees in the event~ y <0/ that less than four bedrooms per unit are built. 5 d. Lots 13,14 and 15 The applicant has prepared an elevation drawing of roof heights on Lots 13, 14 and 15 from the perspective of the ~ east side of the Roaring Fork River. The purpose of the qw> d.pr' drawing is to demonstrate the visual impact on the east &91 ridge of the site. At conceptual submission, it was the staff opinion that Lots 13, 14 and 15 should be relocated to the west side of the east ridge. The P&Z and City Council did not concur with our position. Instead, the applicant was asked to prepare and present east elevation perspect- ives. Although we continue to believe that no building should be located on the east side of the ridge and that the drawings indicate the negative visual impact of the structures, we recognize that, at least conceptually, you do not concur with our findings. The applicant has committed to restrict the building heights of Lots 13, 14 and 15 to 12 feet above the ridgeline. Unless your feelings about the development have changed, we find this representation to be consistent with the condition established by P&Z and the City Council. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Office recommends approval of Preliminary Plat and PUD Subdivision, 8040 Greenline, and Stream Margin Review subject to the following conditions: Â£ O \CD Uct-CL_ AU k. C___r-=,AJAr.Dks 06 e re,-l, ov~ n.-e~./-~ A--fey,UJ-c 1) A subdivision/PUD agreement shall be submitted in conjunc- tion with the final plat submission. The agreement shall be reviewed by the City Attorney, City Engineer and Planning Office prior to final plat presentation to City Council. The agreement shall include the following provisions: a. An open space and common facilities agreement in accordance with Section 24-8.19. b. Commitment to join all improvement districts affecting ~ subject property QJ Â£1-k Â¥ke â‚¬->ctÂ·â‚¬ P-r-Lo- o e tuâ‚¬_ 4&5 0 r T+~rojewhervr-a.'>,r r.cr C.*-59wf D,et\,9-h C .ry Covivic.'\Â¥Lâ‚¬-50\--t Â·r-i LOYZ &7.- 1 - C. Necessary documents to convey open space to the City of Aspen. d. Employee housing restrictions consistent with concep- tual subdivision approval. e. Commitment that representatives made during conceptual and preliminary plan submissions will be adhered to. f. Commitment to adhere to recommendations Of Chen Associates regarding construction techniques and 6 _,0,0,1,1 f #Lb\Lof,4 rE 04Â»1 Â©wr 0-hâ‚¬-0 . , S a Act> b i 0 2 ' 6â‚¬-C_,râ‚¬ vri J 4-,â€¢1 Â« CL-â‚¬9~ X-O 13Â«_ <' cr.03 54'v# crc- c.> ..'rp\ r\occl~c.3/ n,Ki . 4 ,/r bstgt n Mo u A va. \ # it iff\y temporary protection of natural slopes, the Wheeler JUO ditch and river. g. A guarantee for the completion of utility/road/trail utpv and landscaping improvements to Ute Avenue in the form 9 4 accordance with Section 20_16(c). of cash escrow or bank bond or other alternative in h. Architectural covenants as proposed in submission. d i. Commitment to submit working drawings of water system to Water Department for approval prior to construction. ,_9' 17 3 f j . Commitment to replace and relocate to the satisfaction/ U u _m,t.Re<04#4.11.,Ar , of the Fire Marshall' existing fire hydrant #74ik prior 1 l to the issuance of a be-ilding--permit -for--the--fint- UO , , . C--Cri, Fi LLA-te Oi~--Od.C-LÂ·'t Â¥>Arl'6Â·~ Â·Â·'~er r.\Ae {2% (ir WOU,se house in the subdivision. 410 - r.-j 4 k. Commitment to develop air pollution control plan to 13,0 4 mitigate construction impacts shall be approved by Environmental Health prior to the issuance of a V -0 building permit. Uik 3 3 8 -u 1. Commitment that all buildings comply with Ordinance 86- 5 regarding solid fuel burning devices. 4 0 m. Commitment to comply with noise abatement Ordinance 81- k f 12. J 0 1 49 n. Commitment that in the event mine tailings are uncov- ered during excavation, the applicant shall have the kg UU soil tested for toxicity and the tests will be reviewed by Environmental Health prior to removal of any soil from the site. O. u 3\ 2) The final plat shall be in the following form and/or include @402 the following information: /D<(6. e 0 a. Dedication of trail option C to the City of. Asper!*U i r h v.se covt,r,on.,t,U~-ron Cov>SY,-, 1-coAO~ 474/*Ue f 'afo,â€¢ea -~r--d oprtoâ€¢-~ A- AJR- Or 'U\At (poryl.Q: Grulli<_ CA.*vwl a. fâ€¢JOUL râ€žâ€¢jkrfe-L-1-\ t-O %Â¥-1 97% f Note restricting building heights on lots 13,14 and 15 \TA'F:''0~<{_.~~â€¢-- to 12 feet above east ridge. \UfF--3 /7 { 40*rpâ‚¬ . Preparation of plan in accordance with Section 20-15. d. Drawing Index on first page. e. Note indicating that Ute Circle is a private roadway with public utility easements. f. Note on final utility plan to indicate that locations â‚¬ where water and sewer lines cross separation shall be 4 7 3.4 3 4 A n J a 10,0 1 1 maintained or be encased per City standards. g. A final grading plan which shall more clearly define the limits of cut and fill areas within the develop- ment. h. A more precise grading plan for the proposed trail linking Ute Avenue to the Nordic Trail above the park site on Ute Avenue. 3) In preparing for final plan submission, the applicant shall adhere to the provisions of Section 24-8.12 of the Code. GH.1010 8 . - r.. j 12, . , , S" ' J , 11 11 1 -- ~ ElÂ« .,/.2 ,/ \ l.1. -% 1, j I W. . ./ I j - , 1 1 , 1 4,1 .1$ P; tl p 1 '1- r ,/ 7,1, " ''' ' 2 I 1 ' -41\-b N \ (/ 1, .1 J /y I . ' i /..2.'~ / ..li: '. t -7 :7,46, / i.*C L . --4 79 1 -- , -\ 1 7.6.-4 -7 , .\ r.ke . ''' ..- I , 4 0 , :1 1. 4- 1,40- -' i rtu . - f r Fl-i,:ElÂ·-17~Â·~~itli LD ~ -- . ny.*t01* TY-- \~Ch43 1 - x \ 4 /Â»7- 3: 1 1 N 12 f ' ' -1 -. i liek /. .fi \ . - .....: .>Ed 4233-Â·50-: ' /J / t -,r,/ --Â»_~ / .i ) g.. ) ' ' -r . -/1 - ./- I - - - --1--- - -Â»-/ ' N\'k <31 I j *it Â·t 2 9 6 '. ~I --1- --- ~ 2,~~..,- M49 1 - , -4.1 B i , /3 I I 6/ ' r 1-1--f - ' Â·" - Â· . 1 - 75: ~ *;.Â·: .-/ :7,/ 4*/%$9~f0ii' FI.f~- 6 - A .. 7 ..'' - -------211---------- , -- .. N kiSM Y /3. ' I P, 0 LAâ€¢ 1 -- . -0 // 2 77 7 / , 2, r.: /, - 2 4 $\1 \\ r.-- / , , b / .'' ' . ,â€¢ i / , ' V , , -42 ' , I 1 , - 6 ' 1>â€¢41 I~~ . 27* - L. 7 1 Â«23 f r, 'Â·t,- i /01- , / ' J . --0 - lyÂ« , n.k. 1 , . /,1 I -- + aw--1 Â· A Ork- -2 4 - . I Â·-1 --- / 1 // r. i \I- 0- ir- ., 6 'A 4/ 7-W a , M. A-' IR - I , . z Â°Â· 3 . 16Â· \1#1--- 1 , 1 / I - . 1 97 1 --1--Â·-10-2 1 - 1 - ~ 3.-3.* 1 C,' M' ---- 1 ' 7.--7)~ --2--4~7/4@-liL-v-2-*2115~ rs â‚¬ -8 /- K - 12/' r ID f l -.fs - , /1- ' I 8 ,- ROA NG / \-- In= 7 'Z Y 43 - J - ./ wr F r- 4 i ; P PRELIMINARY P.U.D./SUBDIVISION -VELO-I -â€¢e UTE Co~PORATIoll a) 1*:d 1010 UTE AVENUE sutherland ........------ ASPEN. COLORADO fallin inco,Polated -*.Alâ€¢â€¢C-TECT -... .....L ./ 1280 Itâ€¢ a....â€¢ â€¢â€¢.â€¢â€¢ t. I.'1 30,..4252 .... -*. .- - .. .... 1 035Â©dowl / 6~1- 4â‚¬21 S,N38010-19.1,*r il . I .... ... .... .... lili lili .... lili ./. lili ./. .... .... .... ... .... wl W. Â· 6 -TAÂ»-O WALL : 0! ZIIÂ©P.,ile,21 199*Quir,<rk 0,'.*. w.'44-râ€¢ BA li I li 7990 ~~Â«rh , f ., -ht--~ ----% - .1. 7800 7,1'1,1,<de,i.,-A..r:. PL '...5.....:.1.'.A'*'.14\...1.-. .....,1â€ž '1'"" ~'* '~~4"~'-~~'- it li 11 3/~..NO WALL 1980 li 1! :f \ 1.979 .VE' SECTION 0+ 350 1 3969 , 1..%1%...1 .... '.'. 4., , .."I '.......'. I. 14,1,0.4 .., =I==...........-'.m:,-â€ž=-1 SECTION Oâ€¢ 150 7970 2 SECTION Oâ€¢ 0 ... - ~ - ~ ' ph METAINING WALL 7990-\2. w-1-"4- FETAÂ»-0 WAL. SECTION O.400 f 7980 11.r< B.(1 .Aâ„¢ h 7979 7980 7970 MVER 3- vt,g/LER 7900 - \WE" 7970 ~ ~ all PAâ„¢ -7.909.. -Â¤ F .VER 7960 SECTION 0â€¢200 Â»9 SECTION Oâ€¢ 50 12#9 S Â·79.041 - .TA*/ WALL SECnON 0â€¢ 450 \791. 7980. \0%:22?:if~~~~- .TA-~40 WALL 7970 , 797Q Naz>' -1 PAâ„¢ '-\ - p i ./.ELER \ DITCH /-- --3 RIVER 4,7.9*q. 471â‚¬,4,1.~ ... -1 ..t â€¢Aâ„¢ .' " I 7980 1 ,79,50 ~ SECTION Oâ€¢ 500 SECTION 0â€¢ 250 ~7970 ZIDEI 7960 " Irâ„¢CAL) - ER SECTION Oâ€¢ 100 A.':f| PROPOSED â€¢*Â«>GE META/-O WALL ,-Uf/ brnt:.-1- "-LIZ,Il---1- -- -!- , I. -! -1,- E ,1- < -7.9.il. 1** PATW -/. XL>V Â·- RM. 1 7950 .79450. 0 ~ SECTION Oâ€¢ 550 8a SECTION 0â€¢ 300 TRAIL OPTION 'A' - SITE SECTONS 3nN3AV 31n NOISIAIC)enS/*0'03 AbIVNInlla "2,52'toc 11'11 I.'I.'I' Ily"I .1. 002' d, 1.'U!liEu 00Â¥W0103 234 i, 'r'', . 11.,I -- r 4 1,1 2 i er ) U\1 , L Â¥1 Â¥ - 1 A 4 -4 7-j, 1 4,..3 . 7 / 49 4*hk.l '' I. .. 4 4% 1 V I k ~ ' Â·r i. -1 411'9AKEr:,>+ _ C -i#11% 1.& fyb" lit L.'I' ; 7 'Â· Ink N A. M,44 :,4 'j 11 4 . 4 :{. Â¥, al 11,11!1:\.1 P-3 :f li-iplit 1.L:@:Slitwillill,". ' '/ilisiellilillimilliliji;is .1 i: iii iii 441; ./ ill 5Â·5 . h,+-'rf-vT 2 \ BEw I "00410 -OE L, 1 . Eg* * Â«9-0Â·*Â« 37 91% 5 r/4 3234*#. 1, LS/3>*~t"-: 5 h / ex ; 4.2.. / r ed . 7.4- LL. L . , ,.~ ./ 1 1 / 104 f//Iff ..\\ ..3< t'" 4.3/ 1 Â»61 9 2 1 \ 0,1 I 14 \ 1 \\ . 26. 1 1 v F / : .6 92 ..O.0.0 < 1 49 L .,i, 3, '' ; 2 i PUSLIC : 1 \~ ,------f.Â·t A I ,'',i i-- 24 1/,ST}Il -E P... 1 h \\/2 , 1/< 0...1'','' Sm ''/ ' '4 19<' , 1: 40: (.1 f.: M ,1: 'i. 11: It '1."0.--- ---U) \\1 1.>t,~04\ 1\ ..... k,1.2.,7-092Â«2--.. 1.(fr 06x , ~4 L - - h .Â»t r h ,/ /*4' . U,1 \\ ; 1 12-1 2 .2 -*:--- **:--x--Zoozx..22--2-2927-=Â«-1..-#4.-~--*Itteref-Â»2~ 2.-, 2:4 LU 1. t.'- f m W .. 4,44. -UÂ»o'â€¢ ,CHILDREN'S )\ bARK -0 :.1 - - â„¢-1 - - -- ----- - - ---- ---- -- --- ----------1----- ----~-------12---~~---,e>~~33:-p--1-~j-i::49\~k~\ EN_---f~tÂ¢J. / 1 . V>/ 4 - 9- WO 4 -. . = *9Â·. ..-N + ...ff =.- 5.2...<310~02.112-~Â»~~.---- Â»N<Zt... "-4. i -,4.0 .-9232k 4 ---- -----~ ---------2->-e---- 5- Â£3.-- ---- -4 -- 6- i. - I' .Ii. .. -- ). - ~'' X~ TRAIL OPTION-'B'- i 200 c] P 1 IL,fur-- - ----- 1 Ila 252â€¢52*Coc ,Â¢9,1 -Â·wâ€¢â€¢tâ€¢ â€¢â€¢Wâ€¢â€¢â€¢ â€¢Iâ€¢ 092, DNIHVO NOISIAIOBAS/-and AHVN Â£ 1 Wd 1 1 00Â¥80-100 NldS. l: ..... . .6 -- -- PU:t: 11 : 0 : ./ '' jI -.CJ.l i ./' f,/,7/,'' ,/' /1 f /' 4 1 11 l' 4 f 111' l''I :'lilli k\4.''' --,; . =-pE ~G- : â‚¬' / .--i. . A 7/7 , , , ''' . , I . .,r 4 42 A , ''.'''I - ,â€¢1 + . 1-:/ h ''' ' ''' -- hg 47 40 ' I ' d :8 j , . - ,\' 24. / ' 1 !1, :ir i%& - 31-3 f . 9 i h . -27 . - 43. '' -4 110.,7 - 0 6-0 -4 c 6) Â· 1 : :f P: 94\7 w : />.1 -n / / ~ ~ i ,' , A ,' ,r-'7 LA>*L j k / 1.-I -- ./ ///.''j,t/,7 X .fc./.1 4 4:94 r.:.tr-,6'4 - -- - - I ' .. .IN ., Jr u< - 7 ' 3 .' I.,r CA - ... ......12.Â»242 J - Lili.52-3:3&697+ILE.3 3- - Â·'z~--c p--6-19->, _ h- , A. ' . 4 1 - j'I~'',3-./1,9217 / / 09' ~Â©t~Z'-0 X .A - -4Â¥ -- /7 <1 --' li -- #FRIA / f /0 -7 / 6 D. C f ;j 1 , ' I 1 2 f b.kj , 1 1 r , Ar-v0------- .. 1,/W ;C / , 111 u ..:h t j a . r ..f 2 - 7 i il \..'' ., Â£ '. 4 / I *.-7â€¢7-:-3+ /- - - 7 0-3 1 Ff 'lf . , /4 ) - 13-4 1 r ' ' 'd F -1 i - rr- I I. \ , -- Trd- - I 4 .- ~ r 7 1 , . I i / 3 -- 1 Â· / 4--___.U--- .Â·2<\ -44 Â· Â· . t - ---1 1- 1 IN /1/ 4 J - - V-- f . li .' t ~ --- 1--- i rk - W-' -0 -7 - v \ 1 - ,. ...Irye 1 ( : I , . ./ % .4. . C 51 ; - '1. , t.. r - 1J - . ZA 1-- -- y 1 1 4 j/-- - I f fit , -- 1- I. - - 6 2~ 1, b o ci g = 0 -:- 1=*7< 4. 4-- xm, - -i a- - Z 1 ; .1 1 I . ./1. C 1 - I : 1 11!' PRELIMINARY RU.D./SUBDIVISION -.~_...% ./.-_ I I. 3' 1010 UTE AVENUE sutherland .........I--*-- C./ E./.1// IC-///.......... ./ ASPEN. COLORADO fallin inco'Poiated LI-*C-â‚¬ â€¢IC-nic, Ili,~001 81,#Ciliti â€¢C t280 wl, ,â€¢~â€¢wâ€¢ aii,â€¢ c, 01*11 30312&42%2 .....-.... -â€ž- 03'odowd / LW~ 119 11 Â¥ i Er al . -4 9,1 - - 4% u ..1 /2 1-11 V - 13 iii <! - 1 1 -./ I--' -- 9 :iw:, li 6EY E5r iii SECTION C-4 1 1- F I -1-4 .,27 SECTION C-7 . JU. : 1 I._1 - i.,1 f. Â· I 04 ./.-0 --.-1.- i 4>Â¥ r-- 400,- - I SECTION C-3 , 1 - C r .f a ./ 23 1 J , 1 a..! \P~ D J.~ SECTION C-6 Ji/*ur-- ---=a~&----:~ --- _- SECTION C-2 1 L 1 24 1 1 1 ---4 .Ii ~t .-Â·,i , 44>fi /~ fg;' ~ 1, h ., r 'C- 1 Ir -hi 1 .11â‚¬~--- C.,rn - -- ---- d*.te A - SECTION C-5 r; 1 _- A 1*'I *-.t,0 ..... C-I ././... 1 10a r SECTION C-1 TRAIL OPTION 'C' - SITE SECTIONS ..... /O,1,-O,-0 3,0 NOISMIC}enS/and AHVNIINI 138d 13.... 0<JVWO-)00 'N]dSÂ¥ ..5. Cot ".1 I.'Uâ€¢.â€¢â€¢ I.'8â€¢â€¢ â€¢'I 0821 Â· pate,Od,00.1 3nN3AV 3.Ln 01.01. \ / c \ \\41?'.9 o /1 CL U . d 1. . '%' 1, 8 , 20 1 1 ' ...9 ,~''Ll,~17 1 , -1-'.) IL/V. t..3 ~. 7.1 *l' ' .lu' 1 \'.6. * lili ' lilli' #I " J C i T I I IC ' G ANY : 11 11' t. 1'. , \\ 0= Â¢ 11 li , 1 11 4 , 044. ..2 #499 49#- -. ~-~ ~~~:- f .. ji." ' 221*â‚¬ '''; .FT- r..51.7 17.e;25' \ 2.y" 9 1. 1 t\> ., 1/ 7 , 11 , 1 ,4 1 1 \ ::R nlili 1 , L' 4 ~ nied~W 0 . .1' :EÂ¥ , ' 7.-7;0-0 4-12 1 '4 1 ,~,9< 9122,1 ; fi2%2~ 91#6-Â·. *' - , E./.0 ;'t' LU /' ' I U j , 1 1 1.% Â£ %1 I .... \ 1 1 , Â·-3.Nk~/~ ~ ----Â· t.Â·12,iÂ·Â·~e, )0 '' 1 1 i 1 17 h Â»13% - 1. . a 4 , 1 \ , 0 % t . 0~ 1 blw 10 .Â· , /1 31 00 i in 1%' i.l...' ... , 1 , 1. i 1/1 4 ex 17 , 1% Â¢ i 1 r ... ,, i il , . 5. ,-- t ~,14 4- . ' ./ \ \ 447 -: -' . 1/. '' 11 V , h. , fuÂ·Â·-rIP I 1 9 1., 7 P /1 ' \ 77 \ 1 1 ~ ~-+t~ ~~~~~~~~fj.-4'.-~ 11. '01~ ~~~ ~ti,)--\ r .\ ' , 1 , t.04..0\ k. , |:'~.'~3 i, t' kL~v.941<f''llÂ·i). 1/ / ~ 1 '. ..M'.I-/ -'#A l ' + , 1 2.h; 50 1 ' rb / \ 9,1 1 1.,f ,/.+.... , . 76< ' 1 ; 4'-41~ i "t '' .. '1~41 - i , Â£ \\ i ../,0,0 / r 1% 4 1 , N . 6 ; .,4\1.-- ~/ 6.9 4144 40,7/ 1 , : 10 \45\'61 1 0, ~: %6. AN/Mb<*Liww 1 \ i : .41,1?\\1 4. '1 1 1 .. , '4 233 , 1,1 h. .1 ..U. Le'. - .1 1- ]'' t./ \ , V . , 1 ''' #-'. '. ' 14~ 1 . . . / '' 1 1 .' '. 11 1 I / 1 - , 12 C .' 0/~/ P~0~011' , 9 '' " " I d' tf'/ 7 PUBLIC ' I /\1 I 7 PARK .f~L'Nk % ' 1 1 \ .0,< r.5 44Â· Bil , , ..a: i / , 1, .\ 1, 7 ''t ' - ~0/ t Â· tt~ 1 . 2 r: 't .CA 1\ I. i ' , '' 1 I , cr U) 4 .2 ->'f- -=. I' ' - , , 1 1 F \ I 00-h' 11<.. ''< -- \ . - ---h\- .\\U-- 9- 2 1 ~ i 1 3,4~- I 1 2 ' 1 1 , .------------- -Z--------. ------,26* .--. ./~ w- r.---.R>2.-,--cr-JJTY *b-Epar 2 - )1\, 144>- .Ne-9-32-\ Ott =.2 - C '' \J h, 1 liTE C:41 0../'.K :Â·Â· ---922{fiI-:0-0.--Ic?~.,-f~:2~~:2:1:fo....~fi :itÂ«::2.*Â·Â·.:.*40~Â«. 44'i (C< _c h, 206 I \.... PARK --- -- - '-----z~ -- ------- Â· 20 -2&&&=222-IEZ:.2 .:/1-/-2-*-----I- .-Ilfkfir:(~332&:4:.-034~9346/...-'wrut ---I--0 1..-4.4.- | --- $ -fhy TRAIL 6*iiONÂ»-\ \ 11 I \ 6 1) 1-1-n/L==7 --- - I 100 f.:'' NKEM I-,3'uâ€¢~â€¢â€¢ OMN- * Mi Pate,odâ€¢0:u, Ile, 00Â¥H0100 'N3dSV A. NOISIAIC}enS/-0'nkl AHVNIQI-labld i 3ONam 310 OLOL; . MEMORANDUM To. Glen Horn, Planning Office FROM Dill Ness, Parks Superilitendent -lE:~202.-fL k...-~66% DATE April 6, 1 967 RE. 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision/PUD Preliminary Plat After vievlri,2 all trail options I believe Option 'C' to be mv first choice. I feel this makes the most sense and creates the best trail experience bv giving the public a more logical approach to t.he proposed bridge. Option 'A' has the interruption of going around the proposed Ute Subdivision and not being a verv direct approach t.0 the bridge. If we go with Trail Option 'C' we sdll , t, have the option to add the trail along the river which will create a river - oriented logging loop around the proposed Ute Subdivision. I feel if we go with Trail Option 'A' we'11 find that some of the trail users will take a short cut through the Ute Avenue Subdivision to Ret to the bridge, Plus, we won't have the option to create the jogging loop. BN:mim ( 6214 North 34th Street Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253 February 26, 1987 Mr. Glen Horn Aspen-Pitkin Planning and Zoning : 130 South Galena p ?,44,3 4 Aspen, Colorado, 81611 I Dear Mr. Horn: I wish to present my concerns regarding the Lowe Construction Company development project, which is presently under review by the City of Aspen. I urge the City to safeguard views towards the cemetary and the Ever- greens on its Western ridge from the vantage point of the Gant "K" Building and the adjacent Ute Avenue path. It would be ~an eyesore for the buildings to be placed towards the crest of that ridga-or for two-or-more level buildings to be allowed at that location. Several Gant buildings; several houses; and that section of Ute Avenue, have for years afforded one of the more pleasant in-town vistas in Aspen. In the Gant "Kit Buildings alone, over twelve units have picture windows directly displaying that area. Each unit offers this view to their rental guests. Over the course of a year, hundreds of Aspen visitors occupy those units. They get an impression of Aspen, during their stay in those units, and many have developed a preference for that location because of the un- obstructed view of the surrounding area. Unnecessary placement of buildings might be at the expense of current property owners, who contribute to Aspen's economic and general welfare. I urge that the structures-especially multi-level structures, be located on the development in a less obtrusive and view-obstructing location. Sincerely, - f 11 /li.- c -2-tjt, Valerie Richter Owner, Gant K-301 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney > City EngineerÂ« A-*en Water Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Par;.2~Department Fire/Marshall Zoning Official FROM: Glenn Horn, Planning Office RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision/PUD Preliminary Plat DATE: March 20, 1987 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Gideon Kaufman on behalf of his client, Lowe Development Corporation requesting approval for Preliminary Plat Subdivision, Preliminary P.U.D. Plan, 8040 Green Line Review and Stream Margin Review. The applicant is proposing a 16 unit subdivision, plus one employee unit. The property is located on Ute Avenue and is bordered by The Gant, Calderwood Subdivision, Ute Park and Ute Cemetery as well as Lot 1, Hoag Subdivision. The land is located within the R-15 P.U.D. zone on a total of 332,875 square feet, or approximately 7.64 acres. Please review this material and send your comments to this office no later than April 7, 1987 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z on April 21st. Thank you. 5/ 4 ' i '.Â· , MAR 2 6 13,3-i~ , 1 I i:\ ,Â·,1, ' ' ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: GLENN HORN, PLANNING FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: 1010 UTE AVENUE/<UD PRELIMINARY PLAT DATE: MARCH 25, 1987~~~~~94) t:~,/~Q/~0~4,',,0,6 Per your memo of March Zthtâ€žh-2 we have again reviewed the 1010 preliminary application, in particular the utility plan, sheet 5. Such utility plan is acceptable to the Aspen Water Department, which in essence consists of an 8" cast iron water main off Ute Avenue to the intersection of lots 6 and 10 at the cul-de-sec, at which point such line is interconnected with a 6" ductile water line to the existing water line located in the Calderwood Subdivision, thereby creating a loop system as recommended by this department. We wish to note the existing fire hydrant #742 is to be relocated or moved out of the bicycle path. We recommend (as being more practical) that the hydrant top of the existing hydrant be dismantled and the remainder of the hydrant be abandoned and a new mueller type hydrant be located off the 8" main at or near the intersection of the subdivision roadway in Ute Avenue; actual location of the hydrant is to be agreed upon and verified in the field between the project engineer and the Water Department. JM: ab ec: Jay Hammond, Public Service Director Gideon Kaufman - 1 MEMORANDUM 1-87 TO: Glen Horn, Planning Office FROM: Wayne Vandemark, Fire Marshal RE: 1010 Ute Ave. PUD Preliminary Plat DATE: March 23, 1987 I have review the above mentioned Plat. The proposed subdivision is .6 of a mile from the Fire Department by the shortest route. The distance was measured by vehicle from the station to hydrant 0 742. The response time will be less than three minutes. There is adequate water in the area to service fire protection with the addition of the new hydrants. . 1 Grand Avenue; Suite 212 ~ SCHMUESEA GOED DYER /1.'C.~5~::~(j~<~. G.-.wood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-1004 . 4-Vol~k- 4 + CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVIVORS,~ March 17, 1987 Fr. Glenn Horn Asren/Pitkin County Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 PE: Pelationship Petheen Floodplain and Pedestrian Trail 1010 Ute Avenue Dear Glenn: I have reviewed the drawings for 1010 Ute Avenue as it relates to Trail Option A and the proposed pedestrian bridge crossing of the Roaring Fork River and the floodplain elevation adjacent to the property. This is to certify that, if the trail and bridge are constructed as shown on the drawing, they will not interfere with the 100-year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River. The elevation of the trail and bottom of the bridge are at least three feet to four feet above the 100-year eleva- tion at any given location. I trust that the above certification is adeauate to address the end i- tion of the Planning and Zonina Commission. I would be happy to pro- vide any additional information at your reauest. Respectfully submitted, SCE NESER GORDON fIEYER, INC. ffean K. /Gordon, P.E. /President DNG:lee/614A xc: -Mr. Skip Behrhorst, Lowe Development -Mr. Dick Fallin, Sutherland Fallin, Inc. I , MEMORANDUM TO: Glenn Horn, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering -34- DATE: April 10, 1987 RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Preliminary P.U.D. Having reviewed the above application for Preliminary Plat Subdivision, Preliminary P.U.D. Plan, 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin and building on slopes in excess of 40% for the 1010 Ute Avenue project, I would offer the following comments: PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBDIVISION Generally the submission is quite complete for preliminary plat purposes. Preliminary approval should be contingent in: 1. Submission of a final plat in conformance with the requirements of Section 20. 2. Inclusion of a drawing index. 3. Indication that Ute Circle is a private roadway and public utility easement as well as separate easement agreements for public utility purposes. 4. Notations on the utility plan to indicate that locations where water and sewer lines cross they shall maintain separation or be encased per City standards. 5. The grading plan should more clearly define the limits of cut and fill areas within the development. PRELIMINARY P.U.D. PLAN The preliminary plan seems to show some changes to the proposed site grading plan. I would recommend preliminary approval be contingent on: 1. Designation of areas of 0 to 20, 21 to 30, 31 to 40 and 40+% slope as used in the slope-density reduction calculation. While the developer has indicated that these reductions have been calculated, I have not seen the working drawing of the topo on which they were designated. While it may not be necessary to include this information in the plat documents, we would simply like to review the slope analysis. Page Two 1010 Ute Avenue Preliminary P.U.D. April 10, 1987 8040 Greenline I would reiterate that the Engineering office has no significant concerns related to 8040 review on Lot 1 of the Hoag subject to ' specific review of the grading requirements of the proposed trail. Stream Margin Review We would support stream margin approval subject to continued involvement by Chen and Associates and adherence to their recommendations particularly regarding construction techniques and the temporary protection of natural steep slopes, the Wheeler ditch and river. Steep Slopes Again, construction on steep slopes would seem achievable from a design and soil stability standpoint. Approval should be subject to the continued involvement and adherence to the recommendations of a soils engineering consultant. JH/co/1010UtePrelPUD architecture suthe-'-nd, fallin, inc. , p.- . & planning k / 1280 ute avenue April 21, 1987 aspen 81611 colorado 303/925-4252 MEMORANDUM TO: Glenn Horn, Planning Office FR: Richard A. Fallin RE: Building Heights Limit on Lots 13, 14, and 15 1010 Ute Avenue - #87-08 No roof shall exceed 12 feet above the centerline of the existing ridge, starting at the south property line of lot 15 and extending northerly through lot 15, lot 14 and a portion of lot 13, determined by an overall distance of 180 feet from the south line of lot 15. The height limit will not exceed 12 feet above the ridge centerline starting at elevation 8020.5 at the south line of lot 15 to elevation 7990 on lot 13. /lb ~vw 70 p en --5451(9 gâ„¢-0 1 1"01 -fvy + Â»073 Ww 0/ iwo 4 Al'' ) 40 ---0Â·v~-* -0 9*FOR-r-Pr , h Â· 96<2 0(14 4 lo a i rjol 69 9400/hA'/3-60â‚¬0 4*n~=uof) 9~Yv#fÂ« WÂ» 1[y) 91) ~wn,+'48 /1,1 22 0 3,1)3Â°l y*D /Â©0 Orrej ,--ilihorijAVI gl '330-83 j ---300 -2~.Devi,i Â»#p*#iri . E #-vpÂ» 1 6-v-Â·t 0wjt? -* 4 Â© -Vll~< 90 )Fri U - 0-2 -9.4'f-hs> 3-9 5~6143-49 511 1-~0 1Â»1 by'*3Â»03 -9 4 -r)d )-40-M~ ID ~ 9-0:994W<~0<~ 7 , 72439 rk,Jk bl:"1.-~99-0 - gymjÂ» j --rj<j /-vÂ·u'v~ 4 2-4 -13 'DP)1Â«D *4 CA 1 9-0..teÂ«w 199 --3Yb jl-v-~-'3Â»3) - )&-O,-'A~Â°9 --}-b)cE--AW'.0-994 0*103) 31- 0 3~~ eor-9 1- 1 --th ,*30 --3 0-Â¥/3 ht --~0 03Â°1 4 70, r vmi l 94 nkre .140 4-YA %'Â·Â° 3 NiÂ»Â° ) -Â»4 4-*091 --wgÂ»<7 1 --tiv #rohe Â°fÂ£~ 1 .wokk- .CY,<1 Â»"' 1.w?21-. -Â«91,-91Â°<9 --fbki_ *rvi#iplf- 5 ~+01Â©331*1 31 67* 73 091/93 6Â»-1 91 -1 *b' 9 8 0+Mo-vilvs i 4 0 1 piowvri-t)' f~--' -3, 3---L 7%22,7 to,A i V' 1.~~:*-- ~ vve] 9 ;31--~ QÂ¥Al ~f\~ ~ =r-~Jo~g J'~' 14~~41-w ~259v~~1~ir~&~1fU 041T,374ybJ J 1 90 01 --V318 3Â»v 23 -rnvo MOD,4 7.30*9'~ Dj -p.-bilof} )44)Jfl iD-t Â»'0Â»Â¥5 _Â©<~19 -ljow cÂ° 99) 1 OnÂ»~, -vi 6-Â®6p -vwv~g- vaÂ©J-J 7 -jÂ© G&Â¥Wr,A-)J :elj L Ap-)[ 11+ 30 cnrAMT <~14Â»~9 4 -PhOS hi)Â°11 -14 go i J -tÂ°3 Â»-o O'Uha i 40 2 * -pr)-3, 9-vin.'07'7L#0 -47'03<~AM 6 Kg ov' ry --6341* 69Â«63vlb-va -by-t 1-7-75 7-v-v-*1 :-aj -7)4-4-31 - 7â€ž,dhoT Â· s-l jfgyÂ° -Â»1;P' mt PBRFU 0} -ng iker -\00" len I f 903-01009 -09. 1--9+ 3 *0290.-w-z Ply-+ 3224 4,3 M# 79 -tr -tÂ¥\A 3 C I Â¥47Â¥1449 9Cn -V'-0 29 --03+ 39 45'UÂ·tpojp tv 411<4&9 7377 Vabâ‚¬ _)-9-v -3 "g-3 1 f r.prr~0 Â¥33'Cy -b My 799920%0 199/ 413h .YinÂ»~ir-wl 774 447-4 77+ -aple~ Â·Pevprio-'0Â») Al'Â»'31~- T:LS 74 7 1 lesn =-o ~--al, 3< + gh pyr 1 9,7 OF 1 1 ' PE Dj 12 ' 0-2 9 0 Je graND 10 -*olvv &*3(3.- 1 -1 1 7-0 *ali 7-94 AMMM/4 .NJÂ¥*FReJ -\09 m za --~319Â¥*CAÂ»., 1 gy#7539 -y*- h'*V,-1Â»~4~d -0~1-4 ~ 415 06- *i:WING}* I 9plt grp NOT) -01% * gly p VWN~i) 81 -* 203 y 91.. 1 9-~ ~ 17+ Â»0~f - nj-~~1Â©~9 <-~4% 47-lrrir-Â°FJ~4 1-12)6 3--9 1 Â»rtg'&~ D 1-Â© Â»1~t~VX~22<9> P ~Â°ly-Â«W ~j Â¥j 9 "1% <Â»0-10 Â«0~+1 j --2-0, r=3 1Â»-Â« 0Â·Â¥L ,%*ap CK. t-FL (Le-*U ru C, 1 a- dum k a#Kk Uet& 64 HUre-1 ~vt voiN OANIâ‚¬,ik-- a,~ a-~1Â«.2._ 40 + 4- re.>WUW~ACLA *AA 00 a- -Se~S tti~ 7-KQ.Â£.rt 3 crfbot lÂ·Â«r. . 1 r MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director G-\4 RE: 1010 Ute Ave/Conceptual Planned Unit Development Review DATE: February 18, 1987 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION The Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) have reviewed the Lowe Development Corporation's request for concept- ual Planned Unit Development (PUD) Subdivision approval for the 1010 Ute Avenue proposal and recommend approval with conditions. Copies of the proposal have already been distributed to you. It is recommended that you review the applicants submission prior to the meeting on Monday. BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICANT: Lowe Development Corporation, Skip Behrhorst. LOCATION: Northside Of Ute Avenue, just east of the Gant Condominiums, west of Ute Cemetary and south of Roaring Fork River. ZONING: R-15 PUD (see attachment 1) SIZE: 7.6 acres, 332,880 sq. ft. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD). 8040 Greenline Review, Stream Margin Review, Special Review for Exempting Employee Housing from GMP process. SITE DESCRIPTION: The site consists of two parcels of land separated by Ute Avenue (see attachment 1). The southerly parcel is Lot 1 of the Hoag Subdivision. This parcel is approxi- mately 1.6 acres in size and is characterized by steep slopes on the southside of the parcel and a relatively flat area adjacent to Ute Avenue. An existing City trail traverses the steep part of the property on the Old Midland right-of-way. The northerly parcel is approximately 6 acres in size. The site is characterized by a open meadow on the west side of the parcel which gently slopes from west side of the parcel by the Gant to the east side by the hill at Ute Cemetary (see attachment 2). This site was the proposed base area for the Little Annie Skiing Area gondola. East of this open meadow is a ridge which bisects the property and visually screens a second low meadow to the east of the ridge which is bordered by yet another ridge on its eastern side. The eastern meadow is not visible from Ute Avenue on the west and the Callahan, Riverside and Gordon Subdivisions on the east, however, it is visible from the Calderwood Subdivi- sion. The second ridge on the far eastern side of the parcel overlooks the Roaring Fork River and provides outstanding views of the Sawatch Range at the top of the Roaring Fork Valley. This ridge is highly visible from the Gordon, Riverside and Callahan Subdivisions but visually screens the eastern meadow. At the southern end of the ridge is a knob which has previously been dedicated as open space. Topography on the east side of the site varies from 7,990 feet on the far eastern ridge to 7,970 feet in the eastern meadow. Topography on the western portion of -the site varies from 7,980 feet on the western edge to 7,970 in the western meadow (see attachment 2). Overall, the 1010 Ute Avenue parcel is a unique site within the City of Aspen due to its rolling topography, views and river frontage. The existing characteristics of the site, including the coverage of small Aspen trees and rock outcropping, are also site features to consider. The unusual features of this site present opportunities for site planning techniques which are uncommon in most of the City. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The subject site is bordered by the Gant Condominiums (multi- family residential) to the west, Calderwood Subdivision (single family duplex and fourplex housing) to the north, the proposed Gordon Subdivision, Callahan and Riverside Subdivisions to (single-family) the east across the Roaring Fork River and Ute Cemetary to the south. The subject site is considered to be a transitional area from higher densities on two sides to lower densities on the other two sides. Attachment 1 shows that the zoning in the area varies between R-6, R-15, C and RR. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The development team for the 1010 subdivision has spent more time than most applicants in working with the City staff, neighbors and community groups to develop a conceptual site plan for the parcel which seeks to respect the unique features of the land and is consistent with community planning concepts. The applicant has attempted to respect the existing topography, create privacy for future residents, maximize views and minimize visual impacts on surrounding areas. As shown in Attachment 3, the site plan incorporates a "meadows" and "ridge" concept. Ten proposed residences are clustered in 2 T r pairs around the east and west meadows. Seven homesites are located on the western ridge above the Roaring Fork River and have views of Independence Pass. Homesites 13, 14, and 15 are located on slopes of approximately 40 percent but are proposed to be restricted to only one-story above the ridge line. A deed restricted low-income three-bedroom house is also proposed. The overall density of the project is 3 5% below the maximum allowable of 26 units. Particular care has been taken by the applicant to preserve the west and east meadows. The applicant has attempted to minimize the visual impact of developing the meadows on the Gant Condomin- iums and Calderwood Subdivisions. The 1.6 acre parcel located on the mountain side of Ute Avenue is proposed to be dedicated as a City Park and public parking -:for ten vehicles. The remaining 6 acres will be developed as described. The application proposes the development of two ponds in the westerly meadow and one pond in the easterly meadow. The applicant and the City of Aspen have reached a tentative agree- ment in concept to divert raw water from the Wheeler Ditch for decorative/storage ponds and irrigation. Landscaping in the open meadow is proposed to be minimal, with concentrations of landscaping along the edges of homesite. A landscaped entrance is proposed at Ute Avenue, along with the construction of landscaped landforms contiguous with Ute Avenue which will be designed to screen the relocated and improved Ute Avenue Trail. Additionally, the proposed public park will be improved and irrigated by the applicant. A large landform is proposed on the northwest side of the parcel to screen the Gant from the subdivision and vice-versa. The applicant proposes to construct and dedicate a trail conec- tion from the City trail on the toe of Aspen Mountain to the proposed public park. Additionally, it is conditionally proposed that Trail A which is located on City of Aspen property and links the proposed Gordon Bridge to Ute Childrens Park will be improved by the applicant (see attachment 3). In the event that the City requires the dedication of a trail traversing the property from west to east (Trail option B) as shown in the Aspen Area: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element, than the applicant will not improve the trial by the river (see attachment 4). It should be noted that the applicant has gone to great lengths to study the possibility of developing an alignment for Trail option B. The applicant has told the staff that he is seeking to develop a subdivision which features privacy and the location of a trail through the subdivision may be inconsistent with his concept for the subdivision. The applicant is opposed to a trail through the subdivision, does not believe that it would be a pleasant trails experience and does not believe that such a trail alignment is needed. The applicant is, however, committed to 3 t., 1.. providing the trail along the river, as long as the easement for Trail B is not required. The applicant will comply with the City's off-street parking requirements. The main access drive and interior roads have been carefully designed to follow the topography and avoid existing vegetation and rock out croppings. The applicant proposes significant improvements to Ute Avenue, including re-alignment, reconstruction and widening. The site data listed in Table 1 summarize the proposal for this development. TABLE 1 SITE DATA AREA SIZE North side of Ute Avenue 263,920 s.f. South side of Ute Avenue 68,950 s.f. Adjusted area after slope reduction 267,570 s.f. Adjusted area after easements 260,910 s.f. Average lot areas 15,340 s.f. Total permissable FAR 76,806 s.f. Proposed FAR limits 68,900 s.f. Average Proposed House size 4,050 s.f. Proposed common open space 149,800 s.f. Source: Lowe Development Corporation as rounded off by Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office REFERRAL COMMENTS The Planning Office has received referral agency comments from the City Engineer, Housing, Water, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Fire, and the Roaring Fork Energy Center, Environmental Health, Zoning and Parks. The City Attorney, and RFTA did not provide written comment on this proposal but have discussed their concerns with the Planning Office. Referral comments for each agency are summarized below. 1) City Engineer: The City Engineer had no particular concerns relative to the conceptual PUD but notes that issues of concern later in the process Will be; parceling and easements, resolution of appropriate drainage, right-of-way on park dedications and utility alignments. 2) Housing: The Housing Authority recommends approval of 4 Ill.. the proposed three bedroom low-income employee unit and cash-in-lieu payment of 460,000 to be paid at issuance of building permit for each free market unit on a pro- rata basis. Conditions cited in the Housing Depart- ments December 10, 1986 memorandum and listed in the recommendation section Of this memorandum should be adhered to. 3) Water: The Water Department will provide service to the proposed subdivision. However, approval is conditioned upon the following: o Applicant must submit working drawings for approval prior to construction. o The applicant will replace and relocate existing fire hydrant #741 adjacent to the Gant. 4) Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: The District will be capable of providing service to the develop- ment. 5) Fire Department: The Fire Department will be capable of providing service to the development. 6) Environmental Health: Approval of this project should be conditioned on the following: o Air pollution control plan to mitigate construe- tion impacts shall be approved by Environmental Health prior to the issuance of a building permit. o All buildings shall comply with Ordinance 86-5 regarding solid fuel burning devices. o The applicant will comply with noise abatement Ordinance 81-2. o In the event mine tailings are uncovered during excavation, the applicant shall have the soil tested for toxicity and the tests will be reviewed by environmental health prior to removal of any soil from the site. 7) Zoning: The Zoning Official had the following comments: o The floor areas for each parcel should be presen- ted. o The City will need to know the number of bedrooms per free-market unit to calculate the cash-in- lieu. 5 1, 1.. o Building envelopes and setbacks should be estab- lished. 8) Parks: The Parks Department had the following comments: o The best trail alignment in this vicinity is from Hoag Subdivision, Lot 1 (proposed park) through the 1010 Subdivision to the proposed Gordon Subdivision. Later on the City can use capital funds to develop the trail by the river. o Questions have been raised regarding safety on the Nordic Trail due to conflicts with ski home Alpine skier traffic. o More information Will be required regarding irrigation of the proposed City park. Addition- ally, the final agreement regarding the use of City water for irrigation should have provisions for the City to have first priority to use water for Glory Hole Park and the Mall in the event of a drought year. 9) Roaring Fork Energy Center: The Roaring Fork Energy Center Will comment in more depth pending a more detailed plan for the subdivision. LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS OR OTHERS Gant Condominium Association: The Gant Condominium Association sent a letter to the Planning Office which is attached with the referral comments. The Gant objects to any trail alignment through the 1010 Ute Avenue development. The Gant Condominium Association feels that a trail through the project would conflict with the privacy of the Gant Condominiums and Calderwood Subdivi- sion and affect security. Also attached for your consideration are letters from the Hoyt and Hayes families. Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council The Nordic Council wrote a letter which is attached in support of a trail by the River rather than a trail traversing the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision from Ute Avenue to the river. PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS The Planning Office's comments regarding this project relate to the Master Plan for this area, the trails plan and the site plan. MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS: THE 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan 6 ., i.. E r proposed this area for mixed-residential development. The text of the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan calls for a reduction in densities in areas located on the fringe of the City of Aspen. The development below allowable density proposed by this subdivi- sion is consistent with both Plans. Given the regulations of the land use code for the R-15 PUD district, a maximum of approxi- mately 26 dwelling units could be developed on the site if a duplex style development was utilized. Therefore, the proposal represents development 35 percent below the allowable density, which is appropriate in this location. TRAILS PLAN: As depicted in Attachment 4, four trails are an issue as part of the 1010 Subdivision. The proposal to construct and dedicate a trail from the Aspen Mountain Trail to the proposed park is a good idea which was not envisioned bythe adopted Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element (hereinafter Trails Element). Likewise, the relocation of the Ute Avenue was not proposed in the Trails Element but, nevertheless, is a good idea. Our principal problem with the site plan is with respect to trail options A&B (see attachment 4). Figure 9 of the Trails Element proposes that both trail options A&Bbe constructed in order to develop a trail loop in this area. It may be worthwhile to the P&Z to review the logic behind planning for two trail alignments and the reason why two trails were proposed in the Trails Element. In preparing the Trails Element, the staff, P&Z and City Council sought to design a trails system which offers a mix of urban and rural experiences for trails system users. Consequently, some trails are located beside streams and in pristine areas while other trails may traverse developed residential areas. We believe it is the constrast of the built and natural environments which creates interest and makes the Aspen trails system a unique attraction for visitors and residents. Interesting buildings and architecture may be as important to some trail users as a pristine river setting. A loop from town out Ute Avenue, through the Aspen Club trail, back along the river along trail option A and then to Ute Avenue on trail option B is the type of recrea- tional experience which makes Aspen's trail system such a great diversified experience. Additionally, it should be noted that the trails system is designed to serve both recreational activities and commuters. The applicant has argued to the staff that trail option A is a better trails experience because it meanders along the river. We contend that someone who lives in Aspen Grove, the Gordon or Riverside Subdivisions that has to get to work at the major activity center surrounding the proposed Little Nell development or wants to walk to the gondola to go skiing would be more interested in the most direct walking route that the trail system 7 1,1, can offer. This route would be across the proposed Gordon Bridge and a long trail in the proposed 1010 Subdivision to the Ute Avenue trail. Objectives D2 and D17 from the trails element support this concept. Objective D2 Provide trail connection to all major activity centers especially recreational, cultural, commercial and educational center. Objective D17 Identify trails which are intended to move a large number of people to an activity center and develop them so that they are an attrac- tive alternative to the automobile. The Trails Element recommends general trail alignments and not precise corridors for trails. At the time when a trails easem-ent is dedicated or a trail is constructed, the optimum corridor should be used. It is not surprising to us that the Gant Condominiums Association has objected to trail option (see attachment 3) because the applicant has proposed that the trail be constructed as close as five feet from the Gant Condominiums and the residences in Calderwood. In our view, this is a completely deficient trail design to which almost anyone would object. Section 20-18(c) of the Code states that "whenever a proposed subdivision embraces any part of a bikeway, bridle path, cross country ski trail or hiking trail as designated on the Aspen Trail System Plan, the subdivider shall plat and grant public easements in compliance with the Plan." Based upon this Code requirement and the general trail alignment proposed in the Trails Element, the Planning Office recommends that the applicant be required to redesign trail option B in a manner acceptable to neighboring parcels and dedicate the easement to the City. It is suggested that the trail alignment be relocated to the east of that shown on Attachment 3 so that it links to the trail on Ute Avenue and the proposed City Park. The trail should be internal- ized within the subdivision so that it does not impact neighbor- ing properties and can provide an amenity for residents of the 1010 Subdivision. The applicant has objected strenuously to internalizing the trail within the subdivision. This is not uncommon with developers seeking to create exclusive, private, developments. In fact, the same arguments were raised by the developers of the Preserve Subdivision just east of this site. In the case of the Preserve, the County staff worked closely with the developer to select a trial alignment acceptable to the developer and the County. Access to the trail system is an amenity to be marketed as part of an innovative PUD plan. Potentially, future residents of the 1010 Subdivision could be able to access a trial at their door 8 and ski all the way to Snowmass Village. As part of the prelim- inary plat submission to P&Z, the applicant intends to prepare two or three options for Trail B. SITE PLAN: The applicant has sought to create small single- family residential lots via the PUD provisions of the Land Use Code. In our opinion, the applicant has incorporated good site planning techniques to maximize common open space areas and minimize private lots as proposed in this application. We believe that the applicant has an excellent concept for the parcel and that the 1010 Subdivision will be a good development for the City of Aspen. However, the staff has a basic philo- sophical difference of opinion with the applicant regarding which natural features of the site should be preserved. The applicant strongly believes that the east and west meadows and the internal open space are the most critical natural features to be pire- served. The staff concurs that the west meadow should certainly be preserved due to its visibility from Ute Avenue, but believes the east ridge, not the east meadow is the second outstanding natural feature on the site which should be preserved. In our opinion, the east ridge is the pre-dominant physical feature of this site as viewed from the Callahan, Riverside and particularly the Gordon Subdivision. At the applicants urging, we visited the west side of the Roaring Fork River again on Friday to study the visual importance of the ridge from the other side of the river. Despite the contention by the applicant that Aspen Mountain, not the ridge, is the predominant physical feature from the west side of the river, we strongly believe that the ridge should remain undisturbed to minimize visual impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. We suggest that you visit the site to better understand this issue. The proposed site plan is inconsistent with the following sections of the Code for the reasons described below: o Section 24-8.1(f) "Achieve a beneficial land use relationship with surrounding areas". o Section 24-8.13(a)(6), "the design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveways or trails and their compatibility with the terrain". o Section 24-8.13(a)(8), "the placement and clustering of structures and reduction of building height and scale to increase open space and preserve natural features of the terrain". In our opinion, the proposed plan is flawed because it clusters residences on the eastern ridge of the property due to the outstanding views. Despite the applicants commitment to restrict these buildings to one story, in our opinion, the location is a 9 , major design flaw. These building sites will have significant visual impacts on the Callahan, Riverside and proposed Gordon Subdivisions as well as Lot 12 of the 1010 Subdivision. The top of the ridge has been dedicated as open space already by a previous property owner. This concept should be continued by maintaining the roof lines below the ridge or effectively clustering Lots 13, 14 and 15 below in the east meadow. By clustering in the east meadow or building below the ridge line, The "Natural terrain features" will be preserved and the negative visual impact on surrounding land uses will be minimized. In any case, the City Council should request that the applicant prepare for preliminary plat reviews west elevation drawings of ridgeline to demonstrate the proposed visual impacts. Similarly, it is the staff opinion, that at least Lot 2 but preferably Lots 2, 3, and 4 should also be relocated from the highest ground on the western meadow to the lowest ground in -the eastern meadow. This relocation Will preserve the gentle hillside adjacent to the Cemetery and preserve the meadow which is visible from Ute Avenue and properties on the side of Aspen Mountain. To relocate these building sites, as suggested it may be necessary to more effectively cluster housing via the develop- ment of some duplexes and remove the large pond on the east side of the site. As an alternative to relocating all of these lots or one or two of them, the applicant should pursue innovative building designs such as patio homes, townhouses, duplexes or zero lot line development. In our opinion, such changes are essential to achieve the applicants goal of preserving the west meadow. During the preliminary plat submission, the applicant should present an alternative based on these comments. The 14 foot high berm proposed for the north end of the parcel adjacent to the Gant will have negative visual impacts on the condominiums. The building next to the berm is already approxi- mately 8 feet below the existing grade of the 1010 site. There is in existence a large retaining wall. If a berm is placed on top of the retaining wall, there will be a canyon effect on four ground floor Gant units. Despite our concerns, the applicant has indicated to us that he has worked with the Gant in developing plans for the Berm and the Gant likes it. Finally, as mentioned in the previous section, the proposed location of trail option B is not acceptable due to the severe impacts on neighboring properties. The trail should be inter- nalized within 1010 Subdivision so that it is an amenity for the residents and is consistent with the purposes of the Trails Master Plan. In summary, it is the staff's position that the applicant has been successful in meeting much of the basic intent of the conceptual PUD sections of the Code and with some changes, the 1010 Subdivision will be consistent with the Code and a highly successful subdivision. Prior to preliminary plat submission the 10 ' D applicant should rework the site plan consistent without recom- mendations to further utilize the clustering provisions of this Code, reduce impacts on neighboring properties, preserve natural terrain and improve trail alignments. P&Z RECOMMENDATION The P&Z recommends that the City Council grant the applicant conceptual PUD Subdivision approval subject to the conditions cited below. Other reviews such as 8040 Greenline reviews, #f< stream margin review and special review for exempting employee housing from GMP appear conceptually to be in order and will officially be considered at the preliminary and final plat stages. 1) The large berm on the north boundary of the property j~ should be designed so that it is acceptable to the Gant. 2) The trail traversing the parcel west to east from Ute Avenue to the Roaring Fork River should be redesigned prior to preliminary plat review toÂ·-=iaÂ¥tar-na=Ed,ze-it within-the-subdivision, so that it is accessible to ~,c 1010 residents and negative impacts on neighboring properties are reduced. Alternatives will be presented at preliminary review. TA e_ 9- u.->\ U Ge.lec=*- opT-Lon 4-3 MUA L 5 IOn-*ST- Sk#i-rk 6\0 for 5 1-re. 3) As part of the preliminary plat submission, the applicant will present drawings depicting building / envelopes and east elevations for building sites 13 , 14 j and 15. The drawings shall demonstrate the proposed visual impacts of the proposed structures from across the Roaring Fork River. *(Please note this condition differs from the condition recommended by staff). 4) The owner of 1010 Ute Avenue covenants with the City of Aspen that the employee units shall be designated in terms Of use and occupancy to the low income sale/rental guidelines established and indexed by the City Council's designee for low income employee housing at the time or prior to issuance of the building permit. Such low income guidelines may change annually on April 1st of each year and the owner may adjust the rents or sale price accordingly. 5) Verification of employment those employees living in the low income units shall be completed and filed with the Housing Office by the owner or his manager com- mencing on the date or recording hereof, and at time of change of occupancy thereafter. These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be specifically enforceable by 11 the City or its designee by any appropriate eviction of noncomplying tenancy during the period of life of the last surviving member of the presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall be greater. 6) The owner of 1010 Ute Avenue or his manager shall have the right lease the employee units to qualified employees of his own selection. Such employees may be employed by the owner, or employed in Aspen/Pitkin County, provided such persons fulfill the requirements of a qualified employee. "Qualified Employee" as' used herein shall mean any person currently residing in and employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a minimum average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any twelve-month period, who shall meet low income and occupancy eligibility requirements established and then applied by the Housing Authority with respect to employee housing. 7) No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the employee rental unit shall provide for a rental term of less than size consecutive months. 8) If a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may be maintained on each unit. 9) Should the unit be sold, a deed restriction shall be approved and signed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority Board or by the Housing Authority Director prior to recordation defining terms of occupancy and resale and a copy of the recorded instrument shall be provided to the Housing Authority Office after recorda- tion. 10) Applicant must submit working drawings of the water .< system to the Water Department for approval prior to construction. 11) The applicant will replace and relocate to the satis- ~ faction of the Fire Marshall existing fire hydrant #741 prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first house in the subdivision. 12) Air pollution control plan to mitigate construction impacts shall be approved by Environmental Health prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13) All buildings shall comply with Ordinance 86-5 regard- 12 f. ing solid fuel burning devices. 14) The applicant will comply with noise abatement Ordi- nance 81-2. 15) In the event mine tailings are uncovered during excavation, the applicant shall have the soil tested for toxicity and the tests will be reviewed by environ- mental health prior to removal of any soil from the site. 16) Prior to preliminary plat submission the applicant >f' should specify areas building envelopes, and estimate bedroom counts. ~17) Prior to preliminary plat submission the applicant ~ 1 should finalize an agreement with the City regarding M irrigation of the proposed park and provisions which / 1 establish the City' s first priority for Wheeler ditch _~ l_~ water in drought years. 18) Within the preliminary plat submission the applicant should prepare plans showing details for parceling, easements, drainage plans, right-of-way, utility alignment and park dedications. 19) The applicant shall be required to submit preliminary plans within six months of the City Council approval of the conceptual submission. 20) All representations made by the applicant in the conceptual submission shall be adhered to. 21) In the event that the City does not require the applicant to grant Trail option B, the applicant will 0 be required to submit detailed plans for the construe- f tion of Trail option A at preliminary plan review and submit to a stream margin review for the trail. The applicant shall provide an engineers report regarding impacts on the Roaring Fork River Floodplain from the trail. 22) In the event that the applicant does not receive a growth management allocation, as part of the prelimin- ary plan review, the applicant shall amend the site plan to reflect the number of dwelling units for which he has received an approval. 24) 'In preparing the preliminary plan submission the applicant shall adhere to the provisions of Section 24.8.9 of the Code. -2-1 1 Ex nek L.---re- T- <-44 ct. 4*'~~ culcl r-tss cL -Â¥- f re 1 I .6.L l a- c~ PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION The Planning Office recommendation is the same as P&Z's with the exception of two conditions. Condition 3 should read as shown and condition 23 should be added. 3) Prior to preliminary plan submission, building sites 13, 14 and 15 should be moved below the ridge in the westerly direction to such an extent that the rooflines of the homes do not protrude above the top of the ridgeline. The applicant Will present elevation drawings from the eest side of the river which demon- strate that the buildings are below the ridgeline. As an alternative to this proposal, the applicant may relocate building sites 13, 14 and 15 to the west meadow and utilize innovative building techniques such as duplex, townhome, zero lot line, or patio home development to effectively cluster the homesites. 23) Building site 2 eand preferably bu~b<~ing sites 2,3 and 4 should be relocatad outside of the 'West meadow to the heast meadow to prederve the gentle hillside on the \*-utheast side of the hest meadow. ThiÂ®may necessi- tahk the elimination of \the pond in the ~ast meadow. In â‚¬he alternative, the Applicant should Â®alyze and present\Pn effective clustering plan for lotâ‚¬2,3, and 4 which lit#lizes innovative bullding techniquei. such as duplex, tountpme, zero lot line'n~ patio home d*velop- ment to minimÂ»e impacts on the maadow. If buflding does not occut<in the meadow hoinesites shoult be limited to one story~and floor areas should be restric- ted below 3,000 square~eet per dwelling unit. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: GH.021 CAY'~ti(2 :Zic_UE< r 1-0 re- (bq<C-Te -2- 4-3 -0-0 Â¥12> rÂ¥-Ch'*ke-- 1--14 c. rvib..11-T-Â¥-\42- -6%34~~t- 'â‚¬_ r 14 ~Rl 1, ., / 1 , N; l i'' i i; 3 . , 11 - 1,3./if/1. 'F* i 1,1 .. . t! l i :' i .. +S / , 1 ' . . *1 ... El 1 1 40 1 . Ial Z.-4- I I Â· 1 0 . . P 1 1 1 05: , 1 X I 221 0: . I . 6 . \ , 1 .1 ' \44)POST OF'FrCE ~, ~ ~mÂ·Â·Â·Â· / I #... \\ .-/-:...#-/4 ''s-:rÂ·L/,i. ~.Â·iÂ·.< P ;N 1 T ' --Il ' .:I~.Ilt - E ~j - *f SCHoog 161Â»4, . 1 '':. ....'.. 4i,<f\,/. , , , P..t,5, . \ CITY MARKET A '~ ~ p E N k.~ ~~ ir .. h 15 . :, r-. Â· 0LIBAARY ~ .' , - . ' St Â·Â·0. .w,Â·' H s ' A J . I ./ t. I . .. 1 ' R:SA< . Â·Â·bURANT MALL R 15 ,A ./.1 7 . ... 1 1 j C PAIRK . . 3.'. 2/ ' ' 9 h /KA \ ' - â€¢ 0 Â·94;6--'-All-:.10 k , .. ?1 1 1 f... 0 ,\ 1 ... i r~:,~ 4.0 ' PROJECT LOCATION v 1010 UTE AVENUE 1\ 9\12--2. ~ ; ' 1 0 Â·1. a' A U! Â¥- \ ' : \.1 , 2 ;O dÂ¥- rf - leâ€¢" -4 DEC. 1.1- .-0... (~~~~ VICINITY/LOCATION/ZONING 1..., 14_-2 12:El-=t=fiU ,ooo 1 P I in-/41]BDIV]moN 3nN3AV 31n 11 . 4. 1 N 4 2/ 1 ... 1 U : C /1 :718 ' t ' I Cle' Ft Ah, '.Arl'10 r <)*23 F 2-1 2-. :: 2r&:I 2 1 ~ 1., ff' /1 ''111 1 -. ' H :il 1 / 1.0 1 1 ' ; A' i '0 3 ''; ?\Â· A ; 5 1 + 0 -- t:epi\. :t , #0--1*~1--p'gi-?<T# 9-+~Â·4\* .t ~ , 1 .1 + ''t, 21 , 3 0.. . ; 1-Â·Â·Â·Â·/ 2 .'~ ~~ 6 $ VI, r 4 I .12'r.,arilk'/2//.ir: 1 i'049 *,hY: f.'' : fi/', '' 1 , 1, .A. I '.1., , t . .. 1 A . 14 , ' * -- 7.- I , f , I. , 1 ' 0 ; 4 11 1 1 4 4 1 '4.10-ts:.713,1 I. 3 22. . O:5 1 i.:. ;0, 1, 2 ... . .41, 1, , 1 . a Â· r. ~ 'Â·XAJ\\\ 1, ' ' ./ '... ti. , 4 1 l,\ 1 \ 11 - I. * 4% .. % L LEGEND . tl , \ / Lf *N\\ b. \ 5 . ' . Â·\4 ' ' , i , r '' 2, ..41 24.:ju \X . . ' "44'*:. 0 '1.1.,0...1 fiE ./ 0 -WI. *E C In .. \,4''...1.--............. , 1 - -,-,-u.'.-' 1 ~ - 1 ----1- IL{Clâ€¢C A/.44:... . 7, 'B' \ '1 ,/ ./. '' i'''' . .' : / 1 . \ i 1 /. f $ 4 i 1 m , Â·F ,~ ,~ , . 02 4 ..1 - , Â· 4 2 ,1,Â¥ 2. /./ l 1 . h . ..., 1 , /4. C E ' 1 1Â·.1' 1Â·. 1 2 1- '' LOT 1 -- 14 Al 04 re"...,tz/,Ati'. 4- 0 24~ 'A % u - . -- . , '*.--.aÂ° .' i , ' ... . I I . %.4.4.-474,7.- .3.-A. . % 1 'r. 1 . 1 t:.' ' ~fzj.f.9,22:74 0-4~ ~3 , ---.. ---- 1-' & , 4. r.. N f 1 0 % . . . I Â» . 4.9. 0 41 ' , ,Â· , I./ ./ I , 4<Lit' ~'~. 30>'. )1 / .. t.t)'1 2 D- , ... T.c;; 0-'.+4Â·Â·0. Ii ..'p F.B./ 1~ 1 ..~. , , 4.. 7 .[0.3 , .'.1 . . I . ' 1 ' 2. 10 V h ./. , - r J-. * Â·. \ i I :.94... --~-.~.4:341<f. 1.26~>D=~0,(I-.. -1 1 .-01.. $02.ATIfi<~t-:h--:IIh'' %~.,~,/'' .'.,<J~.1,4\ fort.Z+Red,234*44-4~.-Irt. I. PABM:Â·.~â€ž.... C- EXISTING CONDITIONS/ t... R, Â· 1.->1 -121.4.:.:2~>Â·43kr:.~U__2~ UTILITIES/'SURVEY : 'I.I.. -I :I * 1 00 'F---- ----- ------ . --- ----- -r- M -r Plin /91 ]RnIVIQION Buiuueld, e,nipal!40J l/.I'/&< : ' LEGEND \ Â· t> C A.1. J) li Ir /\0. o.(1 '3 Â·Â·Â· Â·-k..k 34: 4 ..1 . 1 0. ' .. . . ~ ~ ~Â· 031Â»a ,~rar .L.1 / 1. xP~4<-'~~,r~Â©/~ ,.44~YÂ»,03~~tÂ» -/22/rk'Â·Â·v 469 :1~~1.7-4.,c ~ .L - 144 -c.Â«.,0.Â·ucâ€¢,-, 0.31 .fx~ i.:442$263#3/434:rsttx.'0331 23 1%4 (-241 0,Â·4 2,3Â·-tim~cc 1 . Al F.'.7 - 0441 .- , lk-7 1. AM . ' I./ 1 .2. Â· 1 '1 -. 1 37 r- , , , . 11 1 Py EL] A \ 2/7 It - i AHi'J;' . U\\3, 6 . i u/ - -dic, g..: ~ * .,Â· Â·i--i. =f. al)/ Iâ‚¬â‚¬0.-Il I '-ISâ‚¬/ 2>Â·A ft:. 2....4.\.: 1 Ii.0 1 L.~ 1 ... ..... Â·/u r x- ' r f-261 . 60'.4---644<::4 -1.iÂ· Â·1:p L--Â·S-lf k.-' 1 1.hY....t u. '. : . &'t'./:; PA< 20/42'VA ' ill I 'â€¢.â€¢Lâ€¢e.,O â€¢OW. .. 9 . V.: â€¢./ im k i f-----1 .U.r-G,Uâ€ža % , 103 .-/.OIll ...... Â· u..~ ~ . I.: 11.. ' . -Â·.Â·.* . >*42.lc~ .....,fta't! i, VI A 1' 4 ...1/ , .- 4 .1/A I - f - . .. :i \â€¢Â·.Â· i /. 0 , .Â·1 1: 1 w.â‚¬ELE,;01'Clâ€¢ t. ....nOâ€¢, -i/,1/ ./-/â‚¬I _r -000 U<. 24*63 44- *... .1 .----Wn, 1 . L--Â·,~09Â·-Ut' .-0.'eNÂ·.9 5.:j i ./.TO.â‚¬ ... ~il, : / rkâ€¢{.06â€¢iÂ¥....Uk k .i : , . . ,-4--â€¢~Lrr, '.. I . k ' 'hil ..Cl ' . 1 7. P h Â·4 1 1, : ..6 : \\ . i. \ -92-=*ithitzef--2 -4 I....\ t.3 ~\ 1 i /f: 02; 1 '' , --- 940-48.4-4 I Â£Â»C.F~--. ~vi =:.~14>60\ St.. r-Â·. -- ----- ---- =----2 --i ---1- )'3=Â· \<'Â·% W ; . *- I / 1 LORE 4,4 â„¢4494 , InT 1 PARK ~ C LkÂ·. -- *-:-6----- --3520:. - :4<'...--- --3-\.2 .\.f-~4~Â·-'-4 -=*'~l.9L~*- -*21.~a s . 7--2-43.h,~mksS--. ---f>~j.--~---- :..~34.h.Â· bi.:.2--- ..1 ......26.1 ....24-4~ 940%2644- . - 97-- --- O Â»4 ---94- 5430.4,-Â»flfip<-CXyÂ·.-;\.t l..,i.4~~442/4::647%6.il---45*42.-4 --* Xkzm====zz</~ SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN / . .0 1.0 T \ BERRIDGE AND ASSOC. IUWL~:=J LA-KM' U--/ C-/4VA-T CM-kc, h nn erv-r--5 t 4 1<~~~///1/111/jill//2/1/ii//1//tillilijitilitcittift/liff/filfi~~ I â€ž111 lilli ilitili//millin fillill,1,1 .lili ill/flifilify, 50-=20-1 I / / / r.1,[ , 11, 3 70323% -,1... 4.... 11 %- B , ASPEN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Jâ€¢ Â£ 1 L 4 >- PARKS/RECREATION/OPEN SPACE/TRAILS PLAN MAP Pil, 71\ - /Â«/'.Y.../. #1 ~~ 44 .1 \ 9 %\ % - In= = . rs =a - 1 - 7 -Ii---&-# --- ~ --/1 91 1 . 1) =1 0 1 ==Eit:z 0 1 -21-3- 1 =iÂ«; A ; \ZE*g-<20< ,-'-- /k_ J U UL.U._ )Â· / .21 -'' 0 .4 - 'C -2 1.1 /.9-- 4 1 2 ,, ., 4 - Â· \ J 1% , 4 4 - I , 1 1 Il J f.11,1 1 4 4- -*.-*-*-0 V I #' i-/1/, 1 4 1 - ---- -- j~ -8 i i i 1 fli i 1 1 11 ; E - _ _*7 1 0, 12%, -5'- 1 7 C 9 - U -6-7..k \\ lili J J 8 i 0083Â«-I:--:-; ' --==2265.*,4 0 0 0 == - ,â‚¬ 1-- 1 4 - lill .- 4 - h lili lili 7'/~ i i--~: 1- k -- as 1 , ....... 3. --+P * n / *=XES -' -- - . Li,k --''I.---t . t 4- - Al. .2 - -- .V=- 4 4 11 ./1.. | 1 . i - - 1 1 , 1 0, 11 ' j' / ./ .....7 , Ill' 1 1 J ill il .. A. lg;~f~'~~1 0 11 I. - 1 1 ....7 1 1 - - 19 Nix . - l , EXISTING 0 ' .7 OPEN SPACE = 1 ..0 / . 19 ' :1 // / j.,/l l// r , - C,TÂ¥,COUNTY,PP+VA,t (/23 TRAILS --- 1 ~ 0 =:13,0 --IL- 13,1 . lilli . 0 -h U / PROPOSED 3 -- 72 ...... PEDESTRIAN CORRIWI 000 r-0 4[/11 1. 0 L 341 11 j i E~ /2//1 MEMORANDUM TO: Glenn Horn, Planning Office Steve Burstein, Planning Offict~\ upÂ« FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning EnforcemeMA Officer RE: 4 GMP Submissions DATE: January 14, 1987 I realize these are conceptual submissions and therefore a lot of detail normally looked at and verified at later stages will be sparse or unable to calculate with early stage drawings. For example methods of calculating height, open space, floor area often differs when working plans are submitted to the Building Department. Applicants should be aware that representations must be adhered to at the Building permit stage. I will comment now where I feel there may be a potential problem. Should Park Dedication fees be considered at this point? Some of my questions may have already been answered to the Planning Department. 1001 Project (PUD) 1) Does this project also require an 8040 Greenline Review? Sec. 24-6.2 "all development 50 yards below the 8040 greenline." 2) Should the applicant be more specific in regard to setbacks and should building envelopes be required? 3) I would like to see a definite manner of determining "grade" for the 25 ft. height. At this point, the Building Department would have to consider the current grade as the "existing" or "natural undisturbed" ground, slope, not the 30 ft. of tailings beneath. 4) Page 38 of application states: 3 duplexes x 4,749 sq. ft. = 14,247 1 single family x 4,329 sq. ft. = 4,329 Total allowable building sq. ft. = 18,576 The total building square footage for the project will not exceed this figure. Does this mean that some of the structures may exceed the allowable for a 15,000 sq. ft. job, as long as the total for the 4 structures does not exceed 18,576 square feet? 5) New Duplex Code--What will the size and configuration be of the employee units. Will this meet the "Common Wall" and "percent of floor space" portion of the code? Under current code -, they might appear to be more of a single family house with a smaller "caretaker" unit, and not a duplex. 700 E. Hyman 1) Project appears straight forward. 2) Stairways in setbacks must be less than 30 inches in height or they become an encroachment. 1010 Ute Ave. 1) What will the size of the 16 free market unit parcels be? Will the applicant divide the requested 68,900 sq. ft. equally or will some units get more allowable F.A.R. than others? Once- again, will 14 or 15 units be built leaving no floor area available for the last unit? I would like to see a definite F.A.R. size per parcel. 2) Are the free market units restricted to the number of bedrooms permitted? How are we going to figure the Park Dedication fee? This is not included in the cash in lieu of employee housing. 3) Will there be building envelopes? Are the set backs and height clear? What and when will these variances be requested? Mountain View 1) If the land available as developmental is as stated 72,500 square feet and the projected F.A.R. is 72,500 square feet. That's cutting calculations awfully close and again the applicant should be made aware that their representatives should be verifiable at future G.M.P. stages. 2) From the information submitted to me, the buildings appear to be over the maximum 28 ft. height limit. It's hard to see that a 4 story building can be kept under 28 ft height. 3) The parking garage specification for space size, turning radius, etc., should be verified by the Engineering Department. WD:10 4gmp.bd CC: Alan Richman Peggy Seeger Jim Wilson JUL_ 21-73161986~~/%1 ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: GLENN HORN PLANNING OFFICE STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION (601 S. ASPEN) 1010 UTE AVENUE APPLIdATION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1986 ~lyâ€ž Â«10~ At the request of your ofâ‚¬ice, ~ we have reviewed the following projects: --b 1. Mountain View (aka 601 S. Aspen) - We have no further comments to make other than those already submitted as part of the record. See our previous correspondence, including our letter of Nov. 24th to Mr. Small which is included in the application. 2. 1010 Ute Avenue - We have reviewed the 1010 application and the pertinent section pertaining to water supply (aa. Water System, page 2) and based upon the applicant's statements made under this section, the Water Department will provide service to the development. However, our approval is conditioned upon the following: (a) Submittal of working utility drawings in accordance with the City of Aspen specifications, prior to construction, for our approval. Such working drawings shall include size of pipe, number of fittings and locations of valves and fire hydrants. The applicant commits to certain improvements as outlined in (aa). Water System and (dd). Fire Protection. In addition, the Water Department recommends the replacement or relocation of the existing fire hydrant #741 adjacent to the Gant at or near the entrance to the subdivision, such hydrant to be supplied by the new 8" loop, the Water Department will commit to servicing the subdivision. Such water system facilities installed for the development Will improve the neighborhood reliability and capacity, since such work will accomplish an interconnect or loop between Ute Avenue and Waters Avenue, via Calderwood. JM:ab CC: Fire Marshall _ , ( .. MEMORANDUM TO: Glenn Horn, Planning Office Steve Burstein, City Engineering FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering_.3~C DATE: January 5, 1987 RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Residential GMP, Conceptual Subdivision, Conceptual P. U. D., Special Review, 8040- Greenline and Stream Margin RESIDENTIAL GMP The attached evaluation sheet suggests recommended scoring for those areas pertinent to Engineering concern. Scores of particular note include: 1. Water; Recommended score 2 points. The projects provides for creation of a loop main to the Calderwood subdivision which is currently served by a dead-end line. In addition, the project proposes use of raw water from the Wheeler ditch for irrigation purposes thus reducing demand for treated water and protecting raw water rights. 2. Storm Drainage; Recommended score 1 point. Once again, I would stress that the optimum solution for storm water is the maintenance of historic conditions with regard to groundwater and off-site flow. Please refer to my concurrent memo on 700 E. Hyman for further explanation in this regard. In the instance of 1010 Ute, an additional point might be available subject to certification by a registered engineer indicating that additional runoff could be discharged on-site without detrimental impact to the groundwater on adjacent properties. 3. Fire Protection; No recommended score. We are not, due to the presence of the new Fire Marshal, Wayne Vandemark, recommending scores for fire protection. I would note, however, that the looping of water mains to the Calderwood increases the reliability and availability of fire flows for both 1010 Ute and the Calderwood neighborhoods. 4. Roads; Recommended score Z points. The applicant proposes significant improvements to Ute Avenue, including additional right-of-way, realignment and significant landscaping. Page Two 1010 Ute Avenue Residential GMP, Conceptual Subdivision, Conceptual PUD, Special Review, 8040 Greenline and Stream Margin January 5, 1987 5. Bonus Points; Recommended score 1 Points. Once again, we are recommending bonus points related only to Engineering matters. The 1010 Ute project offers significant public improvements to the water system, Ute Avenue and public parking. CONCEPTUAL P. U. D. AND SUBDIVISION The Engineering Department has no particular concerns relative to Conceptual P. U.D. and subdivision subject to submission of appropriate platting and agreement documents. Issues of concern through the process include: a. Parceling and easements. b. Resolution of appropriate drainage. C. Right-of-way and park dedications. d. Utility alignments. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW 8040 concerns would appear to be minimal although we would be inclined to review the alignment and grading requirements of the proposed trail alignment in keeping with 8040 criteria. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW As with 8040, this would not appear to be a major concern subject to the specific grading and revegetation associated with proposed trail construction. JH/co/Ute Enclosure ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIR-NMENTAL HEALTH DEPARN .VIENT h,=3U=22;_u< !13 liÂ»l MEMORANDUM 1 11 11: 1% 4.' 1 , To: Glenn Horn, Planning Office IN\\ i 'Â· Â·Â· 2 9 988 Steve Burstein, Planning Office Fl\\i From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director -75Â© L ---- Environmental Health Dept. Date: December 18, 1986 Re: 1010 Ute Avenue Residential GMP This office has reviewed the above-mentioned submittal for the following environmental concerns. Air Pollution: Construction: The applicant shall provide the means to monitor and remove any dirt and or mud carryout from the project onto City streets or State highways. This shall involve daily monitoring of the haul routes of equipment entering and leaving the site during the construction period. Further, daily removal of mud or dirt will be -required with the dirt being deposited back on the applicants property. Removal of mud and dirt shall be accomplished with a mechanical sweeper that uses water to minimize dust. During actual construction the applicant shall provide an approved means to control wind blown (fugitive) dust from leaving the property should it become a problem. This may take the form of watering, use of dust suppression chemicals. fencing the site or shrouding the work area. Note: the applicant mentions that "fugitive dust will be controlled" on page 8 of the PUD/Subdivis- ion section of the submittal. The applicant shall file a fugitive dust control plan with this office prior to construction. The applicant shall also submit an Air Pollution Emission Notice and an Air Pollution Permit application to the Colorado Health Department. The Colorado Health Department will review the permit application and deter- mine if a permit is actually needed. Should it be determined that a permit is not needed the filing fee will be returned to the applicant. Send the information to: Colorado Health Depart- ment, Mr. Scott Miller, 222 S. 6th Street, Room 232, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501. The authority for the above request can be found in Regulations 1 and 3 of the Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air Quality Standards. Solid Fuel Burning Devices: The applicant states in the submit- tal under Review Criteria #5 (5) that "All fireplaces will meet - 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 ASPEN*PITKIN :* C ENVIA-NMENTAL HEALTH DEPAA-. .VIENT .. 1010 Ute Avenue Residential GMP December 18, 1986 Page 2 the strict City requirements. . ." To be more exact it will be a requirement that all proposed dwellings and structures comply with City of Aspen Ordinance 5 series 1986 commonly known as the Solid Fuel Burning Ordinance. Noise Abatement: The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen Ordinance 2, series 1981 titled Noise Abatement. All construct- ion noise related activities will be covered under the maximum decibel levels as directed by the ordinance. Contaminated Soils: If mine dumps, mine tailings or mine waste rock are uncovered during the excavation phase of the project it will be the responsibility of the applicant to have the material tested to determine the heavy metal content of the sample. The test results shall be submitted to this office for review prior to removal of the soil from the site. There is no actual requirement to force the applicant to perform these tests. However, as the result of past involvement with Federal legislation governing the handling and disposition of mine waste, this department wants to have an accounting of all "hazardous waste" should the Federal government decide they want to become further involved in the Aspen area., Sewage Disposal: Service to this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Districts public sewage collection system is in conformance with policies of this office. Water Supply: Service to this project by the distribution lines as provided by the City Of Aspen Water Department is in conformance with policies of this office. General: The applicant can visit this office to obtain copies of all codes, rules and regulations or laws referred to in this review. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 ~A< 26<7/& \383,-CR:I<f'\-KIkk*\ -\ ROARING FORK ENERGYCENTER â€¢ 242 MAIN STREET â€¢ CARBONDALE, C&81-623-*-803)963=0311- A lE Â©12 0 %71-3 [Rd -Mlf 1 December 22, 1986 A DEC 2 3 1986 J|l 41--4 TO: Glenn Horn and Steve Burstein: Planning Office ~ FR: Steve Standiford and Stephanie Ouren RE: GMP Review Comments on 1010 Ute Avenue Residential Submission Insulation Subdi vision covenants require the units to have insulation levels above code, 25% energy savings beyond minimum requirements of the UBC and to submit an energy conservation report with the building permit. Beyond this, the applicant can only give suggestions. The encouraged techniques listed are all appropriate, but they are just suggestions and cannot be evaluated since some, none,or all could be used in each unit. Solar Energy Good southern exposure is possible for all sites it appears. There is no mention of considering passive or active solar heating sYstems. Nothing further can be deduced without specific site plans for each house. Mechanical Systems The new homeowners will be encouraged to utilize high-efficiency boilers and furnaces. This is a great idea. Water Conservation Using untreated ditch water for irrigation and requiring flow restrictors on all plumbing fixtures gives the proposal strength in the water conservation area. Comments Without more specific regulations, these units could range very widely in energy efficiency. At this stage, we can only say they are heading in the right direction. 0 I . '. 1 / MEMORANDUM TO: GLEN HORN AND STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1986 RE: 1010 UTE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION ISSUE: Has the applicant met the requirements for the employee generation in this residential project? - BACKGROUND: The applicant seeks an allotment for sixteen (16) free-market residential units to be built in conjunction with one (1) three-bedroom low income restricted employee unit on two (2) adjoining parcels of land separated by Ute Avenue. The property is bordered by The Gant Condominiums, Calderwood Subdivision, Ute Park and Ute Cemetery. This land is located within the R-15 PUD zone on a total area of 332,874 square feet or 7.641 acres. The proposed development consists of sixteen (16) single-family homesites and one (1) caretaker home. Individual homesites vary considerably in size depending on terrain. Five (5) of the homes overlook an open meadow/pond area. Four (4) of the homes are situated in a wooded area. The remaining seven (7) homes are situated in a wooded area overlooking the Roaring Fork River. The applicant is concurrently applying for conceptual PUD, Conceptual Subdivision, 8040 Green Line Review, Stream Margin Review, and Special Review for Exempting Employee Housing from the GMP Process. Emplovee Housing: will be satisfied by one three-bedroom low income restricted unit to be built. Three (3) parking spaces will be provided for the employee unit. Cash-in-lieu payments for twenty-three (23) low income employees in the amount of $460,000 will be made on a pro-rated basis. The calculations for the employee housing commitment are as follows: Free Market Units-16 units @ 3.0 per unit = 48 = 64% Employee generation = 26 = 35% = 7 GMP pts. 74 100% The employee housing commitment for the 26 emp. shall be as follows: 10 - < 1<3/2 n- .Â¢ 1 11 )Lt.*E-Ji.Malpt' 1 tul ~L---10 DEC 1 6 Â£86 #i li ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: GLENN HORN PLANNING OFFICE STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION (601 S. ASPEN) 1010 UTE AVENUE APPLIdATION DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1986 'PultÂ©k At the request of your off(~ce, i we have reviewed the following projects: N-' 1. Mountain View (aka 601 S. Aspen) - We have no further comments to make other than those already submitted as part of the record. See our previous correspondence, including our letter of Nov. 24th to Mr. Small which is included in the application. 2. 1010 Ute Avenue - We have reviewed the 1010 application and the pertinent section pertaining to water supply (aa. Water System, page 2) and based upon the applicant's statements made under this section, the Water Department will provide service to the development. However, our approval is conditioned upon the following: (a) Submittal of working utility drawings in accordance with the City of Aspen specifications, prior to construction, for our approval. Such working drawings shall include size of pipe, number of fittings and locations of valves and fire hydrants. The applicant commits to certain improvements as outlined in (aa). Water System and laa). Fire Protection. In addition, the Water Department recommends the replacement or relocation of the existing fire hydrant #741 adjacent to the Gant at or near the entrance to the- subdivision, such hydrant to be supplied by the new 8" loop, the Water Department will commit to servicing the subdivision. Such water system facilities installed for the development Will improve the neighborhood reliability and capacity, since such work will accomplish an interconnect or loop between Ute Avenue and Waters Avenue, via Calderwood. JM:ab ec: Fire Marshall ' 43 : iÂ« 1 11986 'L/ ASPE~/SNOWMASS NORDIC COUNCIL L joer, Li an:-Â· ' ,~ic l,--; ff ire BOARD OF DIRECTORS ' - - - - - -< ~ Â·.<;Al 1 Bob Wade. President AL,- 0 1 .3 2..2 Toby Morse, Vice President Jim Mollica. Secretary/Treasurer Peter Forsch Re- TS.Oil or:N.N.'..3. 1011; t.,!te Ave Deveit)Dment Skip Hamilton Tom Isaac Peter Loorani George Madsen , 1 0 Â·:f f. 0 ; 61 1-Â· f- Carolyn Moore Jeff Tippett A. Câ€¢ rÂ· .-1..'G rL f- Â·L'-Â· r } Â·/ r: ac the ODD or El:91 ty to revt 9 W the E r f i i DC. 1 C. Aâ€¢R --1- L:Â·Â·--â€¢_-â€¢L,â€¢.11!,Li, er ...Â·-'. ,-,111â€¢L./1 11!L}-Â· _-;, Board meeting. We .3:-9 writinG 0-1,2. letter 'D EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 3:.1.22:OH :.- 7-Â·9 ; f-2.! 1 -Â·~ ;.RN; 00' f 011 A over 75,34 Plan 05:tvt-: 5 Tor 7-:9 Craig Ward , ! :-:9:*9 13. ri-j!.-i:Jil bet [-7- TO:-It 1:3:Jit:' W ' trt tfle 9* ,37 '-':2 32- 0 TRUSTEES 0 , Arrocc, f, 3 Executive Coninuttee -, . ....u-:- c trie newly Created tiountain Edge traii at tne Torn Blake .- Â·-..-. f:Â· i c. n,- o r, f r t. ti 1 ; NL 2 ,-Â·Â·-: - - ' , r:; + and Ute Park. Jim Chaffin Arthur Pfister 3 789 [re:i Â·exces ence aions the Roaring Fork Rp.'9'- 93 Frederic Benedict Â· Â· , Ruth Humphreys Brown UnC i u r tere:2 0 v 0 02:20 :1-: 1 :1 1 t.j :-(1 3. 2 5: d / Of 2 5 1VE[ 9 !-93, ~ Ce!-: C ei 0 ": 3 5. D.V. Edinundson Elizabeth Fergus Uti'!293. 5:,re-VT.{354' accured 'Open space. Jack Frishman â€¢Â·13Â·47 0?-Â·CrÂ·Â·- O .-t f .3,-.- 1,-in A -5,1.-,3,Â·t~Â·Clr,+ ..:i! 1 r.c. r.-â€ž 'r i.. 03.2 1 C,r C.M. Kittrell Charles Marqusee Harry Alink and wil; c.:-eate muen less disturbance/annoyance to any of 9-Â·9 Ken Moore Robert Oden ex?TrinG neightorboods. Tage Pedersen -- ,..Â·- a - 4 9 ,-4:,3, 0 ; i.Â·r.,pr i ,2 r,'.Or,os i'-1Â° t,, â€¢-, 0->*,Â· fre Thc, r r.c r -,-, Marjorie Stein -i Â· U' U , u 4/ 1-'Â·-A, 1.Â· 5:13:kj me trati (07 -0 93.Of-Ow the monies ne,-93.93:-v) th;% v.,11 1 3.7:ve the C. i tv money . 3 i i o w i :-ic for c ther open 603'C e :upchases or ADVISORY BOARD capital tra: 3 11-Artrov,ments t: be m.39.9 Bob Beattie 6) Having this trai i in Diace may force the deve!027:ent of 8iII Koch necessary trail 5.eaments downstream of the s:te, compietinc ine frl;.:Ster plannec river- corridor. If i can be of further assistance to the vianninc decartment, please contact me- - Sincerely, tic David Bet.rhorst 0/4012- Craic L. Ward P.O. BOX 10815 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 303/925-4790 THE GANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. 610 W. END ST. P.O. BOX K-3 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5000 November 19, 1986 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street - Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Burstein The Board of Directors of The Gant Condominium Association, Inc. reviewed Lowe Development Corporation's plans for its proposed subdivision development known as 1010 Ute Avenue at its recent Board of Directors meeting. We studied the plans considering density, residential unit type, landscaping, road access and the proposed park. Based upon this review, the Board voted to support the proposed project. We feel it is consistent with the development in the surrounding neighbor- hood and is superior to the higher density uses proposed previously for the property. The Board also considered the proposed bike and Nordic trail system. I am enclosing a separate letter on this subject. Sincerely, The Gant Condominium Association, Inc. f C 4- I \ / 1 -1 J -- ~i f By: . f- L, Glepn B. Jeffers, President GBJ/bn . 2/ Enclosure THE GANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. 610 W. END ST. P.O. BOX K-3 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5000 November 19, 1986 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office - 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Burstein: The Board of Directors of The Gant Condominium Association, Inc. have recently had the opportunity to review both the bike and Nordic trail alignments for the conceptual plan of the 1010 Ute Avenue development. We felt that it was important to notify you in writing as to the position of this Board, repre- senting the Gant owners, regarding these two plans. We strongly object to any alignment of a bike/Nordic trail through the 1010 Ute Avenue development from Ute Avenue to the Roaring Fork River. We do favor the alignment of this pro- posed trail extension along Ute Park from the existing bike path at the Benedict Building and along the river to the proposed Gordon Bridge. We feel that the alignment from Ute park is far superior to any trail alignment through the 1010 Ute Avenue development for the following reasons: 1. There is already an existing bike path adjacent to The Gant which serves The Gant and the neighborhood very adequately. 2. Any bike trail through the 1010 Ute Avenue develop- ment to the river would conflict with the neighbor- hood backyards and privacy of The Gant and Calderwood Subdivision. There continues to be an increased security problem in Aspen, and to encourage easier public access and traffic through.the middle of pri- vate property is inviting additional security prob- lems for us and others. ... 1 , Â¢1 Mr. Steve Burstein November 19, 1986 Page Two 3. There is greater public bene f it of the Ute Park alignment because the trail goes by and through a public park and down along the river. 4. The Ute Park trail alignment is a more logical - connection with the existing and expanded Nordic trail system. 5. The Ute Park alignment meets the objectives of the July 1985, Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/ Recreation/Open Space/Trail Element. 6. The developer's willingness to pay for the cost of the new trail bed along Ute Park and along the river to the proposed bridge saves the City money which they can spend elsewhere for construction of new trails or acquiring additional rights-of-way. 7. The Ute Park trail alignment along the park and river is a greater expression of the open space concept, and a far superior experience for the pedestrian, biker, fisherman and Nordic skier. We appreciate the opportunity to review the plan, and hope that you and the public reviewing bodies will seriously consider the points we have made in this letter. Sincerely, The Gant Condominium Associates, Inc. 1 r 1 lit , h By: - 1,1 Glenn B. Jeffers, President ,. GBJ/bn I 1 1 RAW WATER TAP AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered this day of , 1987 by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado (hereafter City) and 1010 Ute Corporation (hereafter Ute), a Colorado Corporation. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the ditch and water rights described on Exhibit A hereto and may authorize the use of the ditch and water rights at the location set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the City has been and is presently beneficially using the above-described water rights for their decreed pur- poses by diversions from their decreed points of diversion and particularly for the irrigation of city parks and open space, and WHEREAS, the City has determined as a part of its Water Management Plan that the use of these water rights for the irrigation of other lands within and without the City will further the maximum beneficial use of these rights and will reduce the demand for treated water for such purposes; and WHEREAS, Ute needs water for outside irrigation, decorative and aesthetic and other uses on property located -1- at 1010 Ute Avenue which is the subject of a GMP application and subdivision approval; and WHEREAS, Ute desires to secure the right to use the water from the City for the irrigation of 7.5 acres and in a series of decorative ponds all within the subdivision; and ~ L WHEREAS, the City desires to allow Ute to have the right to use some of the water rights of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the following terms and conditions, the City and Ute agree as follows: 1. The City hereby grants to Ute a raw water tap onto the City raw water system allowing Ute to use so much of the water rights set forth on Exhibit A flowing through the Wheeler/East Aspen City Ditch as may reasonably be necessary, without waste, to irrigate no more than 7.5 acres and for use in a series of decorative ponds within the subdivision. 2. This raw water tap shall be for a term for so long as the water is used for the above stated purposes by Ute and its successors and assigns. Minor periods of interruption in use shall not terminate the raw water tap. 3. Ute shall divert the water from the Wheeler/East Aspen City Ditch near the boundary of the subdivision at a -2- turn-out to be installed in or near the ditch, and after use within the subdivision the water shall be returned to the ditch by a lateral. 4. The turn-out and lateral shall be considered to be part of the Wheeler/East Aspen City Ditch and shall be the property of the City. 5. Ute shall be responsible for and bear all costs of constructing, maintaining, replacing, operating and cleaning the turn-out and lateral and any sump, water pump, transmission and storage structures and facilities within the subdivision. 6. The City shall have sole, exclusive and total ownership and control over the operation of the Wheeler/East Aspen City Ditch, including the turn-out and lateral. 7. Ute shall construct at its own cost the lateral and all pumping, transmission and storage facilities in the subdivision. Ute shall have the right to operate the turn- out and lateral and shall have sole, exclusive and paramount control and operational right and responsibilities over all diversion, transmission and storage facilities and structures within the subdivision. 8. Ute shall construct at its own cost, all pump, transmission and storage facilities necessary to serve Lot #1 -3- of the Hoag Subdivision. The City shall be the owner of these facilities and shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance and control. 9. Ute shall pay no raw water tap fee or annual raw water service charge in exchange for paying the entire cost of installation, operation and maintenance of the irrigation system including the turnout, sump, pumps, pipeline, ponds and lateral for the 7.5 acres which includes Lot #1 of the Hoag Subdivision and for the dedication of the irrigation system within the Hoag Subdivision to the City. The fac il i- ties constructed by Ute are shown on Exhibit B. 10. Ute and the City shall share the cost of draining, cleaning, repair and replacement of the pumps and main distrubution lines used for pumping the irrigation water to the land within the subdivision on a proportional basis arrived at by comparing the acreage of the land irrigated within the subdivision to be platted and the acreage within Lot #1 of the Hoag Subdivision to be dedicated to the City as part of the subdivision/GMP approval process. 11. On a dollar for dollar basis, Ute may reduce the utility connection cost of acquiring treated water service from the City for one or more units built within the sub- division in direct relation to the amount spent by Ute in performing all work necessary to upgrade and improve the -4- Wheeler/East Aspen City Ditch from the diversion dam in the Roaring Fork River, through and including the headgate, wastegate and along the ditch up to the point where the lateral to be built by Ute returns water to the Wheeler/East Aspen City Ditch after use in the subdivision. 12. Ute shall install the turnout from and the return lateral to the Wheeler/East Aspen City Ditch in Lot #9 of the Calderwood Subdivision. The City will cooperate with Ute in securing any easement necessary for this purpose, but Ute shall bear the cost of and work necessary to secure any ease- ment not within the right-of-way held by the City for the Wheeler/East Aspen City Ditch. 13. All work to or in the ditch necessary for the installation of the turnout, lateral, sump or pump and all work on the irrigation, pump equipment or ponds within Lot 1 of the Hoag Subdivision shall be approved by the City Engineer. -lf Ute constructs facilities in accordance with City plans and specifications and damage results to others due to the inadequacy of those plans and specifications and not the construction or Ute's operation, the City shall indemnify Ute from any liability. 14. Ute may divert and use water under the above described water rights only for the purposes and in the manner specifically described herein, and no other use of -5- water by Ute under these water rights shall be permitted. No other water service shall be supplied by the City to Ute under this Agreement, and all other water service by the City shall be supplied only after full compliance with all appli- cable provisions of the Code and with all applicable poli- cies, regulations and rules of the City. 15. Ute only acquires hereunder the right to use the above described water rights as provided herein, and all interests and claims in and to said water rights shall ter- minate after the use of the water as set forth herein such that no right or benefit shall remain by virtue of this Agreement or the use of water hereunder by Ute its successors in interest, or any individual purchasing land from Ute or their successors in interest. 16. Ute may divert and use water from the Wheeler/East Aspen Ditch only at such times and to the extent water is permitted to be taken from the above described sources by the Division Engineer, Water Division No. 5, State of Colorado under the priorities established by law. The parties also recognize that the supply of water under the above described water rights is dependent on sources which are variable in quantity or quality and which are beyond the control of the City. No liability shall attach to the City hereunder on account of any failure to accurately anticipate the availabi- -6- lity of water supply or because of an actual failure of water supply due to inadequate run-off, poor quality, or other occurrence beyond the reasonable control of the City. This Agreement pertains to the supply of raw water only, and the City has no obligation in any way to treat the water supplied to Ute hereunder and makes no warranties whatsoever as to the quality of water supplied. 17. The City reserves the right to reuse, to the extent permitted by law, the water which is diverted by Ute under this Agreement. Except as is reasonably necessary within the boundaries of the subdivision, Ute shall have no right what- soever to reuse the water diverted by Ute under this Agreement. 18. In the event an emergency need of the City arises, the City, in its total discretion, may suspend the raw water tap granted herein for the duration of that emergency and utilize any and all of the water which is the subject of this agreement. In the event the City exercises the power granted in this paragraph, the City shall inform Ute, orally and follow up in writing, of the nature of the emergency necessi- tating such exercise and the estimated duration thereof. The City shall not be liable to Ute for any losses occuring as a result of the City exercising this right. 19. The City shall have the right to temporarily suspend the raw water tap granted hereunder in order to -7- reconstruct or maintain any City facilities appurtenant to or used in connection with any of the water rights described above. In the event the City wishes to exercise the power granted in this paragraph, the City shall inform Ute, in writing, at least one (1) week in advance of the time the City will suspend the rights pursuant to this paragraph. The City agrees to attempt to make such suspension at a time mutually convenient and least burdensome to both parties. 20. In the event that either party hereto fails to per- form any of the promises or covenants contained in this Agreement, that party shall be in default hereof and upon 10 days written notice the rights of the defaulting party under this Agreement shall be suspended for such time as said party continues to be in default. 21. Notifications and consultations hereunder shall be addressed to and made by the following persons: a. For the City: Mr. Ron Mitchell Assistant City Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 -8- b. For Ute: David G. Behrhorst Vice President 1010 Ute Corporation Post Office Box 9046 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925-6537 22. Each party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other from any liability resulting from the intentional, tortious and/or negligent acts or omissions of each party, its agents, and members or their guests, in rela- tion to the exercise of rights under this Agreement. 23. The City reserves the right to file a change of water right application concerning any of the subject water rights hereto or any other water right owned by the City and/or to substitute water from sources other than the water rights described above for the use of Ute pursuant to this Agreement. Provided, however, the City shall not seek a change which would prevent its performance under this Agreement. Ute expressly agrees that this Agreement does not provide any basis for Ute to object to the exercise of the rights reserved to the City in this paragraph. Ute agrees to cooperate in any court proceeding concerning these water rights. 24. This Agreement shall not be transferred, assigned or in any way conveyed to a third party by Ute without prior -9- written consent of the City. The City shall not unreasonably withhold its consent to any assignment of this Agreement so long as such assignment will not be injurious to the best interests of the City. Provided, however, Ute may assign the benefits of this Agreement to other development entities of Ute, to financial entities for purposes of securing financing, or the Homeowners Association with notice but without prior approval by the City. 25. The parties agree that by this Agreement, the City does not become a public utility, compelled to serve other parties similarly situated. Ute agrees that neither it nor its successors or assignees shall at any time petition the Colorado Public Utilities Commission or the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County to acquire jurisdiction over the rate set herein or over any other utility rate set by the City. The parties agree that in the event the City is held to be a public utility by virtue of this Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force and effect. 27. This Agreement supersedes and controls all prior written and oral agreements and representations of the par- ties and is the total integrated agreement between the par- ties. 28. By signing this Agreement, the parties acknowledge and represent to one another that all procedures necessary to -10- validly contract and execute this Agreement have been per- formed and that the persons signing for each party are duly authorized to do so. 29. Neither party shall be held liable for failure to perform the Agreement due to wars, strikes, acts of God, natural disasters, drought or other similar occurrences out- side the control of either party. 30. This Agreement is binding upon the successors and assignees of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have set our hands and official seals the day and year written above ATTEST: CITY OF ASPEN Clerk Mayor ATTEST: 1010 UTE CORPORATION Secretary President -11- r . EXHIBIT A CITY OF ASPEN WATER RIGHTS ROARING FORK RIVER BASIN 1981 Mainstem Decreed Basin Stream Amount Decreed Aspen Name of Structure Rank Rank (cfs or af) Use Own s Aspen Ditch/ 32 2. 00 Irrigation 2.00 Spar Gulch 95 3.00 Domestic 3.00 Street Stock Wheeler 84 1 10.00 Irrigation 10.00 Domestic Street Stock Nellie Bird 3073 3 3.94 Irrigation .65 Riverside 3076 4 3.00 Irrigation .33 East Aspen 3187 7 6.00 Irrigation 6.00 Begley/Spar Gulch 4310 1. 50 Irrigation 1. 50 Domestic Industrial Anthony Well 4746 .17 Domestic .17 Aspen Well #4 4758 .67 Municipal .67 Absolute Domestic 2.64 Conditional Durant Mine/ Spar Gulch 5018 2.00 Irrigation 2.00 Recreational Drainage, Storm Sewer Flushing Aspen Well #2 6165 2.23 Irrigation 2.23 Mun ic ipal Domestic Aspen Well #3 6166 2. 23 Irrigation 2. 23 Municipal Domestic Manufacturing 1 4 : MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision PUD/Preliminary Plat DATE: April 21, 1987 11 BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICANT: Lowe Development Construction Corporation, Skip Behrhorst. LOCATION: Northside Of Ute Avenue, just east of the Gant Condominiums, west of Ute Cemetery and south of Roaring Fork River. ZONING: R-15 PUD. SIZE: 7.6 acres, 332,880 square feet. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subdivision/PUD-Preliminary Plat, 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin Review. PAST ACTIONS In February, the City Council granted the 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision Conceptual Subdivision/PUD approval and an allocation for 16 free market residential dwelling units. Several condi- tions were associated with the conceptual approval which the applicant was required to address as part of the preliminary plat review. The applicant has addressed all of the conditions which are discussed in this memorandum. We also provide you with an evaluation of the preliminary plat submission based upon Muni- cipal Code criteria. When the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) reviewed the conceptual submission, 8040 Greenline and Stream Margin Reviews, were postponed until the preliminary plat review, and so these are also reviewed herein. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CODE Sections 20-11 (Preliminary Plat - Procedures) and 20-12 (Prelim- inary Plat - Contents) establish the procedure and contents of the preliminary plat review. Because the 1010 property is a mandatory PUD, Section 24-8.9 of the Land Use Code is also applicable to the review. Architecture, landscaping and design features are considerations based upon this section of the Code. Additionally, slope density reduction must be calculated based upon Section 24-8.18. Due to the location of the subject property in proximity to the Roaring Fork River and the 8040 elevation line, the application is required to address code sections 24-6.2 (8040 Greenline Review) and 24-6.3 (Stream Margin Review). REFERRAL COMMENTS Engineering Department - Major concerns stated in Jay Hammond's April 10, 1987 memorandum include: 1) Preliminary approval should be conditioned upon: a. Submission of final plat in conformance with Section 20-15. b. Inclusion of drawing index on final plat. C. Note on final plat indicating roadway with a public utility easement. d. Notations on final utility plan, to indicate that where water and sewer lines cross, separation shall be maintained or lines will be encased per city standards. e. The final grading plan should more clearly define the limits of cut and fill areas within the development. 2) Review of the proposed grading plan for the proposed trail linking Ute Avenue to the nordic trail above the park site with final plan submission. 3) The stream margin review approval should be subject to continued involvement by Chen Associates or another Engineer and adherence to Chen's recommendations, particularly regarding construction techniques and temporary protection of natural slopes, the Wheeler, ditch and river. 4) The Engineer also recommends that the applicant guarantee the completion of utility/road/trail and landscaping improvements to Ute Avenue in the form of a cash escrow with the City or a bank in accordance with Section 20-16.(C). The guarantee should be negotiated with the City Engineer and Attorney as part of the subdivision improvements agreement. 2 Water Department - The replacement and relocation of fire hydrant #742 on Ute Avenue is to be coordinated in the field between the developer and water department. A new mueller fire hydrant is recommended. Parks Department - Parks Superintendent, Bill Ness, comments that the Parks Department prefers trail option C because it is the best trail alignment to the proposed pedestrian bridge. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER COMMENTS Ms. Valerie Richter, Gant Condominium owner, comments in the attached letter that she would like to preserve the views from the Gant of the west meadow. She is particularly concerned about visual impacts of buildings located on lots two and three. PIANNING OFFICE COMMENTS Stream Margin Review As requested by the staff, the applicant has provided us with a letter from a professional engineer attesting to the fact that construction will not interfere with the 100 year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River. The City Engineer has also reviewed the application and recommends approval of the Stream Margin Review. The Planning Office recommends approval of the stream margin review. 8040 Greenline Review The Code requires the City to review all development within 50 years of the 8040 elevation line. Lot 1 of the Hoag Subdivision, a portion of this application, is proposed to be dedicated to the City as a public park. A parking lot, which constitutes develop- ment, is proposed to be constructed in the proposed park within 50 yards of the 8040 contour line. Consequently, the 8040 greenline review is required. During the conceptual plan review, a representative of the property owner just to the east of the proposed park, objected to the location of the proposed parking lot adjacent to the east property line. At the time, City Council determined that the design of the proposed park should be addressed during the 8040 greenline review. The landscaping plan shows that the parking lot has been relocated twenty-feet from the property line, bermed and landscaped. On Wednesday of last week, Skip Behrhorst told us that he had met with representatives of the adjacent landowner and agreed to relocate the parking lot another 10 feet to the west. This conversation has not been confirmed by the adjacent property owners representatives, but it is anticipated that they will be in attendance at your meeting. 3 The Planning Office has no problems with the 8040 Greenline Review request and recommends approval. Preliminary Subdivision Plat The Preliminary Subdivision Plat satisfies section 20-17 of the Land Use Code. Minor changes in accordance with the City Engineer's comments should be made prior to final plan submis- sion. Preliminary PUD Plan a. Architectural/Review/Design Since the 1010 Subdivision will be a land subdivision, the developer does not intend to build the residences. However, the application contains architectural covenants and a proposal for a design committee to guide the construe- tion of houses. The staff has reviewed the proposed covenants and find them to be comprehensive and adequate to meet the City's PUD requirements. The covenants address site plans, floor plans, exterior elevation, cross-sections, color samples, exterior lighting, landscaping and grading, and will be presented in detail at your meeting. b. Landscaping Plan Section 24-8.16 requires the applicant to submit a land- scaping plan. The proposed landscaping plan seeks to preserve as much existing vegetation as possible and enhance the attractiveness of the site with some new vegetation particularly adjacent to the Gant, and the construction of three ponds. The landscaping is scheduled to occur over a period of two years. It is anticipated that additional landscaping will occur on individual lots as they are developed. In our opinion, the landscaping plan is more than adequate and if implemented will be very attractive. Certain aspects of the landscaping and improvements plan affects the public. The staff recommends that a guarantee be negotiated as part of the subdivision agreement to insure that improvements to public areas such as landscaping on Ute Avenue, trail and utility location, Ute Avenue recon- struction and parks improvement occur in a timely manner, and that financial resources are available to the public to complete the improvements in the unlikely event that the project should be unable to do so. C. Development Schedule All improvements are anticipated to be completed during the summer of 1987 and 1988 with the exception of the actual construction of residences. Pursuant to the applicant's GMP 4 allocation, the residences must be under building permit review within 33 months of the original GMP submission date corresponding to September 1, 1989, unless an extension is granted by Council at that time. Outstanding Issues/Conditions From Past Approval a. Trails The applicant was required to return at preliminary plat submission with three trail options for the proposed trail which will link Ute Avenue to the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Roaring Fork River. Three options have been prepared and are attached for your review. The applicant has committed to provide a trail easement for trail options B,C or D in lieu of constructing trail option A on City property. It is the staff position that the acquisition of trail easements across private property are more valuable to the City than commitments to construct trails on City property. The City may budget to build trail option A at any point in the future, however, after the 1010 Subdivision is approved, the City will permanently lose their oppor- tunity to provide a trail easement at no cost across the subdivision. In evaluating trail options B, C and D, the staff has considered the potential trail experience and privacy for subdivision residents and neighbors. Based upon these considerations, the staff believes that trail option C is the best trail alignment. b. City Raw Water Use Agreement The applicant has finalized a raw water use agreement with the City of Aspen for use of irrigation water from the Wheeler Ditch, consistent with City Council's condition of approval. C. Building Envelopes/Bedroom Counts Building Improvement Envelopes have been specified as requested. Bedroom counts were requested in order to determine park dedication fees. Since the proposal is to subdivide lots and not build houses, it is difficult to estimate the proposed number of bedrooms. The park dedica- tion fee is calculated based upon a maximum of four bedrooms per residence. The applicant proposes to pay the maximum fee conditioned upon the City refunding fees in the event that less than four bedrooms per unit are built. 5 d. Lots 13,14 and 15 The applicant has prepared an elevation drawing of roof heights on Lots 13, 14 and 15 from the perspective of the east side of the Roaring Fork River. The purpose of the drawing is to demonstrate the visual impact on the east ridge of the site. At conceptual submission, it was the staff opinion that Lots 13, 14 and 15 should be relocated to the west side of the east ridge. The P&Z and City Council did not concur with our position. Instead, the applicant was asked to prepare and present east elevation perspect- ives. Although we continue to believe that no building should be located on the east side of the ridge and that the drawings indicate the negative visual impact of the structures, we recognize that, at least conceptually, you do not concur with our findings. The applicant has committed to restrict the building heights of Lots 13, 14 and 15 to 12 feet above the ridgeline. Unless your feelings about the development have changed, we find this representation to be consistent with the condition established by P&Z and the City Council. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Office recommends approval of Preliminary Plat and PUD Subdivision, 8040 Greenline, and Stream Margin Review subject to the following conditions: 1) A subdivision/PUD agreement shall be submitted in conjunc- tion with the final plat submission. The agreement shall be reviewed by the City Attorney, City Engineer and Planning Office prior to final plat presentation to City Council. The agreement shall include the following provisions: a. An open space and common facilities agreement in accordance with Section 24-8.19. b. Commitment to join all improvement districts affecting subject property. C. Necessary documents to convey open space to the City of Aspen. d. Employee housing restrictions consistent with concep- tual subdivision approval. e. Commitment that representatives made during conceptual and preliminary plan submissions will be adhered to. f. Commitment to adhere to recommendations of Chen Associates regarding construction techniques and 6 temporary protection of natural slopes, the Wheeler ditch and river. g. A guarantee for the completion of utility/road/trail and landscaping improvements to Ute Avenue in the form of cash escrow or bank bond or other alternative in accordance with Section 20_16(c). h. Architectural covenants as proposed in submission. i. Commitment to submit working drawings of water system to Water Department for approval prior to construction. j. Commitment to replace and relocate to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall existing fire hydrant #741 prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first house in the subdivision. k. Commitment to develop air pollution control plan to mitigate construction impacts shall be approved by Environmental Health prior to the issuance of a building permit. 1. Commitment that all buildings comply with Ordinance 86- 5 regarding solid fuel burning devices. m. Commitment to comply with noise abatement Ordinance 81- 12. n. Commitment that in the event mine tailings are uncov- ered during excavation, the applicant shall have the soil tested for toxicity and the tests will be reviewed by Environmental Health prior to removal of any soil from the site. 2) The final plat shall be in the following form and/or include the following information: a. Dedication of trail option C to the City of Aspen. b. Note restricting building heights on lots 13,14 and 15 to 12 feet above east ridge. C. Preparation of plan in accordance with Section 20-15. d. Drawing Index on first page. e. Note indicating that Ute Circle is a private roadway with public utility easements. f. Note on final utility plan to indicate that locations where water and sewer lines cross separation shall be 7 maintained or be encased per City standards. g. A final grading plan which shall more clearly define the limits of cut and fill areas within the develop- ment. h. A more precise grading plan for the proposed trail linking Ute Avenue to the Nordic Trail above the park site on Ute Avenue. 3) In preparing for final plan submission, the applicant shall adhere to the provisions of Section 24-8.12 of the Code. GH.1010 8 SiZ f'/4 .... 4 - ,/:''-, : '. . '. ' ''ll ,/ ' I ----U, I.-- Â»3 1, I , 'f'., f , , ' )42[0 9 \---9// 1Â¢ / ~YX ''1' ,<01%...4 ~/ l i , ' I ; i. /0 1 Ni , ' n , ., " '. 1 I r. , P , : f' I t.t. If iii :@ i , , 1/ 1 ' . C. /4 > 4='.-2. k- , . i.''li l i 1,#':12.2,11 imi_, 6/illk . . ec~.6..~ ' , ': 4; , Â· ..41 r , En,/ j. 1.... 2 =Â·i \ \ fl'' 1. ...... --- : 44 ./ I 1 .. 1,/ 9 th , 0 + 6/ 1/ i.v i 44 1: Kitch/<-/ * i 6 -7/-4 / r ~ \ -7 i , 3 -Â· 1 .... ,--=U 9-iA@=.4 427-1 r-- - rÂ· AU b. ' - :. ,/ / / f. '774:94--7 -' i - Â· Â«-2,3 . C , t-3 o I. . .. I. .. . 3%5-'3:rf. % f. 1 , , ''' 9-r--I , 1 8 ..1 -1 - ; C \ 3 r.~ I / -to -~- -U' r I +4 + A , t 4,9 :: 2:-. i .-r.3 , 6 76 ''-'.--------U<1.--Si-/ , 4 --Â»~_-24 ?,--r.-h 0-// ..-, .. / : f / 1, 1.MI, 1 - I 4 7. + 7 ....- . , .- '-- 1, f Y 1.1 <.# :/2 /1, r ; --- 1 - A / / f / 41 5 Â· l . -- I. lit '* 6// 21-0/ '277 79Â«Â»----1--,~ .. f' 5 ' . ak, ..1~ , I i .fubl' 1 ' -Â·.3 r,-7 4 . /--=:-:-:-e-$4-----2' *f .NX.1. 1 A . --/ I-- r-44_-_---:.re .--4.-f 2.-7 -_C '26~ - --------I z 1. : d -. - .-Â· -- 0 .: 1\ '-'Â·- f gsp / 11 19/ 4....: 1-64 - 4 . Â£ 1,-Â·....C . . 64 'il j, /4,1.......9, ,- 1 ./ â€¢ 42 n-'Â·o 1 I I ''' /0 8-f , ....'.3:1'f, -00.-B:- I.-.--23-Fi=3-5--~--LIAv Â·. eo P 0 '/M .--- / I. li_i Â· A-: ...4> D- l-1.---=- -----*-- -----6>-- ... U ..7/r Â» o c'' 3 '' / -8 t. . . th \6 1 1 - ROARING < a . .51 -; -Â·--Â·Â·- 1_7.-...-:=215Â·;4â‚¬21* UNÂ« I - 7 1 i I â‚¬ h , 4 ~ 324 -/ i ''' /.:Ii , YxiLL. * ff -- 4:,\ - . -- '=9 U; M PRELIMINARY RU.D./SUBDIVISION ~ DIVELOPER *. UTE CO~PO~ATIOI ~ | ASPEN. COLORADO --- 1 Â¥0,7 3,19/I 03.0/0.d i 1 - Â¥1 W. IJL. -TA-..0 WALL -ELEM 7990 41 %Itl - META-.a WALL 1 - IVEN ti ii ji I.,9 7980 Â«\\ ,$7 Â·â‚¬ Pi Â¥2' ./, 1/ \2~ >1 4\12 ' \ 1 61 vi iti 7 , % 1 ~ 92 111 8!f 1 ':1 911 '11 iEw 1.979, .., ~~' ~~ '~~ ~~'''"'~~' SECTION 4 350 mvEâ€¢ i iii ..... .?960.......v ...,,t,....,i '.. i .0 .,,. .4Â·'~ I ..â€¢Â·â€ž â€ž1 Â·..â€ž I...... ===,â€¢--~rÂ·â€¢-~Â·â€¢m,~â€¢rÂ·-Â»~.,~â€ž,Â·~~- 79*Q .-,1..... ..... 1.i......~, 1iÂ¥ SECTION 0â€¢ 150 7970 1 SECTION 0, 0 h.n#Wilizj~--Wj--% 7, 1 Yk. .TA,-0 nu 'A".lt 7090 FRI "" PATIftff- -TA-ING WALL SECTION Oâ€¢ 400 7900 7970 7980 ,....,1 7970 RVER 7970 .7909 -1 " 11 -1 DITCH -- WHEELER 7.9096" v .VE. 7960 - C ll,0,4,... SECTION 0â€¢ 50 SECnON 0+ 450 METAPÂ«NO WALL 0.- RETARÂ«NG WALL 7970 7979 \,mp==14\J'. ~ WHEELER -' 183325/< F.YER 1 .79*gâ€ž%0,4,4, RIVE' -I -1 PAâ„¢ 1 + 7980 7950 SECTION Oâ€¢ 500 SECTION Oâ€¢ 250 ~7970 7960 8' MPICAL) SECTION Oâ€¢ 100 FAPÂ·- WHEELER AL E - 9 0 RETAIIÂ«1 WALL PAOPO.I .... h.....G.1--1 - L 798[1- 1.1 PAT,1 -C - ---- ..7.970.. , ..,r 1'1~r.r<Â© 1 . - .VER %* ..1. 3.. .1 - . ..ELER --. IICI - Â· - 4% ...... ~'-' ,-1 0-m/â€¢- RIVE. 2-9.eqi..".-~,-"---,~,; -,-~.2----,--- -_-_---- .- -,---â€ž~...---.- -_ SECnON Oâ€¢ 550 8 a SECTION 0â€¢ 300 TRAIL OPTION 'A' - SITE SECTIONS 01 1. 252. 5:. [0. /9/1 â€¢0 Â·uâ€¢IiI â€¢nullâ€¢ Ill 082 Pale,Od,00.1 00Â¥WO1O3 Na NOISIAIOfinS/'0 nd ABVNIQI-131Wd 1 30NaAÂ¥ 3ln 0 " 47 Â¥R Â¥ ) 1 It O ) 1 C ..~ . I. 8 J C 1 r , \\ '. -1: 2 . 2 1/ ' D 1 4 9,\ . 7% -14 ' ra 0. 11 1 .... il. r i: ' tag 1 -' 11. 11 lillinx :, 1 Â£ 1.i 8:: 4,1 .-1 ': 25% : 1% 1,Â»Â»Â»-4:4~~ 1 \1'rE*LL 9Er ' -2-1-L: , 4844retrmh t. Kg. gEN i' ''Trm'- ).*i}:Â©f ... 10 /t ZA . i , / !2 ; EU. 1 1Â«- yÂ¥-, 69 2 i, Â«3.4 111,{1 . < 4319:+1 TtÂ·Â·3 . , ,r C /t-\ 6 1 1 . 2.0. A 1 11$1\; .44 11 < j 1 444-r-Â·30 , Â·,t:: .. Â· tuÂ·Â·,>4'i'', 1 1 1\ 11 I , 7. 13 7 , to hi q I V ./. 719* ' 1 , 1 1 12 ii ': 11 k Vt ~\ 11 : 7 7\ C 34 2 6. ' , 1,1 -Itt , 1 ,-. x.1.2 â‚¬/7.. *ird /754 1 46 111 411)Y~9/4,21 91\ 2 i J 1: 0 0 11 :, ,/...''. , ..i tr , I I , 141 \ 1 '~ <'. 1 \ â€¢ 1 I 1 2, fl '21 1 1 74 r â€¢ \ 1- 1 it 1 1 9 2 -4 : 1 ' 1 4' 'id' ;Ii /15\ i \\ \ i P v , 1 1 ''b'\ , C ' 4-4, .4 /' pMopos,D VA , I j. t..3 /7 -'-. i i 1 '/ 1 \ 41 11.1,1. 1/,1\ - , , I 0, m Wtbt , PUBLIC â€¢ 2 1 0 j. N ~~ â€¢fe / ' 1 J :, I G. Ji.9 J U)- 1 1, t: 14/ . 7 * ... 1 ./ 1 ../ \~ < 04 l 0 W 09Â»~10Â»6909Â»00Â»94 . I - LU Z r; . 1 - 1 J< C > 1 .=.111). .C(:. --*. S#4'I11 7,<~:x r.. (r x --. =.b~ \.. p~. i. 3 ./ < ix . f?r.,6. . % LU 11(ISTING *IRE TRAM. \\ 51 0 -- - -- --- --- - - + e i V. 1- \N L 'FO.00\4 pARK O f " O . 4 \ Ar \ 1.(nÂ· 5 145. i ,. 9. .............4.-4.-1.-- ... . - ...... ~ ~3= ~ ~~~~4~=.==42~~&f<b~~xx-- --44Â«triÂ«U-"4/5 - ~f~'N~ TRAIL OPAB'- < 200 41 [P I m/LIT---~--- 1 0, i 3 .Mit. =Ot 252~526 tor ... /0 'U~#â€¢ B. I /1/ 002' pate,odioou NOISIAIcianS/0 na A NINI 13Wd i 00'80103 'N 3dSV --I---------------- 1 1, - 1, ,3 Wx#17 ~A ~-~~P%9\{{ VE#,"'4"*,\ t Â¥1 Â¥ t ? CA E-i) 1 R #' 00 1). , -1 * 17. T I i ir il d I all. 4.4 1, V i 11 2 1 , ' /. 1 111, F 3> 4 i '*to , .ae ' 1,1 . i li % 0 ...8 ' + ..2&&1 %~ __- 4 , 1 O .Al' , 11 Â¥ r a. f. CER 4 2 if) /9 + 1,4 - 1 , r . 0,1 , 51 2, // 2 ''' 1 '' L ) A\Y 2 U i ..r , -Ov-74 b.<. Â£ ./ f < = ~*) .fi'~;}~j ~ 5 <*,~-~- ~*~__ -14 .,1. 1 1 1,VI?,4--11 ~1~ <~ f-~_.<~( * C' 1~~Lb~~' . 1. 2&6-1 5,0 i ~ci) Yd 3 f . i .0- : .1 049 i .i JE; Ij 1 1/ 4 / d h, 1 .-'h i i , / 'j !\<7/~ ' : 1 P-'Â·.-7-'.1 ' 31Â·,\. ,'\ \Ou c ''1 )-1 U~ & t A-Y\Â·ll :t ,/ 8 1 1 1, I 1 I I . , 3 /1, ,/ i : tÂ¢ 4 I . i-.. ' 1 Â· ,i Â·' L,/1 . 21 1 , 1 / 1..,'A--2 " 'Â· ' 0 -' ' ~ : / -/ t/2 'I. / / to 42% 1 ... \\ I. /// pROPOSED %<.1 . . 4 f :it; . R /3 . i 1 ~,r 'ILLS;/'.0 1\\1\1 \ \ 2. \ C PUBLIC ; % I ./ i. --- - 9 1,4/1 :: "9 l L_: , ~ O, s ~7 / MIT 'i ;h I I, -= 8 r h .,... Â·. 0321 h,Â· PARK 4./Ft '' i ' 0.6 Ir '*-\ 1 , \ -- , .,-4.<441 \ 4 J ' . l 9 4.7 N ./ . 1 %\.t\\ 0- -4 1. l ' 1 4% 13%,\'. 'p, 1 ;, er L . % , i,RD ' 4,39-J> 592*---zz-.-* 1.0Â¥ iNN ,/ , 1 1) \'11 1 c ' 4,r. C E M, E '1' E It 3' j 1 M<222/ i'~--3+Â· b*%40,.' Â°4 - .::- -- --1- ..i' / ''=:r:70>htÂ·z 0,-4-REÂ»<Z~Â«44 2.9,0-LA.7--Â«, 7 c ' . Jz--. 2-Y .< r 1 -:. ' '23 2 \ Z 1 - -- ---22----fir-IEE:ZESEÂ¢-67449*Â·iÂ· 1.--4,4Â·~~~ ~ . 1 , 1) 1 W f F F ) p ,) 4.4 : > rh. LU â‚¬ .th 1. UTE . I.- I -I. ~s JI-~---~~LE,Z -T/10/12/2/4<24%1.-5-â‚¬Â£2=~~ fÂ»- =: - -- 22 . 3414 LLJ,/ % ___ ' Ou 1 PARK I I I ../.--------- 1 -- 1- - & - ----_---1--22--Â»220--22---22220--0----~-Â»-1--22-: >9-~--21---21----2------1----2322*bb 44> ---- -* th 4444. . 9 i 1 - J /'/ ....P 44 hux %Au.3-4* % CM. 0../... .... ~1~ TRAIL 0'b er 44 1 0 v PiN-1-IL==T 200 01 13 ..... N ze Cor tisle *D'Uâ€¢dâ€¢â€¢ â€¢flueâ€¢â€¢ â€¢In 0821 NOIAVWO~~03 ]An 0.0â€¢ IN01]A]C NOISIAK]enS 'Cl-na NIVII 138d Les. S.. â‚¬OX Pale,od 00Â¥8010 ON!%1Â¥013 . 1 1 .. i ! -. I .. 1/0 " -, 1.- . . R 74 L . 2 m '4 0 r. ,- #W.: " 5 -1 - Z Z - - . 0 . 9 O -- . 1- un :A i I 4 , * \4---z- i 1 1 , . V . 1- 1 r U ' 1 65 I -N :L L_L L 4 -- 1 , 4 - 4- - 1 .- r-it 1 1/- ./- tz . ' U) .4 m . - - ft -It m , 12=44 0- t.7 m 0 ./- -4 - 2 Â¥ 4 IL 5 1- - Z 1 I j k 0 1 9 11.- 0 : //9, 1 4 - - + 1 .2 .-1 5 9Â»--1, 4. - F- 9 ' i L'Â·- Â».t ...7 m --:e if U-. 1 I Ik F 11 2 1 I 0/ i 1- ill Ol f , 1 1.1 4 -1 2,/t /1 I DEVE./. I. U. COA'OAITION 2;!P PRELIMINARY RU.D./SUBDIVISION 8 iT 1010 UTE AVENUE -,- I sutherland CIVIL *~UNEEMS IC-... .... ..ER. -C fallin incorporated LANOSCAPt â€¢â€¢C-,ECT â€¢ER-DGE AISOCIATeS. I,/ 4 ASPEN. COLORADO 1280 41* â€¢â€¢â€¢nul ...... C. .1611 303 525-2 103 --W SNOU.33$ 31:S - ,0, NOLLdO lIVkll 1-0 NOUOBS 13.24 t. U J [ C . 4 - -- J 411 1,/ - 4%339. ~ ~ -~ji Fj L . i / ~1%8Â«16-q-94?ffit< d 04\ AA 81 11 ,-1 j, 95A~ ~* -~ 1( ~ Nk 51 Al ;A : . . I 'F .(2221211,/ j ' ,\A 1097/1 i / i\ lLL V..0- ..64~~'â‚¬kh,RA,Al'~ ' ~''A' Cj~' 1, . 211 11: : j 1 41 ..1 X:Â§ R \\\ 4@f<, 1 1....AÂ· /44/Ht'...i~. 1 bag/(AF#;,Â·41 9/A' 9 'Â·Â·A ',\\..'/_ -1, 4.11 6,Â·3' .Â· I : 1 \\t#:0 *Â¥2 1\1 t, i \,E'' ./41 --4 8 5 0 N ' (mYAII .O:9 j .- .- A.O.~ 1 , 7 / 12 â€¢-' th I 1 / 4 ' 9 0,/.4. / '.9 , a Â¢"'.h~ '.11 19 11\ p. , - f fi~ Â· 74 5 4 \ 484 ' / I. 3,"/ #' ,(i,P". Â· 97 ',Â·11Â·41 4:I,E'' //te,1, -141" .\ \ 76\ \3 14.. - I . ~ ~. ~ , ; ~ ~. ,r~<,'~121,1, ..~ , 4 481 V -; 1 -1-3>19/' ..1 77:.2/44Â·Â·\Â· 1 3 4, r.''A ..,.. 1,1, .44 11, : Nx.4/74......:Ct *~.' t,, \ 11 1 I .... : 'I. , .. e>, I / , 1 4:04. h . ./ '' '' I.JN? , \ \ \ 1,41 5 4. \ . , , 1 1, r' r'' ~~i.. ..1/," -OPOSED \%\ 1 . 1-44) PUBLIC ; 14 1%1~1 \.7//''I~ l--- * glE ') '' : / 15 ' \ \ 2 .... . :t ./f ~l 1 21. -\ .: c / 43- - ... .... ' #'',â‚¬ ; L -' - .. , ~â‚¬- E M..]C ~' E 11 Y =---- '31 3611 t\\ I L ' t 1 , - â‚¬2/22>3Â»Â».3.1-1-99%. -3$2#-:6625/91 D i 141 - 1 1 1, , Ul Â·15 Â· ' 1 ' '1 / \ 2 0.2- 1~-2-_-t.'*eo~ 4 0 k#,4 UJ 'i A,, I N - 8 - -0 -- ---0--1.- I - - 'r. I - . 4 8 2 211 -0. .1-*(4 -- .- S --Ir-13 -1-)-1-- 1--. - 07 * i 0/ - , Z JJ'/ -i. -. Â». 1 1~04, . 1 4 % F:, 2. r- /4 lh\ i., / #- - 2% g~r#, ~ I~ ~~ ,-4\ 4. 1 v'~ ; , ----- Â»Â»-6 CHILDREN'S . I <f~~ -41~'01â€¢Â£_r,AA U.1 0 9. I - 1 , I 1.01' 1 N , PARK ~ 0 1 11 %- , 1 @O 1--- - * .-- 1 1 - 9- --- a. 9- - YGA- I -- 3 2 '0. 26 2, 4 P ilfUt=J --- - ' 11 200 01 13 ...1. .Â¥ 100, A,24,"3. ......0..... I J 'll.â€¢â€¢ .........0 i 9NIHVO pale,odljoiu NOIS,AlagnS/U'rid AH 0.80103 'N 3dSÂ¥ 4 MEMORANDUM TAÂ· Glen Horn, Planning Office FROM. Bill Ness, Parks Superintendent ~m:==:=Le<-, k.....)6~2 DATE: April 6, 1987 RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision/PUD Preliminary Plat After viewing all trail options I believe Option 'C' to be my first choice. I feel this makes the most sense and creates the best trail experience by giving the public a more logical approach to the proposed bridge. Opt:ion 'A' has the interruption of going around the proposed Ute Subdivision and not being a very direct approach to the bridge. If we go with Trail Option 'C' we still have the option to add the trail along the river which will create a river- oriented jogging loop around the proposed Ute Subdivision. I feel if we go with Trail Option 'A' well find that some of the trail users will take a short cut through the Ute Avenue Subdivision to get to the bridge. Plus, we won't have the option to create the jogging loop. BN:m j m 1 6214 North 34th Street Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253 February 26, 1987 7-9.-erenpniFF.1 Mr. Glen Horn I ~h j 1.1=3_1<2=1=L-1-m I ~~ 1.1/jE.- Aspen-Pitkin Planning and Zoning 130 South Galena Af h MAR 4 1987 ' Aspen, Colorado, 81611 AL-i) Dear Mr. Horn: I wish to present my concerns reaardinq the Lowe Construction Company development project, which is presently under review by the City of Aspen. I urge the City to safeguard views towards the cemetary and the Ever- greens on its Western ridge from the vantage point of the Gant "K" Building and the adjacent Ute Avenue path. It would be.an eyesore for the buildings to be placed towards the crest of that ridge,or for two-or-more level buildings to be allowed at that location. Several Gant buildings; several houses; and that section of Ute Avenue, have for years afforded one of the more pleasant in-town vistas in Aspen. In the Gant "K" Building, alone, over twelve units have picture windows directly displaying that area. Each unit offers this view to their rental guests. Over the course of a year, hundreds of Aspen visitors occupy those units. They get an impression of Aspen, during their stay in those units, and many have developed a preference for that location because of the un- obstructed view of the surrounding area. Unnecessary placement of buildings might be at the expense of current property owners, who contribute to Aspen's economic and general welfare. I urge that the structures-especially multi-level structures, be located on the development ir, a less obtrus-:ve and view-obstructing location. Sincerely, <466*2 42* Valerie Richter Owner, Gant K-301 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney > City Engineert' Aspen Water Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Park*~Department Fire/Marshall Zoning Official FROM: Glenn Horn, Planning Office RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision/PUD Preliminary Plat DATE: March 20, 1987 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Gideon Kaufman on behalf of his client, Lowe Development Corporation requesting approval for Preliminary Plat Subdivision, Preliminary P.U.D. Plan, 8040 Green Line Review and Stream Margin Review. The applicant is proposing a 16 unit subdivision, plus one employee unit. The property is located on Ute Avenue and is bordered by The Gant, Calderwood Subdivision, Ute Park and Ute Cemetery as well as Lot 1, Hoag Subdivision. The land is located within the R-15 P.U.D. zone on a total of 332,875 square feet, or approximately 7.64 acres. Please review this material and send your comments to this office no later than April 7, 1987 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z on April 21st. Thank you. _ ~Ii;i;MJG~ I?J CU-7% i 11 Lâ€ži ~i~l MAR 2 6 1987 ~* ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT lfUILLE MEMORANDUM TO: GLENN HORN, PLANNING FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: 1010 UTE AVENUE/]!UD PRELIMINARY PLAT DATE: MARCH 25, 1987 1 f ju 40-2.- Per your memo of March 2*tb-1 we have again reviewed the 1010 preliminary application, in particular the utility plan, sheet 5. Such utility plan is acceptable to the Aspen Water Department, which in essence consists of an 8" cast iron water main off Ute Avenue to the intersection of lots 6 and 10 at the cul-de-sec, at which point such line is interconnected with a 6" ductile water line to the existing water line located in the Calderwood Subdivision, thereby creating a loop system as recommended by this department. We wish to note the existing fire hydrant #742 is to be relocated or moved out of the bicycle path. We recommend (as being more practical) that the hydrant top of the existing hydrant be dismantled and the remainder of the hydrant be abandoned and a new mueller type hydrant be located off the 8" main at or near the intersection of the subdivision roadway in Ute Avenue; actual location of the hydrant is to be agreed upon and verified in the field between the project engineer and the Water Department. JM:ab ec: Jay Hammond, Public Service Director Gideon Kaufman MEMORANDUM 1-87 TO; Glen Horn, Planning Office FROM: Wayne Vandemark, Fire Marshal RE: 1010 Ute Ave. PUD Preliminary Plat DATE: March 23, 1987 I have review the above mentioned Plat. The proposed subdivision is .6 of a mile from the Fire Department by the shortest route. The distance was measured by vehicle from the station to hydrant # 742. The response time will be less than three minutes. There is adequate water in the area to service fire protection with the addition of the new hydrants. 512 Grand Avenue; Suite 212 ~ SCHMUESER G IN MEYER INC Â· 7---2- Iy> 'Â·af~-f lenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 1 M 7 1 11 lfÂ»14.122 (303) 945-1004 441-1 L.* CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS~ March 17, 1987 Mr. Glenn Horn Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Relationship Betheen Floodplain and Pedestrian Trail 1010 Ute Avenue Dear Glenn: I have reviewed the drawings for 1010 Ute Avenue as it relates to Trail Option A and the proposed pedestrian bridge crossing of the Roaring Fork River and the floodplain elevation adjacent to the property. This is to certify that, if the trail and bridge are constructed as shown on the drawing, they will not interfere with the 1 00-year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River. The elevation of the trail and bottom of the bridge are at least three feet to four feet above the 100-year eleva- tion at any given location. I trust that the above certification is adectuate to address the condi- tion of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I would be happy to pro- vide any additional information at your reauest. Respectfully submitted, SCH WESER GORDe MEYER, INC. yfean W. /Gordon, P. E. f Presid#nt DNG:le c/614R xc: -Mr. Skip Behrhorst, Lowe Develorment -Mr. Dick Fallin, Sutherland Fallin, Inc. , MEMORANDUM TO: ' Glenn Horn, Planning Office / FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering -94- DATE: April 10, 1987 RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Preliminary P.U.D. Having reviewed the above application for Preliminary Plat Subdivision, Preliminary P.U.D. Plan, 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin and building on slopes in excess of 40% for the 1010 Ute Avenue project, I would offer the following comments: PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBDIVISION Generally the submission is quite complete for preliminary plat purposes. Preliminary approval should be contingent in: 1. Submission of a final plat in conformance with the requirements of Section 20. 2. Inclusion of a drawing index. 3. Indication that Ute Circle is a private roadway and public utility easement as well as separate easement agreements for public utility purposes. 4. Notations on the utility plan to indicate that locations where water and sewer lines cross they shall maintain separation or be encased per City standards. 5. The grading plan should more clearly define the limits of cut and fill areas within the development. PRELIMINARY P.U.D. PLAN The preliminary plan seems to show some changes to the proposed site grading plan. I would recommend preliminary approval be contingent on: 1. Designation of areas of 0 to 20, 21 to 30, 31 to 40 and 40+% slope as used in the slope-density reduction calculation. While the developer has indicated that these reductions have been calculated, I have not seen the working drawing of the topo on which they were designated. While it may not be necessary to include this information in the plat documents, we would simply like to review the slope analysis. Page Two 1010 Ute Avenue Preliminary P.U.D. April 10, 1987 8040 Greenline I would reiterate that the Engineering office has no significant concerns related to 8040 review on Lot 1 of the Hoag subject to specific review of the grading requirements of the proposed trail. Stream Margin Review We would support stream margin approval subject to continued involvement by Chen and Associates and adherence to their recommendations particularly regarding construction techniques and the temporary protection of natural steep slopes, the Wheeler ditch and river. Steep Slopes Again, construction on steep slopes would seem achievable from a design and soil stability standpoint. Approval should be subject to the continued involvement and adherence to the recommendations of a soils engineering consultant. JH/co/1010UtePrelPUD architecture sutherl--d, fallin, inc. & planning March 5, 1987 1280 ute avenue aspen 81611 Transmittal colorado 303/925-4252 To; Jay Hammond, City Engineer F r; Dick Fallin, Sutherland, Fallin, Inc. Re; 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision We are herein transmitting the following Preliminary Plat Submission Materials: 1. One application booklet dated March 5, 1987. 2. One copy letter Chen & Associates, dated March 2, 1987, Exhibit "C"I 3. Letter Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. dated February 26, 1987 7Lunce ~c j *L RE: Drainage Plan 1010 Ute Avenue 4. One set drawings from Sutherland, Fallin, Inc. V 0.-/fL Sheet 1 Cover Sheet March 4, 1987 Sheet 2 Preliminary Plat & Vicinity Map February 27, 1987 Sheet 3 Grading Plan March 4, 1987 Sheet 4 Road Plan February 27, 1987 Sheet 5 Utility Plan February 27, 1987 Sheet 6 Landscape and Site Devlpmt Plan March 4, 1987 Sheet 7 Exhibit "D", Roof Height Illus. March 4, 1987 Sheet 8 Trail Option "A" March 4, 1987 Sheet 8a Cross Sections, Trail Option "A" March 4, 1987 Sheet 9 Trail Option B March 4, 1987 Sheet 10 Trail Option C March 4, 1987 Sheet 10a Cross Sections Trail Option C March 4, 1987 Sheet 11 Trail Option D March 4, 1987 7 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 ~ SCHMUESER GO, MEYER INC....(~~~~Â« vignwood Springs, Colorado 81601 1 -Ili /i 4 (303) 945-1004 ttI--My \*~,~,7 CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS~ February 26, 1987 Mr. Jay Hammond, City Engineer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Drainage Plan 1010 Ute Avenue Dear Jay: Please find attached hereto a report entitled "Drainage Report, 1010 Ute Avenue". The report is based on the criteria which you and I have talked about in the past, as well as the written information which you had assembled earlier last week. The report addresses the concept of maintaining both historic surface water flows and historic groundwater recharge characteristics. The report should be reviewed in conjunction with the grading and drainage plan presented in plan form. If you so require, I will pro- vide you with the detailed engineering calculations used to determine the drainage plan details. If you do have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. 1/029<8' D,kw. IGordon, P.E. Presid#t DWG:let/6148 1 #6148 DRAINAGE REPORT 1010 UTE AVENUE I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to address the methods of handling the storm water runoff and groundwater recharge for the proposed development of 1010 Ute Avenue. This report will also address methods of drainage calculations and assumptions used in designing the various structures for handling the runoff. A number of methods are used to estimate the amount of runoff from a rainfall event. These methods range from the Rational Method, developed in the 1800's, to the more recently developed computer models, such as the Stormwater Management Model. The Method sel- ected to estimate peak flows should be based on the size of the drainage area, the available data, and the degree of accuracy re- quired for design. The Rational Method was used in the drainage analysis for 1010 Ute Avenue. The Rational Method is the most widely used method of estimating peak runoff. Its limitations include the size of the drainage area (e.g., it should not be used for basins greater than 200 acres in size). Also, a major limitation is that it only provides the peak rate of flow and, thus, only one point on the runoff hy- drograph. The Rational Method, however, is considered an adequate approach to analysis in providing information in the design of the local drainage structures typified by this project. The theory behind the Rational Method considers the following asumptions: A) The time of concentration is the time required for runoff from the most remote point in the basin to reach the point under design, or typically called, and hereinafter referred to as, the "point of concentration" . B) The peak flow rate occurs at the time of concentration. C) The rainfall lasts as long or longer than a time equivalent to the time of concentration. D) The intensity of rainfall is uniform over the entire drainage basin. For 1010 Ute Avenue, the Time-Intensity-Frequency curves provided by the City are utilized. These curves were developed utilizing methods outlined in the Urban Storm Drainage Criterial Manual, prepared for the Denver Regional Council of Governments and the National Weather Service Rainfall Frequency Atlas for Colorado. The runoff coefficient used for the study was based on the minimum and maximum recommended values outlined in the January 17, 1984, memorandum from Jay Hammond to Dan McArthur and Chuck Roth regard- ing storm runoff calculations. II. HISTORIC DRAINAGE PATTERNS The 1010 Ute Avenue site exhibits historic drainage patterns whereby surface runoff generally runs to the north. More specifi- cally, two ridges separate drainage. One ridge is located on the east end of the property, the other is located towards the center of the property. On the west side of the property (i.e., west of Ute Avenue) is Aspen Mountain. At present, surface runoff from this area flows east into the Ute Avenue right-of-way. At Ute Avenue, the flow then proceeds to the north along the west side of Ute Avenue. The center ridge of the property splits flow to the east and west. On the west side of this ridge, Lots 1-5 and 17 are proposed. On the east side of the ridge, Lots 6 and 7 are proposed. At pres- ent, runoff from the west side sheet flows to a drainage along the east side of Ute Avenue. Once runoff enters this drainage, flow proceeds to the north. On the east side of this ridge, runoff sheet flows to the east to the drainage between the east ridge and the center ridge. Once in this drainage, flow proceeds north to the Wheeler Ditch. The east ridge in the site splits flow to the east and to the west. Lots 8 and 16 are proposed on the west side of the ridge. On the east side of the ridge, Lots 9-15 are proposed. Surface runoff from the east side of the ridge presently sheet flows into the Wheeler Ditch along the east of the property. Below this ditch, surface runoff sheet flows to the Roaring Fork River. The drainage between the center ridge and east ridge presently empties into the Wheeler Ditch along the north of the property. III. PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES The proposed drainage facilities for 1010 Ute Avenue will consist of a combination of culverts, retention/detention ponds and drywells. The objectivs of the drainage plan were to limit developed flows leaving the property to the historic 100-year flow rate, to retain the 10-year historic flow for recharge to groundwater (reasoning to be discussed later), to size drywells for the combination of 10-year retention and 100-year detention and to determine drywell sizes for homes ranging from 2,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet. The 10-year event was chosen for design of recharging the groundwater using the following reasoning: -2- 4 , In recalling the Rational Method theory regarding the antecedent precipitation coefficient, it is seen that, at the intensity for rainfall events through the 10-year rainfall event, the ooeffic- ient is 1.0. Beyond the 10-year event, the coefficient gets larger. Our objective is to recharge the groundwater in the proposed conditions bo equal that as seen in the historic condi- tions. The rational theory utilizes the antecedent precipita- tion coefficient to account for the fact that, as the intensity get greater, the runoff to recharge ratio get larger. In essence, for the events up to the 10-year event, the runoff to groundwater recharge ratio is nearly equivalent. At the 10-year event, the ground surface becomes so saturated that the ground can no longer receive moisture. Therefore, the remaining pre- cipitation in the event becomes surface runoff; hence, the runoff bo groundwater recharge ratio increases. The proposed drainage facilities have incorporated drywells to handle the increased runoff from selected individual homesites. As stated earlier, these drywells will provide storage for both recharge and detention. Table I shows the size of drywells for a corresponding size home. It is important to note that the feasi- bility of limiting the flow out of the drywells serving the amal- ler homes to the 100-year historic rate is nearly impossible from a maintenance point of view. Flor the smaller homesites, 2,000 to 4,000 square feet, the 100-year historic flow is so small that the controlled outlet would be a one-inch to two-inch diameter pipe. In this case, it is easily seen that this can be oontinual maintenance problem caused by the small outlet plugging up. For this reason, an outlet pipe of no less than three inches in diameter is proposed. In referencing the drainage map for 1010 Ute Avenue, it is seen that the points of concentrating are labled at various locations on the mapping. These points of concentration were picked to gain the ability of accomplishing the objectives of the proposed drain- age plan. Table II is shown on the mapping depicting flow data and design data at each point of concentration. Table II is also attached to this report. It is our opinion that this drainage plan is designed such that: A) The drainage plan complies with the drainage regulations of the City of Aspen; B) Historic flow patterns and runoff amounts are maintained in such a manner as to have no impact upon neighboring landowners and the historic surface and groundwater patterns; C) All systens proposed are capable of continuous maintenance; and D) Pollutants are oontained within the development itself, and will not be introduced to any other natural water courses. -3- ASroN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020 Date: RE: Dear : This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application IS NOT compl ete. Additional items required include: Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed) , Adjacent Property Owners List/Envelopes/Postage (one copy) Additional copies of entire application Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica- tion Response to list of items (attached/below) demonstrating compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specific materials A check in the amount of $ A. Your application is complete and we have scheduled it for review by the on . We w ill call you if we need any additional information prior to that date. Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and make available a copy of the memorandum. Please note that it IS NOT your responsibility to post your property with a sign, which we can provide you for a $3.00 fee. B. Your appl ication is incompl ete, we have not scheduled it review at this time. When we receive the materials we have requested, we will place you on the next available agenda. If you have any questions, please call , the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE architectuta sutherl 1, fallin, inc. & planning 1280 ute avenue aspen 81611 March 5, 1987 colorado 303/925-4252 Transmittal To; Glenn Horn, Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office Fr; Dick Fallin, Sutherland, Fallin, Inc. Re; 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision We are herein transmitting the following Preliminary Plat Submission Materials: 1. Letter dated March 4, 1987 from Gideon Kaufman Law Office 2. Check in the amount of $1,840.00 filing fee. 3. One application booklet dated March 5, 1987. 4. One copy letter Chen & Associates, dated March 2, 1987, Exhibit "C., 5. One set drawings from Sutherland, Fallin, Inc. Sheet 1 Cover Sheet March 4, 1987 Sheet 2 Preliminary Plat & Vicinity Map February 27, 1987 Sheet 3 Grading Plan March 4, 1987 Sheet 4 Road Plan February 27, 1987 Sheet 5 Utility Plan February 27, 1987 Sheet 6 Landscape and Site Devlpmt Plan March 4, 1987 Sheet 7 Exhibit "D", Roof Height Illus. March 4, 1987 Sheet 8 Trail Option " A " March 4, 1987 Sheet 8a Cross Sections, Trail Option "A" March 4, 1987 Sheet 9 Trail Option B March 4, 1987 Sheet 10 Trail Option C March 4, 1987 Sheet 10a Cross Sections Trail Option C March 4, 1987 Sheet 11 Trail Option D March 4, 1987 - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 1 9143(- I, hereby certity that on this_3/ U day of 44 4-h. P -t _ / 198 2-, a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners a/s indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice. \1 1 Nancy Caeti ~ j PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1010 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on April 21, 1987, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 1st floor, City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado to consider an applica- tion submitted by Gideon Kaufman on behalf of his client, LOWE Development Corporation requesting approval for preliminary plat subdivision, preliminary PUD, 8040 Greenline and Stream Margin Review to construct a 16 unit subdivision, plus one employee unit. The property is located on Ute Avenue and is bordered by The Gant, Calderwood Subdivision, Ute Park and Ute Cemetery as well as Lot 1, Hoag Subdivision. The land is located within the R-15 PUD zone on a total of 332,875 square feet, or approximately 7.64 acres. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925- 2020, ext. 298. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 2, 1987. City of Aspen Account. 0111-19 2 -00 -044 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street 4 931-/92-00-073 Aspen, Colorado 81611 2737-/82- 68-009 (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES 4 9 8 A 63 87 City 00113 - 63721 - 47331 GMP/CONCEPTUAL - 63722 - 47332 GMP/PRELIMINARY j (ngo 0 0 - 63723 - 47333 GMP/FINAL - 63724 - 47341 SUB/CONCEPTUAL - 63725 - 47342 SUB/PRELIMINARY - 63726 - 47343 SUB/FINAL - 63727 - 47350 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63728 - 47360 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47380 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47380 HOUSING 00115 - 63730 - 47380 ENGINEERING I90 0. 0 '0 SUB-TOTAL 41 p 9 4 0 00 County 00113 - 63711 - 47431 GMP/GENERAL - 63712 - 47432 GMP/DETAILED - 63713 - 47433 GMP/FINAL - 63714 - 47441 SUB/GENERAL - 63715 - 47442 SUB/DETAILED - 63716 - 47443 SUB/FINAL - 63717 - 47450 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63718 - 47460 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 1 REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47480 HOUSING 00113 - 63731 - 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. 00113 - 63732 - 47480 ENGINEERING SUB-TOTAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 - 09000 COUNTY CODE - 63062 - 09000 COMP. PLAN - 63066 - 09000 COPY FEES - 63069 - 09000 OTHER SUB-TOTAL Latu Off) 6*9 0 -f n TOTAL NampÂ· (R id e oh /~fa 4 1Â· Â»,1 a /') Phone: Address: -3/5 E.UY.. c~,7,54; 1 9 3 06 Project: jO 10 -11-te H U 4 Pre \In, Inorl /*/1/1, O.' f /1 pic--1 b Check # 41? rl Date: 3 1.â‚¬ /2'1 Additional BillingÂ· # of Hours: E