HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20001205AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2000
4� PM
SISTER CITIES ROOM
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. SAVANAH CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, OVERVIEW PRESNTATION, Nick Lelack
B. WEST HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, OVERVIEW PRESENTATION, Nick Lelack
C. HOTEL ASPEN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, Chris
Bend on, Continued From 11/7, CONTINUE TO 1/16
MIr11l9E5
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5,2000
4�(1 PM
107
SISTER CITIES ROOM
Ie�tID��SSm�►�e� (�2a�, �er, F=�I^iG
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff VON Ca-
4J AC44(E`
C. Publi
4<*04 v9uf3uC#j
11. MINUTES NDte.,
III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
N. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. SAVANAH CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OVERVIEW
PRESNTATION, NICK LELACK COA&j� -t-o I/ //C60 0 t
B. WEST HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEV L P ENT.
OVERVIEW PRESENTATION, NICK LELACK 4) AtlD I
C. HOTEL ASPEN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CpTS BENDPN,
CONTINUED FROM 11/7, CONTINUE TO 1/1 Mon om "m
V. ADJOURN
J �5 2^k
A40*e*VEtL 5-t,-7
v
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
®40"114. l A ^AA •
Planning and Zoning Commission
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director -Au
Nick Lelack, Plannero"
Savanah Limited Partnership Conceptu
December 5, 2000
APPLICANT:
Savanah Limited Partnership
John Sarpa
ALLOWED FLOOR AREA:
Existing mixed zoning on all parcels:
76,167 square feet
LTR Zone District for all parcels:
88,480 square feet
REPRESENTATIVES:
Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, LLC
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA:
72,728 square feet
LOT
LOT SIZE
EXISTING
EXISTING ZONING
PROPOSED
LAND USE
ZONING
Barbee
Mostly
(Parcel 1)
42,549 sq. ft.
vacant, 1
LTR
LTR
residence
Parking Lot
18,000 sq. ft.
Vacant &
Aspen Skiing
R-15, with a PUD &
LTR
(Parcel 2)
Co. Parkin
Lodge Overlay
Mine Dump
Lodge/Tourist/Residential
Mine Dump
40,969 sq. ft.
Apartments
(LTR) R-15 Moderate
LTR
(Parcel 3)
&Duplex
Density Residential,
PUD, & Lodge Overlay
SUMMARY:
The Conceptual PUD and rezoning application for the Savanah Limited Partnership
(Applicant) residential project is currently being reviewed by the Community
Development Department and has been scheduled for the Planning and Zoning
Commission review. Staff has requested the applicant present an overview to the
Commission at this meeting. This is being done for two reasons:
1. The project has several components that are intended to complement a
"larger picture." Understanding that larger picture initially will make the
topic reviews more efficient and less confusing.
2. Major threshold issues that need to be addressed during the conceptual
review can be identified up -front and either requested of the applicant to
further address or staff to further research/analyze.
Staff intends this session as primarily an informative meeting with a more in-
depth substantive review public hearing occurring on January 2, 2001. Staff has
requested the applicant presentation be approximately 15-20 minutes with 10-15
minutes for Commission clarification questions. Issue identification could take
approximately 10-15 minutes as well. This initial meeting, as well as the entire
conceptual process with the Commission, will be administered as a public
hearing. The public should be given an opportunity to ask clarification questions
and provide input on the project.
Staff is suggesting that there are a number of threshold questions to be
answered during this conceptual review. These are summarized below. As part
of this overview, the Commission should determine if these are indeed the
threshold issues or if the list needs to be amended to add or delete issues.
As the Commission is aware, this project has a wide range of components and
staff is distributing the application to the Commissioners prior to the first
meeting to allow greater time for review. A summary of the current program for
the project is attached.
Referral comments from other City departments and the Pitkin County Planning
Staff are attached.
Staff recommends the Commission ask the applicant team clarification
questions about the application, establish the threshold issues to be
addressed during this Conceptual Review, and continue the public
hearing to January 16, 2000.
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
UNITS & BEDROOMS
FREE
FREE
AH
AH
TOTAL UNITS
LOT
MARKET
MARKET
UNITS*
BEDROOMS
(BEDROOMS)
UNITS
BEDROOMS
Barbee
5
14
9
21
14 (35)
(Parcel 1)
Parking Lot
3
6
3
9
6 (15)
(Parcel 2)
Mine Dump
6
18
5
13
11 (31)
(Parcel 3
TOTAL 1
14 1
38 1
17
43
31 (81)
*All AH Units are Proposed to be Deed Restricted to Category 2.
OFF-STREET PARKING
ARKEHLOT
A
TOTAL
MT
Barbee
10
15
25
(Parcel 1)
Parking Lot
6
6
12
Parcel 2)
Mine Dump
12
9
21
(Parcel 3)
TOTAL
28
30
58
SQUARE FOOTAGE (FAR)
LOT
MARKET
AH
TOTAL
Barbee
171228 sq. ft.
107431 sq. ft.
27,659 sq. ft.
Parcel 1
Parking Lot
10,337 sq. ft.
4,047 sq. ft.
14,384 sq. ft.
(Parcel 2)
Mine Dump
24,554 sq. ft.
6,131 sq. ft.
30,685 sq. ft.
Parcel 3)
TOTALF
52,119 sq. ft.1
20,609 sq. ft.
72,728 sq. ft.
THRESHOLD ISSUES
Density. Number of units and bedrooms proposed for the three parcels.
Size, Scale, & Mass/Volume of Buildings. Neighborhood compatibility.
Traffic & Aspen Street. Impacts of additional vehicles and voiding 15-year
maintenance warranty.
-� Site access. Aspen Street, South Garmisch Street, Juan Street, vacated alley.
Emergency Access. North side of Barbee parcel (Parcel 1), turn -around areas.
Parking. Meets code requirements; no guest parking provided. Reduction of
parking on Dean Street for existing neighborhood residents.
Overall Site Plan. Includes location and orientation of all buildings and
parking.
- Architectural Style. Neighborhood compatibility.
Landscaping. Number, location, and species of vegetation.
Trail Connections.
--t Park.
To: Nick Lelack, Planner
From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer
Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator
Date: November 6, 2000
Re: Savanah Limited Partnership Barbee, Parking Lot & Mine Dump Apartments
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Savanah Limited Partnership
application at their November 1, 2000 meeting and has compiled the following
comments:
General
1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe
that the submitted site plan is conceptually accurate, that it shows all site
features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as
written unless prior consent is received -from the Engineering Department.
2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights -of -way,
the encroachments must either be removed or are subject to current
encroachment license requirements.
Sits Review
Site Drainage — Requirement - A drainage report was not submitted with the
application. The site development approvals must include the requirement
meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.580.020.A.6.a
and a requirement that, prior to the building per application, a drainage
mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the
requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must
be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The
mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and
containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable
solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation test
to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells have depths well below
depth of frost (10' minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must
contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required by property
owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be
placed within public right of way or utility easements. The foundation drainage
system should be separate from storm drainage, must be 'detained and routed on
site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to application for building permit.
The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage
report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the
design storm.
Page 2 of 5
November 6, 2000
Savanah Limited Partnership Barbee, Parking Lot & Mine Dump Apartments
Information — The City drainage criteria needs to be implemented. This
includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation
disturbance. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow
and what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow.
2. Fire Protection District — Requirement — As of the request of the Fire
Protection District revisions need to be made as follows:
a. There is no mention of Life Safety Systems in the Land Use application.
Even though this is in the conceptual phase, detailed information, must be
prepared in the design phase.
b. There needs to be proper emergency vehicle access to the parking structure
and all the buildings on the lots.
3. Building Department — Requirement — The following requirement has been
provided by the Building Department:
a. The building is subject to the following access requirements:
0 97 UBC
0 Fair Housing Handbook
b. All other requirements will be reviewed during the design phase and during
building permit review.
4. Parking — Requirement — The following requirement has been provided by the
Parking Department:
a. NONE
5. Engineering Department — Requirement- The following requirements have
been provided by the Engineering Department:
a. There will need to be an installation of a 24" storm sewer pipe from Durant St.
to Monarch St. in the ROW of Aspen St. The allocation of cost responsibility
will be determined at a later time.
b. The site is directly below the rockfall area as identified in the 1972 USGS
map. This map also indicates potentially unstable slopes adjacent to the
rockfall area. The applicant must develop a long-term hazard mitigation and
containment plan to protect the proposed development.
Engineering Department — Information- The following information has been
provided by the Engineering Department:
a. Flood insurance is recommended for all of the structures because of the
orientation of the proposed building to the side of Aspen Mountain and the
identification of potential flood zones.
Page 3 of 5
November 6, 2000
Savanah Limited Partnership Barbee, Parking Lot & Mine Dump Apartments
6. Streets Department — Requirement- As of the request of the Streets
Department revisions need to be made as follows:
a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A
washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction.
b. The maintenance of the -alley between lots 1 and 2 needs to be performed by
the owner.
c. Aspen St. has a design loading less than that which will occur if this project is
approved. The addition of 83 cars a day will void the 15 year warranty of the
new asphalt. Therefore some sort of mitigation will be assesed whether it be
a bond, letter of credit, or cost associated with street improvements.
7. Housing Office — Information — The following information has been provided by
the Housing Office:
a. NONE
8. Community Development — Information — The following information has been
provided by the Community Development Office:
a. The free market unit on the corner of Aspen St. and Dean St. should be
orientated so that it faces Aspen St. in a similar fashoin to the other units with
Aspen St. frontage.
9. Emergency Management Disaster Coordinator — Requirement - The
following requirement has been provided by the Pitki.n County Disaster
Coordinator:
a. NONE
10. Parks — Requirement- The following comments have been produced by the
Parks Department:
a. The Parks Department will not take responsibility for management of the
proposed Open Space.
b. The vegetation loss between lots 1 and 2 will require mitigation.
c. The cottonwoods near any below grade construction should be saved.
Parks — Information- The following comments have been produced by the Parks
Department:
a. The native areas must be treated with the Parks Department's recommended
seed mix.
b. The open space area should be stocked with pet waste stations.
12. Utilities: A utility plan was not submitted with the application. For the utility
departments to properly comment, a utility plan must be submitted.
- Water.'
City Water Department - Requirement — As a. request of the City of Aspen
Water Department, revisions need to be made as follows:
Page 4 of 5
November 6, 2000
Savanah Limited Partnership Barbee, Parking Lot & Mine Dump Apartments
a. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System
Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water
Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as
they pertain to utilities.
b. A water service agreement is required.
c. The layout of the current hydrants may not meet the future requirements.
d. The water lines in Aspen St. and Juan St. may need to be replaced in order
to handle the capacity by the proposed project.
e. The site layout needs to show individual unit metering and service.
f. The Mine Dump affordable units may need a separate tap and hydrant.
- Wastewater.'
Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Requirement — As a request of the
Consolidated Waste District, revisions need to be made as follows:
a. Detailed plans need to be submitted to ACSD to assess fees before issuance
of a building permit.
b. There needs to be a proper amount of coverage of the sewer line under Dean
St. to ensure line stability.
c. Landscaping plans must have enough details in order to avoid conflict with
sewer lines including services.
d. There needs to be detailed plans for the storm drainage system to verify
potential conflicts with the sanitary system.
e. There needs to be a Homeowners Association service agreement.
f. On page 61 of the application a reference to "exception to no oversize
utilities" will actually be an "upsize to utilities".
g. The project will require a "Normal Drainage Basin" surcharge. This is a hefty
fee that will pay for the replacement of about 600' of pipe due to the
exceeded capacity as a result of the project.
h. An oil and sand interceptor will be required for the parking garage.
i. If a main line extension is necessary, there will need to be a review the
collection system agreements, easements, plan review, and construction
estimate. This is a timely process.
j. A shared service agreement will be required.
- Electric:
City Electric Department - Requirement — As a requirement of the City of
Aspen Electric Department, revisions need to be made as follows:
a. Street light upgrades may be needed pursuant to the City of Aspen Municipal
Lighting Code.
- Construction:
Work in the Public Right of Way
Requirement — Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the
applicant as follows:
Page 5 of 5
November 6, 2000
Savanah Limited Partnership Barbee, Parking Lot & Mine Dump Apartments
Approvals
1. Engineering:
2. Parks:
3. Streets:
4. Permits:
DRC Attendees:
Nick Adeh
Phil Overynder
Tom Bracewell
Denis Murray
John Krueger
Nick Lelack
Ed 'VanWalraven
Becca Schickling
Jerry Nye
Rich Ryan
Ben Ludlow
The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering
Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including
grading, drainage, transportation/streets, landscaping, and
encroachments within public right of way.
The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920-
5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance.
The applicant receives approval from the Streets department
(920-5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on
streets, and alleyways.
Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving
street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department
Applicant's Representative
John Sarpa
Sunny Vann
Augie Reno
Aspen Consolidated- sanitation District
Sy Kelly * Chairman Joan Keleher
Paul Smith * Treas Frantz Loushin
Michael Kelly * Secy Bruce Matherly, Mgr
November 13, 2000
Nick Lelack
Community Development
13 0 S Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Barbee, Parking Lot Mine Dump Apts.- Conceptual
Dear Nick:
The proposed development identified in this application is located within the service area of our
District. Service would be available from main lines located in South Aspen Street, South
Garmish Street, Juan Street and the Dean Street right-of-way. As usual, service is contingent
upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specification which are on file at the
District office. Specific downstream constraints exist in the Block 61 portion of the public system
which would be eliminated at the developer's expense. Approximately 600 feet of main line could
need to be enlarged. Other downstream drainage basin constraints would be eliminated through a
system of addtional proportionate fees.
We will need to review the detailed utility plans once they become available. The Dean St.
driveway elevation will need to be reviewed relative to the line depth in that area. The parking
garages will be required to have oil and sand separators. The project may require main line
extensions and collection system agreements. Main extensions require easements, the payment of
plan review and construction observation fees, as well as fees to cover the District's cost of
inspecting the line extension with closed circuit television. Specific agreements may be needed for
each homeowner's association covering billing and maintenance responsibilities. Detailed
landscaping plans will be reviewed to ensure that landscaping does not create an accessability
problem for future maintenance.
We request, as a condition of approval, that the total connection fees be paid prior to the
issuance of a building permits. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537
MEMORANDUM
TO: Nick Lelack, Planner
FROM: Victoria Giannola, Housing Office
DATE: 10 November 2000
RE: Savannah Limited Partnership, Barbee, Parking Lot, and Mine
Dump Apartment Properties
ISSUES: The applicant, Savannah Limited Partnership, is requesting
Conceptual Plan approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which
proposes to develop 14 free market and 17 affordable housing units on Parcels
1, 2, and 3 located at the end of South Aspen Street and Juan Street in the City
of Aspen (see Figure 1). In total, the. applicant is requesting approval for a
subdivision, rezoning, PUD, special review (for off-street parking for the
affordable housing units), two Growth Management Quota System (GMQS)
exemptions, and vested property rights.
BACKGROUND: Parcel 1 consists of 42,549 square feet, Parcel 2 consists of
18,000 square feet, * and Parcel 3 consists of 40,969 square feet. Parcel 1
contains an existing dwelling, Parcel 2 contains a parking lot, and Parcel 3
contains three separate structures, with a total of 16 units, comprising a duplex
and the Mine Dump Apartments that will be demolished as a part of the
development (see Figure 2). The proposal calls for a rezoning of Parcel 2 and
part of Parcel 3 to Lodge/Tourist Residential with a PUD overlay on all parcels.
Free Market Units: The combination of free market. units proposed is as follows:
one 2-bedroom and four 3-bedroom, free market units are proposed on Parcel 1,
three 2-bedroom, free market units are proposed on Parcel 2, and six 3-
bedroom, free market units are proposed on Parcel 3 (see Figure 3). The free
market units are proposed to be three story, attached townhouses ranging in size
from 3,450 to 4,100 square feet with the garden level partially underground.
DISCUSSION:
Parcel 3, Affordable Housing Units: The Resident Multi -Family Replacement
Program of the City of Aspen Land Use Code requires that fifty percent of the
total square footage and fifty percent of the total number of bedrooms
demolished must be replaced as affordable housing units (see Figure 4). The
existing Mine Dump property has three structures. One is a duplex and is
exempt from the replacement requirements since the Land Use Code defines
multi -family housing as three or more attached units. The other two buildings
contain a total of 23 bedrooms and 7,722 square feet of livable area.
In order to meet the Land Use Code replacement requirements, a multi -family
structure comprised of five affordable housing units is proposed on Parcel 3 (see
Figures 5 and 7). The applicant has put forth a plan for one 1-bedroom unit and
four 3-bedroom units for a total of 5,992 square feet. This exceeds the 50%
replacement requirement of square footage and bedroom count. The applicant
proposes that these units will be deed restricted to the Aspen/Pitkin. County
Housing Authority (APCHA) as Category 2 for income, price, and square footage
requirements.
The affordable housing development proposed for Parcel 3 meets Chapter
26.530.050, Resident Multi -Family Replacement Program, of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code by complying with the following regulations as listed below.
26.530.050 Housing replacement requirements.
A. Minimum replacement requirement. In the event of the demolition of resident multi -family
housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than
fifty (50) percent of the square footage of net residential area demolished or converted. The
replacement housing shall be configured in such a way as to replace fifty (50) percent of the
bedrooms that are lost as working resident housing by demolition. A minimum of fifty (50)
percent of the replacement housing shall be above natural grade. The replacement housing shall be
deed restricted as affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of section 26.530.060,
below.
B. Location of replacement housing. Multi -family replacement units shall be developed on the same
site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate that replacement of the
units, on -site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an
inappropriate planning solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above
circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on -site which the City
Council determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off -site,
within the Aspen Metropolitan Area. When the owner's housing replacement requirements
involves a fraction of a unit, cash in lieu may be provided to meet the fractional requirement only.
The amount of a cash -in -lieu shall be computed using the formula set forth at Section 26.620.020.
C. Timing and quality of replacement unit. Replacement units shall be available for occupancy at the
same time as the new unit or units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on -site or
off -site, and shall contain fixtures, finish and amenities required by the housing designee's
guidelines. When replacement units are proposed to be built off -site, the owner shall be required to
obtain a development order approving the off -site development prior to or in conjunction with
obtaining a development order approving redevelopment on the site on which demolition is
proposed to take place.
Parcels 1 and 2, Affordable Housing Units:
The applicant proposes an additional 12 affordable housing units —. nine on
Parcel 1 and three on Parcel 2 (see Figure 8). The applicant has put forth a plan
for three 1-bedroom units and six 3-bedroom units contained in two multi -family
structures on Parcel 1, and three 3-beroom units contained in a single multi-
family structure on Parcel 2, with all 12 units deed restricted to the APCHA at a
Category 2 level for income, price, and square footage requirements. These
affordable housing units will be constructed concurrent with the free market units.
The additional affordable housing units that the applicant proposes are consistent
with the amount of affordable housing required under the GMQS.
Parcel 1 shall contain a small park for the benefit of the residents of the
affordable housing units (see Figure 9). A below grade parking garage shall
provide parking for the affordable housing units located on Parcel 3, while
surface parking shall be provided for the affordable housing units located on
Parcels 1 and 2 in a configuration of one space per every one bedroom unit and
two spaces for every unit of two or more bedrooms.
The applicant is proposing a total of 35 bedrooms on Parcel 1 with 21 reserved
as affordable housing, and a total of 15 bedrooms on Parcel 2 with nine reserved
as affordable housing. Both Parcels' number of affordable housing bedrooms
translates to sixty percent (60%) of the total number of bedrooms on the two
Parcels as required by Sections 3 and 4 of the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable
Housing Guidelines. No Resident Occupied units are proposed.
Section 3, Requirements for Affordable Housing Units in Residential
Subdivisions, of the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines specify
requirements for affordable housing units in residential subdivisions as listed
below.
A. At least 60% of the bedrooms in any residential subdivision approved under the City of
Aspen's growth management regulations shall be in units restricted as affordable housing.
The average rent or sale price of the affordable housing units shall not exceed the
Category 2 maximum amounts set forth in these Guidelines, and as they are amended
from time to time.
B. All units provided under this Section must meet one or more of the priorities stated above in
Section 1.
C. These requirements are not subject to any type of variance by Special Review.
D. No Resident Occupied (RO) units are permitted in the affordable housing component.
Section 1, Priorities for Affordable Housing Units,' of the Aspen/Pitkin County
Affordable Housing Guidelines establishes the following equal priority unit types
based on current needs:
• Entry level sales units (studio and 1-bedroom Categories 1, 2 and lower priced
Category 3
• Family -oriented sales units (Categories 3 and 4)
Affordable Housing Units: Regarding the priorities set by Section 1 as stated
above, the application has four one -bedroom units in the entire development,
with the remainder as three -bedroom units. All of the affordable housing units
are proposed as Category 2. This does not appear to meet the intent of the
priorities in Section 1 since only four of the 17 units are "entry-level", Category 2:
Staff interprets the Guideline requirements to mean that a mix of categories shall
be provided in residential subdivisions rather than solely Category 2.
To address the current State Statutes, the applicant is proposing that an
undivided 1/10 of one -percent ownership interest in the affordable housing units
shall be conveyed to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. While the
application does not explicitly state that the proposed affordable housing units
will be rentals, the reference to "apartments" implies such a proposal. As such,
staff has addressed the following recommendations relative to rental units. If the
applicant proposes sales units, or a combination of rental and sales units, the,
applicable provisions in the Affordable Housing Guidelines shall prevail.
RECOMMENDATION: The proposed application meets Section 3 and 4 of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines, but not the intent of Section
1 of the Affordable Housing Guidelines regarding priority requirements. In
addition, the development proposed for Parcel 3 meets Chapter 26.530.050, of
the City of Aspen Land Use Code.
The Housing Board met on this issue on 15 November 2000 and agreed with the
following seven conditions in reference to the submitted Conceptual PUD
Development Plans for the Barbee, Parking Lot, and Mine Dump Apartment
Properties:
1. A variety of categories shall be represented in the affordable housing mix.
2. The affordable housing units shall meet the minimum size requirements set
forth in Part VII, Section 8 of the Affordable Housing Guidelines. The
minimum square footage for a Category 2, 1-bedroom unit is 600, while the
minimum square footage for a Category 2, 3-bedroom unit is 1,000.
3. If the units are rental, the following conditions shall apply:
a. The deed restrictions on the 17 affordable housing units shall be in
perpetuity to the rental price terms as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Affordable Housing Guidelines in effect at the time of Final Plan approval
of this proposed application.
b. The unit rental prices shall be no greater than allowed under the
Affordable Housing Guidelines that are in affect at the time of Final Plan
Approval.
c. The Housing Office shall qualify all tenants under the Affordable Housing
Guidelines.
d. The ownership interest in the 17 affordable housing units conveyed to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be in their entirety (not 1/10
of one -percent).
However, Savannah Limited Partnership shall maintain control of the
operations and finances of the affordable housing units. The 1/10 of one -
percent ownership interest may be allowed if approved by the City
Attorney.
e. The applicant shall ensure that the Mine Dump Apartment residents who
are displaced at the time of Final Plan approval are granted first priority
through an internal lottery of both the rental and the sales units at the time
of initial rental and sale of the deed restricted, affordable housing units.
The Board should note that the Multi -Family Replacement Program on Parcel 3
covers only the demolition of the Mine Dumps. The six three -bedroom, free
market units proposed on Parcel 3 do not require any other mitigation.
PARCEL BREAKDOWN OF UNITS
Parcel #
Unit Type
1-bedroom
2-bedroom
3-bedroom
TOTAL
1
Affordable
3
0
6
9
1
Free market
0
1
4
5
2_
Affordable
0
0
3
3
2
Free market
0
3
0
3
3
Affordable
1
0
4
5
3
Free market
0
0
6
6
TOTAL
---------------
4
4
23
31
There are a total of 31 units in this proposed project that consist of a total of four
one -bedroom, four two -bedroom, and 23 three -bedroom units. The breakdowns
of free market and affordable housing units are as follows:
• The four, one -bedroom units are proposed as affordable housing units.
• The four, two -bedroom units are proposed as free market units.
• The twenty-three, three -bedroom units are proposed as a. combination of
13 affordable housing and 10 free market units.
RE: West Hopkins Avenue Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD
Review, Rezoning
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner
DATE: December 5, 2000
APPLICANTS
Aspen GK, LLC
Peter Gluck
Burton B. Kaplan
REPRESENTATIVE:
Joe Wells
LOCATION:
West Hopkins Ave. at 51h Street
(west of the new Boomerang site)
LOT SIZE:
53,187 square feet
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
PROPOSED FAR:
TOTAL: 26,119 sq. ft.
AH: 8,938 sq. ft.
Free Market: 16,494 sq. ft.
CITY & COUNTY ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING:
R-15, Moderate Density Residential Affordable Housing/PUD
(subject to annexation)
SUMMARY:
The Conceptual PUD and rezoning application for the West Hopkins Avenue
Housing Project is currently being reviewed by the Community Development
Department and has been scheduled for the Planning and Zoning Commission
review. Staff has requested the applicant present an overview to the
Commission at this meeting. This is being done for two reasons:
1. The project has several components that are intended to complement a
"larger picture." Understanding that larger picture initially will make the
topic reviews more efficient and less confusing.
2. Major threshold issues that need to be addressed during the conceptual
review can be identified up -front and either requested of the applicant to
further address or staff to further research/analyze.
Staff intends this session as primarily an informative meeting with a more in-
depth substantive review public hearing occurring on January 2, 2001. Staff has
requested the applicant presentation be approximately 15-20 minutes with 10-15
minutes for Commission clarification questions. Issue identification could take
approximately 10-15 minutes as well. A conceptual PUD only requires a public
meeting at the Planning and Zoning Commission; the Land Use Code does not
require notification to neighbors, and the Applicant did not provide this
voluntary notice. However, Staff recommends that the public should be given an
opportunity to ask clarification questions and/or request further exploration into
certain issues to ensure that all important issues are identified and discussed.
Staff is suggesting that there are a number of threshold questions to be
answered during this conceptual review. These are summarized below. As part
of this overview, the Commission should determine if these are indeed the
threshold issues or if the list needs to be amended to add or delete issues.
As the Commission is aware, this project has a wide range of components and
staff is distributing the application to the Commissioners prior to the first
meeting to allow greater time for review. A summary of the current program for
the project is attached.
Referral comments from other City departments and the Pitkin County Planning
Staff are attached.
Staff recommends the Commission ask the applicant team clarification
questions about the application, establish the threshold issues to be
addressed during this Conceptual Review, and continue the public
hearing to January 2, 2000.
THRESHOLD ISSUES
Density. Number of units and bedrooms proposed for the site.
Size, Scale, & Mass/Volume of Buildings. Neighborhood compatibility.
Trail Connections. Compliance with 2000 AACP and Shadow Mountain trail
system.
-,t Intersection and site access. Includes access alignment with 5th Street.
Traffic. Vehicular traffic in neighborhood and on pedestrian/bike way.
Rock Fall Hazards. Unstable slopes in excess of 30% grades.
Parking. Meets code requirements; no guest parking provided.
Exceptional Project. A 60-40 AH-free market mix is proposed where a 70-30
mix is required.
WEST HOPKINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
UNITS
Affordable Housing
Category
Number of Units
Percentage of all Units
2
3
27.3%
3
2
18.2%
4
2
18.2%
Total Affordable Housing Units
7
64%
Free Market
4
36%
Total
11
100%
Affordable Housing
21
60%
Free Market
14
40%
SQUARE FOOTAGE (FAR)
Affordable Housing
Category & number of units
Square Footage
Per Unit
Total FAH
Category 2
3 units
1,134 sq. ft. each
3,402 sq. ft.
Category 3
2 units
1,384 sq. ft. each
2,768 sq. ft.
Category 4
2 units
1,384 sq. ft. each
2,768 sq. ft.
Total Affordable Housing S . Ft.
8,938 sq. ft.
Free Market
1 3-bedroom unit
37711 sq. ft.
1 3-bedroom unit
37964 sq. ft.
1 4-bedroom unit
4,380 sq. ft.
1 4-bedroom unit
4,439 sq. ft.
Total Free Market S . Ft.
16,494 sq. ft.
TOTAL
25,432 sq. ft.
COVERED PARKING SPACES & OTHER AREAS
Unit Type Total Number of Covered
Parking Spaces
Affordable Housing 13
Free Market 8
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Lelack, Planner
From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer
Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator
Date: November 9, 2000
Re: West Hopkins Avenue Housing
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Aspen GK, LLC West Hopkins
Avenue Housing application at their October 25, 2000 meeting and has compiled the
following comments:
General
1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe
that the submitted site plan is conceptually accurate, that it shows all site
features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as
written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department.
2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights -of -way,
the encroachments must either be removed or are subject to current
encroachment license requirements.
Site Review
1. Site Drainage — Requirement — A drainage report was not submitted with the
application. The site development approvals must include the requirement
meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.580.020.A.6.a
and a requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage
mitigation plan (2411x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the
requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must
be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The
mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and
containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable
solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation test
to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells have depths well below
depth of frost (109 minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must
contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required by property
owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be
placed within public right of way or utility easements. The foundation drainage
system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on
site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to application for building permit.
The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage
report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the
design storm.
Page 2 of 5
November 2, 2000
West Hopkins Avenue Housing
Information — The City drainage criteria needs to be implemented. This
includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation
disturbance. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow
and what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow.
2. Fire Protection District — Requirement — As of the request of the Fire
Protection District revisions need to be made as follows:
a. There needs to be an access area large enough for a proper turnaround for
emergency vehicles as required by AFPD.
b. The building needs to be sprinkled pursuant to the Fire Code.
c. A fire alarm system needs to be installed pursuant to the Fire Code.
3. Building Department — Requirement — The following requirement has been
provided by the Building Department:
a. The building is subject to the following:
• 97 UBC
• 97 UMC
• 97IPC
• 97 NEC
• 97 APECC
4. Parking — Requirement — The following requirement has been provided by the
Parking Department:
a. NONE
5. Engineering Department — Requirement- The following requirements have
been provided by the Engineering Department:
a. The site is directly below the rockfall area as identified in the 1972 USGS
map. This map also indicates potentially unstable slopes adjacent to the
rockfall area. The applicant must develop a long-term hazard mitigation and
containment plan to protect the proposed development.
b. The entrance to the development must line up with 5th Street to avoid
accident vehicular movement.
-6. Streets Department — Requirement- As of the request of the Streets
Department revisions need to be made as follows:
a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A
washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction.
7. Housing Office — Information — The following information has been provided by
the Housing Office:
a. NONE
Page 3 of 5
November 2, 2000
West Hopkins Avenue Housing
8. Community Development — Requirement — The following requirements have
been provided by the Community Development Office:
a. A neighborhood compatibility study needs to be verified. The project appears
to have a massive density that is not a characteristic of the neighborhood.
b. A housing office review on the bedroom mix needs to be completed.
9. Emergency Management Disaster Coordinator — Requirement - The
following requirement has been provided by the Pitkin County Disaster
Coordinator:
a. NONE
10. Parks — Requirement- The following comments have been produced by the
Parks Department:
a. The applicant must implement a site visit regarding the trail reconfiguration
and layouts.
b. A trail easement that is currently in existence is not shown on the proposed
site plan.
c. The Parks Department needs a 5 foot buffer to accommodate snow storage
and removal on each side of sidewalks and trails.
d. The native areas must be treated with the Parks Department's recommended
seed mix.
12. Utilities: A utility plan was not submitted with the application. For the utility
departments to properly comment, a utility plan must be submitted.
- Water.
City Water Department - Requirement — As a request of the City of Aspen
Water Department, revisions need to be made as follows:
a. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System
Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water
Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as
they pertain to utilities.
b. A water service agreement is required.
c. Additional fees may be assessed based upon development and dedication of
water rights.
d. There needs to be a utility access easement of 10' on either side of the
centerline of the driveway.
e. The site layout needs to show individual unit metering and service.
- Wastewater:
Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Requirement — As a request of the
Consolidated Waste District, revisions need to be made as follows:
Page 4of5
November 2, 2000
West Hopkins Avenue Housing
a. Detailed plans including TV line inspections and wastewater line components
need to be submitted to ACSD to assess fees before issuance of a building
permit.
b. The needs to be an easement for a sewer line that is a minimum of 20 feet
wide. A total easement for water and wastewater shall be 30 feet wide.
c. Landscaping plans must have enough details in order to avoid conflict with
sewer lines including services.
d. There needs to be detailed plans for the storm drainage system to verify
potential conflicts with the sanitary system.
- Electric:
City Electric Department - Requirement — As a requirement of the City of
Aspen Electric Department, revisions need to be made as follows:
a. Street light upgrades may be needed pursuant to the City of Aspen Municipal
Lighting Code.
b. The location of transformers needs to be identified.
c. Electrical loads need to be determined.
- Construction:
Work in the Public Right of Way
Requirement — Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the
applicant as follows:
Approvals
1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering
Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including
grading, drainage, transportation/streets, landscaping, and
encroachments within public right of way.
2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920-
5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance.
3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department
(920-5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on
streets, and alleyways.
4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving
street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department
Page 5 of 5
November 2, 2000
West Hopkins Avenue Housing
DRC Attendees: Applicant's Representative
Nick Adeh
Phil Overynder
Tom Bracewell
Denis Murray
John Krueger
Nick Lelack
Ed VanWalraven
Becca Schickling
Joe Wells
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Sy Kelly * Chairman
Paul Smith * Treas
Michael Kelly * Secy
November 9, 2000
Nick Lelack
Community Development
13 0 S . Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: New West Hopkins Housing
Dear Nick:
John Keleher
Frank. Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr
L.�
N/ PITON
OOMW46 DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development lies within the service area of our District and service would be
provided by extending the West Hopkins main line. Service is contingent upon compliance with
the District's rules, regulations and specifications which are on file at the District office.
A line extension request and collection system agreement will need to be approved by our Board
of Directors. Easements will be required for the main line extension and they must be granted
according to standard district form. All of the required forms and agreements are available at the
District office. The developer will be required to deposit funds with the District to cover the costs
of reviewing the collection system plans, line extension construction observation, and closed
circuit inspection of the line extension. Shared service line acknowledgments will be required for
multiple units sharing a common service line. The covered parking areas will be required to have
oil and sand separators. We will need to review the landscape and drainage plans once they
become available.
The total connection charges for the project can be estimated once detailed plans are available for
the project. There are downstream constraints that will be eliminated through a system of
proportionate additional fees. We request that all District fees be paid prior to the issuance of a
building permit. Separate agreements to cover billing and common utilities may be needed for
each of the two associations that would be created.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537
NOV.29.2000 11:24AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.125 P.2
MEMORAND41M
TO Nick Lelack
FROM: Cindy Christensen
THUR; Mary Roberts
DATE: November 29, 2000
RE: NEW WEST HOPKINS AVENUE HOUSING PROJECT
IWUE: The applicants are Aspen GK, LLC and Burton B, Kaplan. The applicants are
proposing to construct a Multi -family project of seven (7) affordable housing units
and four (4) free-market dwelling units in three structures on the property. The
affordable housing units are located in the two two-story buildings on Lot One,
closest to West Hopkins Avenue. The free-market units are located on the upper
two levels of the building on Lot Two, at the base of Shadow Mountain, behind the
affordable housing.
BACKGROUND; . The site is presently undeveloped, although in the late 1800's, a
number of miner's cottages were located on the property. The site is located across
Hopkins Avenue from the Boomerang Lodge and the Madsen Apartments. The
expansion proposal for the Boomerang Lodge, which was recently granted City
approval, is on a site adjacent to and to the east of this proposal. A third contiguous
parcel of 1,616 square feet, located in the County and owned by Peter L. Gluck, is
being omitted from this application because of a Code technicality. This is not
subject to the dousing Board's review.
The Board will need to make a recommendation to the City Council on this project.
The recommendation will be based on mitigation requirements, unit mix, unit size,
categories of the units, overall layout of the project, and if the project is an
exemplary project to waive the 70/30 AH/PUD requirement.
The project is to contain the following;
NOV.29.2000 11:25AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
NO.125 P.3
No. Category No. of Bedrooms Sq. Footage Min, Sq. Ft.
3 Category 2
three -bedrooms
2 Category 3
three -bedrooms
2 Category 4
three -bedrooms
2 Free -Market
three -bedrooms
2 Free -Market
four -bedrooms
11134 1,000
10384 1,200
1,384 11200
3,711 & 3,964
4,380 & 4,439
The total number of units is 11 - with 7 deed restricted and 4 free market. This
calculates to 64% affordable and 36% free-market. This is under the 70%/30%
requirement stated in Section 26,710.110, Affordable HowingAlonned unit
Development eAHIPIJD). As to the bedroom mix, the project contains a total- of 35
bedrooms - 21 deed restricted and 14 free-market, This calculates to 60%
affordable and 40'/e f ree-market.
.Section 26.710.110 states that a minimum of 70% of the pro ject's total bedrooms
shall be deed restricted affordable housing consistent with the Affordable Housing
Guidelines. A project may be eligible for a reduction of the minimum affordable
housing bedroom mix requirement to a level of 60% of the pro ject's total bedrooms
if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that the
project meets the requirements for an exceptional project as set forth in the
Affordable Housing Guidelines.
is this an exemplary project? There are eight standards stated in the 2000
Guidelines that should be considered by City Council in making a determination
regarding the appropriateness of exemplary status for a project. All eight
standards must be "satisfactorily met." They are as follows, with the applicant's
response:
1. 'The gvolity of the pivp"ed development' substrtntiall'y exceeds that
esfthlished in the minimum Mmsho/d fay the scoring established in the
SAIQS Sewing section of the Aspen Municipal Code. "
Revitalizing the permanent community. Adding seven affordable housing
units for qualified employees by providing high -quality, on -site affordable
housing,
M
NOV.29.2000 11:25AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
NO.125 P.4
Providing site -appropriate mixing of free market and affordable housing
for efficient provisions of services such as transit, and for discouraging
site planning that segregates affordable and free market units. The free-
market units are sited in close proximity to the affordable housing units. The
owners of the free market units and affordable housing units will be governed
by separate homeowners' associations and will retain ownership of the land
within their lot in common with the other owners separate and apart from the
owners of the free-market units.
Providing transportation alternatives. The site's proximity to the commercial
core and essential shopping and services should allow for walking. Also, a new
store is being built in the 7tt and Main project that could also accommodate
this project. There is also a provision of a public trail easement through the
property to encourage year-round pedestrian transportation. The applicant
also states that they are willing to provide seasonal bus passes, upon request,
to any full-time employee of the Homeowners' Association for the free
market lot by the Association at no cost to that employee.
Promoting environmentally sustainable development. The natural environment
is one of the community's greatest assets. The site is shaded by Shadow
Mountain, which makes solar heating impractical. However, all units will use
s highly efficient radiant heat with highly rated efficient boilers,
Promoting community -recycling efforts. The applicant is proposing to
provide recycling containers on the property.
Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character.
Entry porches have been incorporated into the design of the north elevation
of the affordable housing units that are closest to West. Hopkins. The
organization of the units also promotes neighborly outdoor use. The
affordable housing units are organized to form a paved communal courtyard
where communal cohesion can occur.
3
.;,.29.2000 11:25AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
NO.125 P.5
2. "The proposa/ , &dmizes affordability, consistent with h WIfig need.♦
established as priority through these Guidelines. " All of the seven units
are to be category units.
3. "The pmposal integnotes a mixtww of economic levels and housing for a
variety of lifestyles (e.g., singles, seniors and firmIlles). " The project
contains three -bedroom Category 2, 3 and 4 units. The affordable housing
units will be restricted to a range of income restrictions and will be equally
available to singles, seniors and families who qualify under the Guidelines.
4. " T%e propaaal rninlMizes impaets on infr 8ftCtWW by Iflearporating
lnnovntiVV, energy -Baying sitie dllig .. struetWV1 design ehanaerierist0cs or
other techn/ques that minim12e the use of water, heating and sewg9w
disposal. " The proposal will comply with the City's building code in effect at
the time of construction, and does include energy efficient heating systems
and on -site recycling.
5. 'The proposal incorporates or integrates with an existing local based
economy ('I. e., sustainable local businesses). " The seven units are to house
a portion of the workforce, which supports the existing local -based economy.
6 $ "The pmpmal accomplishes a level of design and site plan IrWIMity that
admees the community goals expressed In the aspen Area Community
Plan. " The proposal's design and site plan characteristics intended to
advance the community goals as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan
and discussed on page 27 of the application.
7. "The pmpmd project represents an exceptional commitment to advancing
the visions, pwls, and specific action items of the Aspen Area Community
Plan, particularly those ad&weed in the scoring crltarla under the Growth
Management Quota ,system as stated /n the City of Asps» Alunicipal
Cade. " The applicants believe that the proposed project represents an
exceptional commitment to advancing the visions, goals and specific action
items of the Aspen Area Community Plan and discussed on page 39 of the
application.
n
NOV.29.2000 11:25AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
NO.125 P.6
8. I" RO units d/W included in the project: only 4ot+e9vey gaits WV inclu*d
in the project. " The applicant is proposing only Category 2, 3 and 4 units.
,itaff concurs that Standards 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been satisf ied. However,
Standard #3 does not provide for a variety of lifestyles. The priority for three -
bedroom units is a household of three with at least one of them a dependent.
Therefore, singles and seniors are not in the top priority. In Standard *4, the
applicant has only indicated energy efficiency regarding the heating system. Staff
feels there is not enough information to assess how this project minimizes its
infrastructure, water and sewage disposal impacts. The applicant states that each
residential unit will contain a gas -log fireplace, but staff is unsure at this time if it
includes the affordable housing units.
Other Positive Aspects to the Pro' c
The unit sizes are greater than the minimums required. Under the 2000
Guidelines, price per square foot for the Category 2 units as proposed would
be $104,300 = 1,134 = $91.98 per square foot; Category 3 units would be
$149,000 b 1,384 = $107.66 per square foot; and Category 4 units would be
$ 228,600 T 1,384 $165,17 per square foot.
The architecture for the project utilizes the second story for the living area,
kitchen, etc., with the bedrooms located on the main level.
• There will be two parking spaces provided for each unit, with one additional
guest parking space. Most of the parking spaces are covered spaces located
within the buildings themselves. There are a total of 23 off-street parking
spaces proposed on -site.
• it is presently anticipated that separate homeowners' associations will be
created for the owners on each of the two proposed lots and that the owners
will retain an undivided interest in the land on each of the lots. This is a plus
on the affordable housing side as they can deal with costs associated with
their deed restricted units, and not with additional things that can be added
by the free-market owners.
5
NOV.29.2000 11:25AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.125 P.7
Issues:
• All the units are three -bedroom units, It is a goat of the community to
encourage a mixed unit project.
• Is the project exemplary enough to approve a 60/40 mix instead of the
required 70/30 mix.
FAWOMMENDAT"' i N: The Housing Board met on this application November 15,
2000, and will meeting again with the architect, Peter Gluck, on December 6. The
oard requested some additional work to possibly. make this a 70/30 project, Some
suggestions that Board members made are as follows:
• Less parking to add more units to make this a 70/30 project (addition of 3
more units would create a 70/30 project)
• Different mix of unit types (instead of all three -bedroom units, make some
one- or two -bedroom units)
The Board will further discuss the above two issues with the architect on
Wednesday, December 6, At that time, a f ormal recommendation will be forwarded
to the Community Development Department for the City Council to take into
consideration. The Board, overall, was impressed with the project and especially
liked the idea of two separate homeowners' associations - one for the free-market
units and one for the deed -restricted units.
dGhlw*t\refwm6nwh.dcc
G
Lance Clarke, 03:02 PM 10/31/00 -0700, referral - West Hopkins Housing
Page 1 of 1
X-Sender: lancec@comdev
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:02:26 -0700
To: Nickl@ci.aspen.co.us
From: Lance Clarke <lancec@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: referral - West Hopkins Housing
Nick- A few comments on the proposed annexation /rezoning/PUD:
-It appears the development will infringe on 30% slopes. This would not be permitted were the property
to be developed in Pitkin County.
-This general area can be subject to rockfall hazard, avalanche hazard and slope instability. A geologic
hazards analysis and proposed mitigation should be part of any review of this property for development.
Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 11/30/00
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Lelack, Community Development Department
From: Lee Cassin, City Environmental Health Department
Date: November 30, 2000
Re: NEW West Hopkins Ave. Housing Project
Parcel ID #2735-1...
The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under
authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 "It shall be unlawful for the owner or
occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on -
site sewage disposal device."
The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department.
The site has an old abandoned septic system that recently served a restaurant. The contents of a
septic tank, vault, or seepage pit, the use of which has been terminated, must be properly disposed
of. Then the emptied tank, vault, or pit must be filled with soil or rock, or the County
Environmental Health Department may require the tank or vault to be removed and disposed of
properly.
A condition of approval should be that the applicants comply with County
Environmental Health Department requirements for abandonment of the system and
properly disposing of waste material.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 "All buildings, structures, facilities,
parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system."
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental
Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen water supply meets all
standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water quality. A letter of agreement
to serve the project must be provided.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 "For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its
municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction
within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal
water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted."
A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive and parking areas will be
evaluated by the City Engineer.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code] to achieve
the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and
techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..." The Land Use Regulations seek to
"lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by
protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project.
PM-10 (83 % of which comes from traffic driving on paved roads) is a significant health concern in
Aspen. The traffic generated will also produce carbon monoxide and other emissions that are
health concerns. The municipal code requires developments to achieve the maximum practical
degree of air purity by using all available practical methods to reduce pollution. The applicant
needs to implement measures that will minimize traffic increases of the development, or offset the
emissions from the project with PM10 reduction measures elsewhere.
Standards used for trips generated by new development are the trip generation rates and
reductions from the 'Pitkin County Road Standards' which are based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, Fifth Edition. Housing units use the trip
generation rate for ITE Land Use code 210, which is 9.55 trips per day per unit. Residential units
located within one half mile of a transit stop are allowed a reduction of 1.5 trips per day. The
project would generate 105 trips/ day without any reductions, and would generate 88 trips/ day
with the reduction for its location within 1/z mile of transit. This site is ideally located close to mass
transit so vehicles would not be needed for shopping or skiing.
This is a significant number of trips given the air pollution problems the community has been
dealing with for the last thirty years, the vast majority of which comes from cars. Additional
measures are required to mitigate these trips to comply with the requirements of the Municipal
Code. Since this project is partly affordable housing, we recognize the need to limit costs, so we
recommend the applicant consider additional measures from the list below, many of which have
low or no cost to the applicants. As an example, some of the market incentives cost the applicant
nothing and could provide a significant financial benefit to single parents. and families trying to
purchase an affordable unit.
Mitigation measures proposed by the applicant are provision of seasonal bus passes to employees,
and provision of secure bicycle parking and lockers at the affordable housing lots. These facilities
should be provided prior to issuance of a CO. The applicant also proposes to provide a legal
easement for the pedestrian/bike trail across the property that has been used historically. The
applicant proposes two parking spaces/unit. It would be desirable if the applicants believe there
will be very few trips, to provide long-term car storage instead of this number of spaces onsite, but
it is beneficial that additional spaces are not provided.
Examples of mitigation measures that have been employed in the past by developers include
providing carpool/ vanpool financial incentives to employees, providing free bus passes,
providing vanpools, providing dial -a -ride service, paying for additional RFTA buses and service,
providing private bus service for employees, limiting parking, allowing residents to pay for
parking spaces if they choose and giving discounts to those who don t, having homeowners
association fees on a sliding scale depending on the number of cars, providing connecting bike
path links in populated areas, plowing bike paths in populated areas, paving dirt shoulders or
high -use parking lots, providing covered and secure bike storage, providing free bike fleets for
residents, building sidewalks to adjacent commercial areas, donating connecting bike path links,
and other measures. Whatever combination of measures the applicant chooses to mitigate PM-10
emissions and trips generated, is acceptable as long as it prevents additional traffic that would
significantly impact air quality. The City Environmental Health Department has no preference for
which trip reduction measures are used, and typically an applicant chooses measures that provide
an ancillary benefit to the project.
It is very important for the City's efforts to provide easy bicycle/pedestrian access throughout
town, to maintain the West Hopkins Pedestrian/ Bikeway. With additional development along
this corridor, there could be pressure to open this street to vehicle through -traffic. It is hoped that
the applicants will work to ensure this street continues to serve as a connecting bicycle/ pedestrian
link. The separate trail easement and trail are an added amenity, as is the easement for continued
pedestrian/bike use of the old railroad right of way trail.
A condition of approval should be that the applicant develop additional traffic
reduction measures for the project prior to detailed submission, in order to
comply with code requirements. The applicant should work with the
Environmental Health Department to determine whether the measures are
sufficient.
FIREPLACFIWOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant commits to installation of gas fireplace
appliances and to no woodstoves or gas log fireplaces. This, will prevent the emissions that would
occur if woodstoves were used, or if gas log fireplaces were installed and used with wood by
owners unaware of city and county regulations.
FUGITIVE DUST A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to
fencing, watering of dirt roads and disturbed areas, daily or more frequent cleaning of adjacent
paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary
to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. Dust control
will be crucial due to the closeness of existing homes to the site.
CARPORTS The applicant must consult with an engineering firm about design of the carport
parking ventilation system to ensure that ventilation is adequate to prevent carbon monoxide
from reaching high levels inside the carports or in the units above them. This is a concern because
the carports are under overhanging units with bedrooms immediately above the parking spots, so
that fumes might collect beneath sleeping areas in areas where air circulation is poor. An engineer
who specializes in design of heating and ventilation systems must certify that the proposed design
will prevent excessive levels of carbon monoxide from concentrating inside the carports or in
buildings above.
ECOLOGICAL BILL OF RIGHTS
The only energy efficiency feature appears to be use of efficient boilers. The applicant should use
other inexpensive options and we recommend they contact the CORE office for assistance.
We recommend the applicant amend the provision related to recycling to state that the containers
will be maintained as long as public or private pickup services are available. We recommend the
applicant specify that facilities will be provided for recycling of at least cardboard, glass, plastic,
cans, office paper, newspaper and magazines. We encourage the applicants to also provide a
backyard composting facility for use by the complex.
The applicant could make this a project that is a model of goals contained in the Ecological Bill of
Rights at minimal cost to the project. Recycled -material decking could be used, compact
fluorescent or other high -efficiency lights could be used outside (and inside), setback thermostats
could be provided, low -flow faucet fixtures could be provided... the list is endless, but we
encourage the applicant to incorporate some of these or other features.
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of
environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety
and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors ...... Accordingly, it is the policy of council to
provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit
noise in excess of those levels."
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and
construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. No construction is allowed on Sundays.
It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some
negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to
minimize the predicted high noise levels.
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Lelack, Community Development Department
From: Lee Cassin, City Environmental Health Department
Date: November 30, 2000
Re: Barbee, Parking Lot, and Mine Dump Apartments Conceptual Application
Parcel ID # 2735-1...
The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the Barbee/ Parking
Lot/ Mine Dump Apartments land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the
Ci , of Aspen, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 "It shall be unlawful for the owner or
occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on -
site sewage disposal device."
The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 "All buildings, structures, facilities,
parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system."
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental
Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen water supply meets all
standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water quality
AIR UALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code] to achieve
the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and
techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..." The Land Use Regulations seek to
"lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by
protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project.
PM-10 (83 % of which comes from traffic driving on paved roads) is a significant health concern in
Aspen. The traffic generated will also produce carbon monoxide and other emissions that are
health concerns. The municipal code requires developments to achieve the maximum practical
degree of air purity by using all available practical methods to reduce pollution. The applicant
needs to implement measures that will minimize traffic increases of the development, or offset the
emissions from the project with PM10 reduction measures elsewhere. In order to do this, the
applicant will need to determine the traffic increases generated by the project (using standard ITE
trip generation rates), commit to a set of control measures, and show that the control measures
offset the traffic or PM10 produced by the project.
Standards used for trips generated by new development are the trip generation rates and
reductions from the 'Pitkin County Road Standards' which are based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, Fifth Edition. Housing units use the trip
generation rate for ITE Land Use code 210, which is 9.55 trips per day per unit. Residential units
located within one half mile of a transit stop are allowed a reduction of 1.5 trips per day. The
applicant states that the project will generate an additional 136 trips/ day, a significant number of
trips and resultant pollution. It is difficult to accurately assess the number of trips, because of the
uncertainty about interval ownership, which will generate more trips than "normal" ownership,
and because the new location of the Rift Raft parking is unknown. (Therefore the amount of
pollution generated by the replacement parking lot location could either increase or decrease.)
The application contains one traffic mitigation measure, building of sidewalks on Juan and
Garmisch Streets. This single measure will not offset the emissions of an additional 136 (possibly
more) trips/ day. We suggest the applicant consider measures that have been proposed by others,
including many that have low or no cost to the applicants.
Examples of mitigation measures that have been employed in the past by developers include
providing carpool/vanpool financial incentives to employees, providing free bus passes,
providing vanpools, providing dial -a -ride service, paying for additional RFTA buses and service,
providing private bus service for employees, limiting parking, allowing residents to pay for'
parking spaces if they choose and giving discounts to those who don t, having homeowners
association fees on a sliding scale depending on the number of cars, providing connecting bike
path links in populated areas, plowing bike paths in populated areas, paving dirt shoulders or
high -use parking lots, providing covered and secure bike storage, providing free bike fleets for
residents, building sidewalks to adjacent commercial areas, donating connecting bike path links,
and other measures. Whatever combination of measures the applicant chooses to mitigate PM-10
emissions and trips generated, is acceptable as long as it prevents additional traffic that would
significantly impact air quality. The City Environmental Health Department has no preference for
which trip reduction measures are used, and typically an applicant chooses measures that provide
an ancillary benefit to the project.
A condition of approval should be that the applicant provide a PM10 mitigation
plan for approval from the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department,
which offsets increases in PM10 caused by the project. This plan should be
approved prior to detailed submission.
FUGITIVE DUST A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to
fencing, watering of dirt roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to
remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent
windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. Dust control will be crucial
due to the closeness of existing homes and businesses to the site.
ASBESTOS Prior to demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments, including removal of drywall,
carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos
inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sigLi any building permits
until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is
present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it.
ECOLOGICAL BILL OF RIGHTS
The application does not address consistency with the Ecological Bill of Rights portion of the
Aspen Area Community Plan. The applicant could use a number of inexpensive energy -saving
options and we recommend they contact the CORE office for assistance.
The. applicant could provide facilities for recycling of at least cardboard, glass, plastic, cans, office
paper, newspaper and magazines. We encourage the applicant to also provide a backyard
composting facility for use by the complex.
Recycled -material decking could be used, compact fluorescent or other high -efficiency lights could
be used outside (and inside), setback thermostats could be provided, low -flow faucet fixtures
could be provided... the list is endless, but we encourage the applicant to incorporate some of
these or other features.
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of
environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety
and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors ...... Accordingly, it is the policy of council to
provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various tunes and to prohibit
noise in excess of those levels."
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and
construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. No construction is allowed on Sundays.
It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some
negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to
minimize the predicted high noise levels.
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E)
being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
on the attache
d list on the4 day of , 20(� (which is// days prior to the public
, `
hearing date of `���✓
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
said sign was posted and visible continuously from th��ay
the nearest public way) and that the s g p
of 2006 , to the day of , 200�� (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
Signature
Signed before me this day of
200_. by'`
WITNESS DIY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
M Commission expires: /� o?a � oo
y y y
Notary Public ,L��Y►'1�{ .
0 AV
• �, s y
v y.
•rr•.IJ11�1�1���\
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: SAVANNAH CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT &
REZONING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on December 5, 2000,
at a meeting to begin at 4:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission,
Sister Cities Room, City Hall 130 South Galena, Aspen, to consider a Conceptual
Planned Unit Development & Rezoning to Lodge/Tourist Residential application
submitted by Savannah Limited Partnership for the Mine Dumps Apartment parcel, the
Aspen Skiing Company Parking Lot, and a portion of the Barbee PUD located on S.
Aspen Street. This public hearing date will primarily consist of a presentation of the
proposed project by the applicant. The land is legally described as Lots 7-12, Eames
Addition, Lots 13-20, Eames Addition, and Block 6, Eames Addition. For further
information contact Nick Lelack at the Aspen /Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 South Galena St., Aspen, CO. (970) 920-5095.
S/Bob Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
S/City of Aspen Account
Published in the Aspen Times on November 18, 2000
EXHIBIT 5
KLINDWORTH J TODD
PO BOX 25318
'ROIX, VI 00824
GILBERT DONALD C & NANCY T
C/O GILBERT TANIE FARLIE INC
437 MADISON AVE
NEW YORK, NY 10022
COHEN ARTHUR S
IBSEN 72
MEXICO CITY, MEXICO, 11560
STRAWBRIDGE GEORGE JR
3801 KENNETT PKE BLDG #B-100
WILMINGTON, DE 19807
CYS RICHARD LAND KAREN L
5301 CHAMBERLIN AVE
CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815
BLACKWELL CLARENCE A & ANNE H
PO BOX 3180
ANNAPOLIS, MD 21403
SCHROEDER C M JR
SCHROEDER BETTY ANN
3629 ROCKBRIDGE RD
COLUMBIA, SC 29206
GLAUBINGER LAWRENCE D
GLAUBINGER LUCIENNE
P 0 BOX 3567
HALLANDALE, FL 33008-3567
SMITH FRED G
440 HENDRICKS IS
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301-3709
SPAULDING RICHARD W & THOMPSON BAKER CHARLES E JR
ELEANOR M 333 E 75TH
AS JT TENANTS NEW YORK, NY 10001
PO BOX 292
CONCORD, MA 01742
CZAJKOWSKI MICHAEL
CZAJKOWSKI SANDRA J
90 LA SALLE ST APT 16G
NEW YORK, NY 10027
SILVERMAN MARC A & MARILYN L
937 DALE RD
MEADOWBROOK, PA 19046
HATCHER HUGH S & JENNIFER M
2806 DUMBARTON ST NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
SOUTHPOINT-SUMNER CORPORATION
4828 FORT SUMNER DR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
WOLK PAUL REVOCABLE TRUST
4868 THE DELL LN
HUME, VA 22639
STEINER DONALD R
5536 SILVER RIDGE DR
STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30087
FAIRHOLME INVESTMENTS LTD
C/O MARINI & ASSOCIATES
TWO S BISCAYNE BLVD STE 3580
MIAMI, FL 33131
HARTMAN CHRISTINA M UND 1/2 INT
2865 NE 24TH CT
FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33305
STANTON JAMES
C/O WORLD-WIDE HOLDINGS CORP
150 E 58TH ST
NEW YORK, NY 10155
MENDEL M MARK
MENDEL GRACE A - JT TENANTS
1620 LOCUST ST
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
PINNIGER SIMON & NICOLE
3331 DENT PL NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
GOLDSMITH ADAM D
SMITH RONA K AS JOINT TENANTA
1742 HILLSIDE RD
STEVENSON, MD 21153
ALYEMENI MOHAMMED & ALICE
819 LINWOOD RD
MOORESVILLE, NC 28115
ROSE JON E
ROSE RITA L
303 MAGNOLIA LAKE DR
LONGWOOD, FL 32779
PODSAID PATRICK
2701 S BAYSHORE DR STE 315
MIAMI, FL 33133
WUGALTER JOEL
3200 NORTH OCEAN BLVD #909
FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33308
SuL_OMON RONALD E LARKIN THOMAS J & MARYANN K GINSBURG ANNE C & ROBERT B
1711 SW 30TH PL 1 SHELDRAKE LN 17309 WHITE HAVEN DR
FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33315 PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33418-6820 BOCA RATON, FL 33496
HEFLEY KARL TRUST
8171 BAY COLONY DR #1102
NAPLES, FL 34108
SM-15
SEELBACH WILLIA - C/O
45000 S WOODLAND
CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44022
SHINE FAMILY LLC
8677 LOGO 7 CT
INDIANAPOLIS, IN
SPEYER LESTER D ASPEN PERS RES
TRUST
TENNSCO CORPORATION C/O
PO BOX 1888
DICKSON, TN 37056-1888
KAPLAN BARBARA
3076 EDGEWOOD RD
PEPPER PIKE, OH 44124
O'CONNOR ROBERT W
O'CONNOR CATHERINE L
46219-1430 17896 SABLE RIDGE DR
SOUTH BEND, IN 46635
ETKIN DOUGLAS M & JUDITH G
29100 NORTHWESTERN HWY STE 200
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034
MCCONNELL THOMAS W & KAY L
3814 OAKHILLS
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301
BOUNDY RICHARD R
906 W SUGNET RD
MIDLAND, MI 48640
ONEILL ROGER & SALLY
PO BOX 711
LAKE GENEVA, WI 53147-3579
RYAN ELIZABETH H 1/2 INT
COPE G RICHARD & NANCY M 1/2 INT
419 WINNEBAGO DR
JANESVILLE, WI 53545
LEVY HELEN JOAN TRUST
421 WARWICK RD
KENILWORTH, IL 60043
LE CHARD ALLAN P
LE CHARD SIDNEY ANN
1002 BUCKINGHAM RD
GROSSE POINTE PARK, MI 48230
DINGWALL WILLIAM A AGREEMENT OF
TRUST
DINGWALL WILLIAM A TRUSTEE
1539 LOCHRIDGE RD
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302-0736
TYDEN FAMILY FARMS PARTNERSHIP
60% INT
GROOS NICHOLAS D 40% INT
210 N INDUSTRIAL PARK RD
HASTINGS, MI 49058
BRUMDER PHILIP G & ASMUTH
ANTHONY
QUARLES & BRADY C/O
411 E WISCONSIN AVE STE 2500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
GREINER JERRY M
GREINER TERESA U
1401 ROSELAWN WEST
ROSEVILLE, MN 55113
KABERT INDUSTRIES INC
PO BOX 6270
VILLA PARK, IL 60181
GRAHAM MAUREEN
3575 MAUTZ-YEAGER RD
MARION, OH 43302
SIMON HERBERT
8765 PINE RIDGE DR
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46206
HERSHBERGER PHILIP G
2737 CLUB TERR
FT WAYNE, IN 46804
BERHORST JERRY
BERHORST CAROLE
7161 LINDENMERE DR
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301
PASCO PROPERTIES COLORADO LLC
SMITH PATRICK A
P O' BOX 688
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
TAYLOR HARVEY C
W 301 N 9430 HWY E
HARTLAND, WI 53029
S C JOHNSON AND SON INC
TAX DEPT 412
1525 HOWE ST
RACINE, WI 53403
TUCKER RC DR
COLOROW - ATTN:
6420 STAUDER CIR
EDINA, MN 55436
DONCERJOYCETRUST
7641 W 123RD PL
PALOS HEIGHTS, IL 60463
Dr'"'CER JOYCE TRUSTEE FOR THE HARVEY JEFFREY & NANCY BROWN EDWARD L
C IER JOYCE L TRUST 714 S GARFIELD PO BOX 2604
7641 W 123RD PL HINSDALE, IL 60521 NAPERVILLE, IL 60566
PALOS HEIGHTS, IL 60463
SULLIVAN SHAWN M ROARING FORK PROPERTIES MOORE JOHN W
1852 NORTH SHEFFIELD 5055 26TH AVE MOORE ISABEL D
CHICAGO, IL 60614 ROCKFORD, IL 61109 1 CITY CENTRE
ST LOUIS, MO 63102
EAST JAMES COLLIER TRUSTEE OF
THE
EAST JAMES COLLIER REVOCABLE
TRUST
5800 R ST
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72207
NITSCHKE DR RUPERT & ELIZABETH M
6701 N RHODE ISLAND ST
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73111
LACY ROANE M JR
PO BOX 20788
WACO, TX 76702
FRIEDKIN THOMAS H
7701 WILSHIRE PL STE 600
HOUSTON, TX 77040
ShiJCHEZ MARIA J & AR JR
PO BOX 2986
LAREDO, TX 78044
BILLINGSLEY FAMILY LIMITED
PARNTERSHIP
1206 N WALTON BLVD
BENTONVILLE, AR 72712
DIXON R MC FARLAND
3141 HOOD ST
DALLAS, TX 75219
LOCKWOOD JAMES P & ANN TAFT
3269 REBA DR
HOUSTON, TX 77019-6211
DAVIS CAROL L
9182 OLD KATY RD STE #215
HOUSTON, TX 77055
ROOKE JOAN ELIZABETH
P0BOX 1035
REFUGIO, TX 78377-1035
WALTERS 1/5 & ROLLINS 1/5 & GORMAN VANTONGEREN HAROLD V & LIDIA M
1/5 2000 E 12TH AVE BOX 8
SMITH 1/5 & BONDS 1/5 DENVER, CO 80206
7350 W FAIRVIEW DR
LITTLETON, CO 80128
MONIGLE ETHEL M
3200 OHIO WAY
DENVER, CO 80209
CAIN DOUGLAS M
CAIN CONSTANCE MOFFIT TRUSTEES
1960 HUDSON ST
DENVER, CO 80220
RUDERMAN ERIC P & MIMI E
1536 OGDEN ST
DENVER, CO 80218-1406
SEVERY CHARLES L 70.39%
30 DEXTER ST
DENVER, CO 80220
GILLESPIE JOHN E
9112 W HEFNER
YUKON, OK 73099
DIXON ROGER M
3141 HOOD ST
6TH FLOOR LEE PARK CENTER
DALLAS, TX 75219
ROSS ROBERT M
6550 FANNIN ST STE 2403
HOUSTON, TX 77030-2748
SANCHEZ A R JR
PO BOX 2986
LAREDO, TX 78041
CALKINS GEORGE W
5100 E QUINCY AVE
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110
KNOWLTON VERA JEAN
2552 E ALAMEDA STE 31
DENVER, CO 80209
BERZINS FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP 50%
6030 E 1 ST AVE
DENVER, CO 80220
SCHAYER CHARLES M III
HORTON KAREN JANE TRUST
588 S PONTIAC WAY
DENVER, CO 80224
H" EUGENE D JR 1/2 CRISTOL STANLEY J YOUNG BARBARA A
3. S HILLCREST DR 2918 3RD ST PO BOX 1355
DENVER, CO 80237 BOULDER, CO 80304 WINTER PARK, CO 80482
GRANT BROTHERS LLP PLATTS DEBBIE ANN KLEINER JOHN P
436 COFFMAN STE 200 3513 CAMDEN DR 55 SECOND ST
PO BOX 908 LONGMONT, CO 80503 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906
LONGMONT, CO 80502-0908
VICKERY MARIE B CROW MARGERY K & PETER D ALH HOLDING COMPANY/INVERNESS
41 COUNTRY CLUB VILLAGE 46103 HIGHWAY 6 & 24 LODGE INC
PUEBLO, CO 81008 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 A COLORADO CORPORATION
435 W MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
AL-ZAHID HAMDI BAILEY LILIANN E & BALDERSON CABELL LLC
411 S ASPEN ST BAILEY BRIAN L AS JT TENANTS C/O HERBERT BALDERSON
ASPEN, CO 81611 117 JUAN ST 708 SPRUCE ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
BUSH STEVEN S CHRISTENSEN CINDY CITY OF ASPEN
0046 HEATHER LANE 109 JUAN STREET 130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
DALY JACQUELYN M DOLINSEK JOHN 50% INT J & E HANSEN LLC
520 W HALLAM ST DOLINSEK FRANK JR 50% INT C/O EDWARD HANSEN
ASPEN, CO 81611 619 SO MONARCH ST 204 E DURANT AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
Jt..-._ STREET HOUSING COMMON KANADA KENICHI KIRSCHNER CAROLE J
AREA 611 S MONARCH ST #1 300 PUPPY SMITH #205-278
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
AUTHORITY
530 E MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
KULLGREN NANCY A
LEVIN BARTON J AND NANCY M
LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUM ASSOC
205 E DURANT AVE UNIT 2-C
701 S MONARCH ST #6
131 E DURANT AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
POMEROY CAROLYN C
SHADOW MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUM
SHADOW MOUNTAIN INVESTMENT LLC
300 PUPPY SMITH ST
COATS REID & WALDRON- C/O
C/O TIM SEMRAU
STE 203 BOX 188
720 E HYMAN AVE
208 1/2 E MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
SHERIDAN MARY ELLEN
SOUTH POINT CONDOMINIUM
TOWNE PLACE OF ASPEN CONDO
131 EAST DURANT
ASSOCIATION
ASSOC INC
SUITE 104
205 E DURANT AVE #2F
C/O ASPEN LODGING COMPANY
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
747 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
L" FELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS WALDRON GAILYN L WEBSTER HUNTER M
F PO BOX 10244 PO BOX 2366
633 N 4TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
TAROCH HOLDINGS LTD HEIM WILLIAM D CUMNOCK CHERYL L &
C/O PATRICK D MCALLISTER PC 124 E DURANT AVE APT 1 CUMNOCK ROBERT E AS JT TENANTS
210 N MILL ST #201 ASPEN, CO 81611-1769 115 JUAN STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611-1504 ASPEN, CO 81611-1885
LEBLANC NATHAN L & CAROL L ADAMS HOWARD S ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
107 JUAN STREET PO BOX 11774 EAMES ADDITION BLK 10 LOT 1-14
ASPEN, CO 81611-1885 ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1248
ASPEN, CO 81612
BATES NATHANIEL B TRUST CUNNINGHAM P ELLIS PAUL DAVID
PO BOX 9909 PO BOX 11717 PO BOX 3633
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
EVANS DAVID COURTNEY FARR BRUCE K FESUS GEORGE J & SUSAN C
PO BOX 952 FARR GAIL H PO BOX 9197
ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 5142 ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81612
FLETCHER KAREN K & JAY R HANG TEN ADVENTURES HEIMANN GEORGE R
PO BOX 3476 GARY NICHOLS C/O PO BOX 1312
ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8116 ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81612
I-, � `ND HOUSE SKI LODGE INC MCCARTNEY CHARLES H NOBLE GUY T
COLUkADO CORP PO BOX 12106 PO BOX 9344
PO BOX 182 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81612
SHEFFER BARBARA & DOUGLAS SKIERS CHALET LLC KAUFMAN STEVEN
PO BOX 250 PO BOX 248 0554 ESCALANTE
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 CARBONDALE, CO 81623
SHENK JAMES R SHENK ROBERT D GLICKMAN EDWIN C
TRUSTEE OF SHENK TRUST 0304 HWY 133 2322 LAZY 0 RD
0304 HWY 133 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 SNOWMASS, CO 81654
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
BARBEE MARY K WOODSON TATJANA D WEISE RICHARD H
2019 NEWTON ST P 0 BOX 125 94 BILTMORE ESTATES
CODY, WY 82414 TETON VILLAGE, WY 83025 PHOENIX, AZ 85016
C 9IDAY BARBARA REED LYNN W MULKEY DAVID A DR
L N 82ND ST 6434 RIO GRANDE NW TRUSTEE
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85258 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87107 2839 QUEENS COURTYARD DR
LAS VEGAS, NV 89109-1522
MCBAIN ANGUS & LUCY JACOBSON BENN TRUST OF 1996 1/2 CHIATE KENNETH R
227 MUIRFIELD RD 110 E 9TH ST STE A1254 CHIATE JEANNETTE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90004 LOS ANGELES, CA 90079 20628 ROCKCROFT
MALIBU, CA 90265
ELLIS JAMES BYRON
17 1/2 FLEET ST
MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292
ELDER TRUST
ELDER JERRY TRUSTEE
PO BOX 308
LA JOLLA, CA 92038-0308
ZOLLER LAWRENCE & HELEN 50.8%
C/O STEPHEN ZOLLER
1032 TIA JUANA ST
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
VANDERWALL DEAN ROBERT
531 E POST
LONE PINE, CA 93545
WARSTLER ROBERT T
2813 CANYONSIDE DR
SANTA ROSA, CA 95404
ROBLES ENRIQUE ALVAREZ
ALVAREZ CRISTINA
SIERRA GORDA #340
LOMAS CHAPULTEPEC 1100 ME,
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
13530 BALI WAY
MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292
WOLF HEINZ AND ELIANE
TRUSTEES OF WOLF FAMILY TRUST
1221 MYRTLE AVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103
CHU FAMILY TRUST 2/3 INT
LU CHYI-KANG & NANCY-1/3 INT
38 CORMORANT CIR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
PICARD DEBORA J & DOUGLAS M
2600 GARDEN ROAD - STE 222
MONTERREY, CA 93940-5322
STRINGER DAVID G & VIRGINIA S
1100 ALAKEA ST STE 200
HONOLULU, HI 96813
SCHAINUCK LEWIS I
SCHAINUCK MICHELLE T
5750 DOWNEY AVE STE 206
LAKEWOOD, CA 90712-1468
SCHERER ROBERT P III
217 GOLDENROD AVE
CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
LOCHHEAD RAYMOND R & EMILIE M
200 SHERWOOD RD
PASO ROBLES, CA 93446
BIEL ALEXANDER L
BIEL LEE M
381 LOVELL AVE
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941
CABELL JOE
1765 ALA MOANA BLVD
HONOLULU, HI 96815
MEMORANDUM
TO:. Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
RE: West Hopkins Avenue Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD
Review, Rezoning
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner 1
DATE: December 5, 2000
APPLICANTS
LOT SIZE:
Aspen GK, LLC
53,187 square feet
Peter Gluck
Burton B. Kaplan
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
REPRESENTATIVE:
Joe Wells PROPOSED FAR:
TOTAL: 26,119 sq. ft.
LOCATION: AH: 8,938 sq. ft.
West Hopkins Ave. at 5th Street Free Market: 16,494 sq. ft.
(west of the new Boomerang site)
CITY & COUNTY ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING:
R-15, Moderate Density Residential Affordable Housing/PUD
(subject to annexation)
SUMMARY:
The Conceptual PUD and rezoning application for the West Hopkins Avenue
Housing Project is currently being reviewed by the Community Development
Department and has been scheduled for the Planning and Zoning Commission
review. Staff has requested the applicant present an overview to the
Commission at this meeting. This is being done for two reasons:
1. The project has several components that are intended to complement a
"larger picture." Understanding that larger picture initially will make the
topic reviews more efficient and less confusing.
2. Major threshold issues that need to be addressed during the conceptual
review can be identified up -front and either requested of the applicant to
further address or staff to further research/analyze.
Staff intends this session as primarily an informative meeting with a more in-
depth substantive review public hearing occurring on January 2, 2001. Staff has
requested the applicant presentation be approximately 15-20 minutes with 10-15
minutes for Commission clarification questions. Issue identification could take
approximately 10-15 minutes as well. A conceptual PUD only requires a public
meeting at the Planning and Zoning Commission; the Land Use Code does not
require notification to neighbors, and the Applicant did not provide this
voluntary notice. However, Staff recommends that the public should be given an
opportunity to ask clarification questions and/or request further exploration into
certain issues to ensure that all important issues are identified and discussed.
Staff is suggesting that there are a number of threshold questions to be
answered during this conceptual review. These are summarized below. As part
of this overview, the Commission should determine if these are indeed the
threshold issues or if the list needs to be amended to add or delete issues.
As the Commission is aware, this project has a wide range of components and
staff is distributing the application to the Commissioners prior to the first
meeting to allow greater time for review. A summary of the current program for
the project is attached.
Referral comments from other City departments and the Pitkin County Planning
Staff are attached.
Staff recommends the Con unission ask the applicant team clarification
questions about the application, establish the threshold issues to be
addressed during this Conceptual Review, and continue the public
hearing to January 2, 2000.
THRESHOLD ISSUES
Density. Number of units and bedrooms proposed for the site.
Size, Scale, & Mass/Volume of Buildings. Neighborhood compatibility.
Trail Connections. Compliance with 2000 AACP and Shadow Mountain trail
system.
Intersection and site access. Includes access alignment with 5th Street.
4, Traffic. Vehicular traffic in neighborhood and on pedestrian/bike way.
4, Rock Fall Hazards. Unstable slopes in excess of 30% grades.
-. Parking. Meets code requirements; no guest parking provided.
Exceptional Project. A 60-40 AH-free market mix is proposed where a 70-30
mix is required.
WEST HOPKINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
I
Affordable Housing
Category
Number of Units
Percentage of all Units
2
3
27.3%
3
2
18.2%
4
2
18.2%
Total Affordable Housing Units
7
4
64%
36%
Free Market
Total
11
100%
Affordable Housing
21
60%
Free Market
14
40%
SQUARE FOOTAGE (FAR)
Affordable Housing
Category & number of units
Square Footage
Per Unit
Total FAR
Category 2
3 units
1,134 sq. ft. each
3,402 sq. ft.
Category 3
2 units
1,384 sq. ft. each
2,768 sq. ft.
Category 4
2 units
1,384 sq. ft. each
27768 sq. ft.
Total Affordable Housing S . Ft.
8,938 sq. ft.
Free Market
1 3-bedroom unit
3,711 sq. ft.
1 3-bedroom unit
3,964 sq. ft.
1 4-bedroom unit
4,380 sq. ft.
1 4-bedroom unit
4,439 sq. ft.
Total Free Market S . Ft.
16,494 sq. ft.
TOTAL
1 25,432 sq. ft.
COVERED PARKING SPACES & OTHER AREAS
Unit Type Total Number of Covered
Parking Spaces
Affordable Housing 13
Free Market 8
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Lelack, Planner
From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer
Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator
Date: November 9, 2000
Re: West Hopkins Avenue Housing
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Aspen GK, LLC West Hopkins
Avenue Housing application at their October 25, 2000 meeting and has compiled the
following comments:
General
1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe
that the submitted site plan is conceptually accurate, that it shows all site
features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as
written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department.
2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights -of -way,
the encroachments must either be removed or are subject to current
encroachment license requirements.
Site Review
1. Site Drainage — Requirement — A drainage report was not submitted with the
application. The site development approvals must include the requirement
meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.580.020.A.6.a
and a requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage
mitigation plan (2411x3611 size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the
requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must
be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The
mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and
containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable
solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation test
to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells have depths well below
depth of frost (10' minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must
contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required by property
owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be
placed within public right of way or utility easements. The foundation drainage
system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on
site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to application for building permit.
The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage
report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the
design storm.
Page 2 of 5
November 2, 2000
West Hopkins Avenue Housing
Information — The City drainage criteria needs to be implemented. This
includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation
disturbance. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow
and what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow.
2. Fire Protection District — Requirement — As of the request of the Fire
Protection District revisions need to be made as follows:
a. There needs to be an access area large enough for a proper turnaround for
emergency vehicles as required by AFPD.
b. The building needs to be sprinkled pursuant to the Fire Code.
c. A fire alarm system needs to be installed pursuant to the Fire Code.
3. Building Department — Requirement — The following requirement has been
provided by the Building Department:
a. The building is subject to the following:
• 97 UBC
• 97 UMC
• 97 IPC
• 97 NEC
• 97 APECC
4. Parking — Requirement — The following requirement has been provided by the
Parking Department:
a. NONE
5. Engineering Department — Requirement- The following requirements have
been provided by the Engineering Department:
a. The site is directly below the rockfall area as identified in the 1972 USGS
map. This map also indicates potentially unstable slopes adjacent to the
rockfall area. The applicant must develop a long-term hazard mitigation and
containment plan to protect the proposed development.
b. The entrance to the development must line up with 5 th Street to avoid
accident vehicular movement.
6. Streets Department — Requirement- As of the request of the Streets
Department revisions need to be made as follows:
a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A
washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction.
7. Housing Office — Information — The following information has been provided by
the Housing Office:
a. NONE
Page 3of5
November 2, 2000
West Hopkins Avenue Housing
8. Community Development — Requirement — The following requirements have
been provided by the Community Development Office:
a. A neighborhood compatibility study needs to be verified. The project appears
to have a massive density that is not a characteristic of the neighborhood.
b. A housing office review on the bedroom mix needs to be completed.
9. Emergency Management Disaster Coordinator — Requirement - The
following requirement has been provided by the Pitkin County Disaster
Coordinator:
a. NONE
10. Parks — Requirement- The following comments have been produced by the
Parks Department:
a. The applicant must implement a site visit regarding the trail reconfiguration
and layouts.
b. A trail easement that is currently in existence is not shown on the proposed
site plan.
c. The Parks Department needs a 5 foot buffer to accommodate snow storage
and removal on each side of sidewalks and trails.
d. The native areas must be treated with the Parks Department's recommended
seed mix.
12. Utilities: A utility plan was not submitted with the application. For the utility
departments to properly comment, a utility plan must be submitted.
- Water.
City Water Department - Requirement — As a request of the City of Aspen
Water Department, revisions need to be made as follows:
a. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System
Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water
Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as
they pertain to utilities.
b. A water service agreement is required.
c. Additional fees may be assessed based upon development and dedication of
water rights.
d. There needs to be a utility access easement of 10' on either side of the
centerline of the driveway.
e. The site layout needs to show individual unit metering and service.
- Wastewater.
Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Requirement — As a request of the
Consolidated Waste District, revisions need to be made as follows:
Page 4 of 5
November 2, 2000
West Hopkins Avenue Housing
a. Detailed plans including TV line inspections and wastewater line components
need to be submitted to ACSD to assess fees before issuance of a building
permit.
b. The needs to be an easement for a sewer line that is a minimum of 20 feet
wide. A total easement for water and wastewater shall be 30 feet wide.
c. Landscaping plans must have enough details in order to avoid conflict with
sewer lines including services.
d. There needs to be detailed plans for the storm drainage system to verify
potential conflicts with the sanitary system.
- Electric:
City Electric Department - Requirement — As a requirement of the City of
Aspen Electric Department, revisions need to be made as follows:
a. Street light upgrades may be needed pursuant to the City of Aspen Municipal
Lighting Code.
b. The location of transformers needs to be identified.
c. Electrical loads need to be determined.
- Construction:
Work in the Public Right of Way
Requirement — Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the
applicant as follows:
Approvals
1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering
Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including
grading, drainage, transportation/streets, landscaping, and
encroachments within public right of way.
2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920-,
5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance.
3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department .
(920-5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on
streets, and alleyways.
4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving
street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department
•a r
Page 5 of 5
November 2, 2000
West Hopkins Avenue Housing
DRC Attendees: Applicant's Representative
Nick Adeh
Phil Overynder
Tom Bracewell
Denis Murray
John Krueger
Nick Lelack
Ed VanWalraven
Becca Schickling
Joe Wells
Aspen consolidated Sanitation District
Sy Kelly * Chairman
Paul Smith * Teeas
Michael Kelly * Secy
November 9, 2000
Nick Lelack
Community Development
130 S . Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: New West Hopkins Housing
Dear Nick -
John Keleher
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr
'%,UMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development lies within the service area of our District and service would be
provided by extending the West Hopkins main line. Service is contingent upon compliance with
the District's rules, regulations and specifications which are on file at the District office.
A line extension request and collection system agreement will need to be approved by our Board
of Directors. Easements will be required for the main line extension and they must be granted
according to standard district form. All of the required forms and agreements are available at the
District office. The developer will be required to deposit funds with the District to cover the costs
of reviewing the collection system plans, line extension construction observation, and closed
circuit inspection of the line extension. Shared service line acknowledgments will be required for
multiple units sharing a common service line. The covered parking areas will be required to have
oil and sand separators. We will need to review the landscape and drainage plans once they
become available.
The total connection charges for the project can be estimated once detailed plans are available for
the project. There are downstream constraints that will be eliminated through a system of
proportionate additional fees. We request that all District fees be paid prior to the issuance of a
building permit. Separate agreements to cover billing and common utilities may be needed for
each of the two associations that would be created.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
565 N. Mill St -,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537
NOV.29.2OOO 11:24AM ASPEN HOUSING 0FC NO.125 P.2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Nick Lelack
FROM: Cindy Christensen
THUR: Mary Roberts
DATE: November 29, 2000
RE► NEW WEST HOPKINS AVENUE HOUSING PRC�ECT
The applicants are Aspen K LLC and Burton B, Kaplan. The applicants are
proposing to construct a multi -family project of seven (7) affordable housing units
and four (4) free-market dwelling units in three structures on the property. The
affordable housing units are located in the two two-story buildings on Lot One,
closest to West Hopkins Avenue. The free-market units are located on the upper
two levels of the building on Lot Two, at the base of Shadow Mountain, behind the
affordable housing.
BACKGROUND; The site is presently undeveloped, although in the late 1800's, a
number of miner's cottages were located on the property, The site is located across
Hopkins Avenue from the Boomerang Lodge and the Madsen Apartments. The
expansion proposal for the Boomerang Lodge, which was recently granted City
approval, is on a site adjacent to and to the east of this proposal. A third contiguous
parcel of 1,616 square feet, located in the County and owned by Peter L. Gluck, is
being omitted from this application because of a Code technicality, This is not
sub feet to the Mousing Board's review.
The Board will need to make a recommendation to the City Council on this project.
The recommendation will be based on mitigation requirements, unit mix, unit size,
categories of the units, overall layout of the project, and if the project is an
exemplary project to waive the 70/30 AH/PUD requirement.
The project is to contain the following:
NOV.29.2000 11:25AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
NO.125 P.3
No, Category ..No, of Bedrooms Sq. Footage Min, 5q. Ft.
3 Category 2
three -bedrooms
2 Category 3
three -bedrooms
2 Category 4
three -bedrooms
2 Free -Market
three -bedrooms
2 Free -Market
four -bedrooms
11134 1,000
10384 1,200
1,384 11200
3,711 & 3,964
4,380 & 4,439
The total number of units is 11 - with 7 deed restricted and 4 free market. This
calculates to 641/o affordable and 36% free-market. This is under the 70%/30%
requirement stated in Section 26,710,110, Affordable HamirigManned Unit
Development eAH/PVD). As to the bedroom mix, the project contains a total of 35
bedrooms - 21 deed restricted and 14 free-market, This calculates to 60%
affordable and 40'/e f ree-market.
Section 26.710.110 states that a minimum of 70% of the projects total bedrooms
shall be deed restricted affordable housing consistent with the Affordable Housing
Guidelines. A project may be eligible for a reduction of the minimum affordable
housing bedroom mix requirement to a level of 60% of the pro ject's total bedrooms
if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that the
project meets the requirements for an exceptional project as set forth in the
Affordable Housing Guidelines.
Is this an exemplary project? There are eight standards stated in the 2000
Guidelines that should be considered by City Council in making a determination
regarding the appropriateness of exemplary status for a project. All eight
standards must be "satisfactorily met," They are as follows, with the applicant's
response:
1. 'The goo/ity of the proposed development subsftntial/y exceeds that
established /n the minimum *who/d far the scoriig established in the
6MQs scorlrg section of the Aspen Municipal Code. "
Revitalizing the permanent community. Adding seven affordable housing
units for qualified employees by providing high -quality, on -site affordable
housing,
N
I NOV.29.2000 11:25AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.125 P.4
Providing site -appropriate mixing of free market and affordable housing
for efficient provisions of services such as transit, and for discouraging
site planning that segregates affordable and free market units. The free-
market units are sited in close proximity to the affordable housing units. The
owners of the free market units and affordable housing units will be governed
by separate homeowners' associations and will retain ownership of the land
within their lot in common with the other owners separate and apart f rom the
owners of the free-market units.
Providing transportation alternatives. The site's proximity to the commercial
core and essential shopping and services should allow for walking. Also, a new
store is being built in the 71 and Main project that could also accommodate
this project. There is also a provision of a public trail easement through the
property to encourage year-round pedestrian transportation. The applicant
also states that they are willing to provide seasonal bus passes, upon request,
to any full-time employee of the Homeowners' Association for the. free
market lot by the Association at no cost to that employee.
Promoting anWronmentally sustainable development, The natural environment
is one of the community's greatest assets, The site is shaded by Shadow
Mountain, which makes solar heating impractical, However, all units will use
highly efficient radiant heat with highly rated efficient boilers,
Promoting community -recycling efforts. The applicant is proposing to
provide recycling containers on the property.
Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character.
Entry porches have been incorporated into the design of the north elevation
of the of fordable housing units that are closest to West Hopkins. The
organization of the units also promotes neighborly outdoor use. The
affordable housing units are organized to form a paved communal courtyard
where communal cohesion can occur.
3
.�,.29.2000 11:25AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.125 P.5
2. "The proposal maximizes affordability, camistreit with housing needs
mtobllshed as w1br/ty through these tuidelines. " All of the seven units
are to be category units.
3. "the proposal integrates a mixtwv of ecommic levels and housing for a
variety of lifestyles <e.,g., singles, senors and families).` The project
contains three -bedroom Category 2, 3 and 4 units. The affordable housing
units will be restricted to a range of income restrictions and will be equally
available to singles, seniors and families who qualify under the Guidelines.
4. "The propasa/ m/nlmins /mpdats M lnfM$*% ct1#V by incorpmVting
11MVative, energy -saying site design, structure/ des* choveterlstics or
other technlques that minlm/se the use of water, heating and sewage
disposal. " The proposal will comply with the Clty s building code in effect at
the time of construction, and does include energy efficient heating systems
and on -site recycling.
3. "The pivpoosal incorporates or integmtes with an exist/rV local based
economy (i.e., sustalnab/e local businesses). " The seven units are to house
a portion of the workforce, which supports the existing local -based economy.
61 "The pmpo►sa/ accomplishes a level of design and site plan #Wmity that
advances the community goals expenessed In the Aspen Area Community
Plan. " The proposal's design and site plan characteristics intended to
advance the community goals as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan
and discussed on page 27 of the application.
7. ' T7te proposed p% ject Mpnesents an exceptlonal COMM10277ent to advaWing
the visions, pals, and specific action items of the Aspen Aria Community
Plan, p &Ieular/y those addressed In the scoring crlterla under the 6rvwth
Management Quota System as stated /it the aty of Aspen Municipal
Code. " The applicants believe that the proposed protect represents an
exceptional commitment to advancing the visions, goals and specific action
items of the Aspen Area Community Plan and discussed on page 39 of the
application.
N
NOV.29.2000 11:25AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
NO.125 P.6
8. '7W go unirs ores included In the project; only cotegoey units am ins AA*d
in the project. " The applicant is proposing only Category 2, 3 and 4 units.
Staff concurs that Standards 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been satisfied. However,
Standard ##3 does not provide for a variety of lifestyles. The priority for three -
bedroom units is a household of three with at least one of them a dependent.
Therefore, singles and seniors are not in the top priority. Zn Standard ##4, the
applicant has only indicated energy efficiency regarding the heating system. Staff
f eels there is not enough information to assess how this project minimizes its
infrastructure, water and sewage disposal impacts. The applicant states that each
residential unit will contain a gas -log fireplace, but staff is unsure at this time if it
includes the affordable housing units.
Other Positive As ect$ to the Pro' c
• The unit sizes are greater than the minimums required. Under the 2000
Guidelines, price per square foot for the Category 2 units as proposed would
be $104,300 i 1,134 = $91.98 per square foot; Category 3 units would be
$149,000 + 1,384 = $107.66 per square foot; and Category 4 units would be
$228,600 T 11384 $165,17 per square foot.
The architecture for the project utilizes the second story for the living area,
kitchen, etc., with the bedrooms located on the main level.
• There will be two parking spaces provided for each unit, with one additional
guest parking space. Most of the parking spaces are covered spaces located
within the buildings themselves. There are a total of 23 off-street parking
spaces proposed on -site.
• It is presently anticipated that separate homeowners' associations will be
created for the owners on each of the two proposed lots and that the owners
will retain an undivided interest in the land on each of the lots. This is a plus
on the affordable housing side as they can deal with costs associated with
their deed restricted units, and not with additional things that can be added
by the free-market owners,
5
NOV.29.2000 11:25AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.125 P.7
Issues:
• All the units are three -bedroom units, It is a goal of the community to
encourage a mixed unit project,
• Is the project exemplary enough to approve a 60/40 mix instead of the
required 70/30 mix.
RECOMMEND TT?,N: The Housing Board met on this application November 15,
z000, and will meeting again with the architect, Peter Vuck, on December 6. The
-oard requested some additional work to possibly make this a 70/30 project, Some
suggestions that Board members made are as follows:
• Less parking to add more units to make this a 70/30 project (addition of 3
more units would create a 70/30 project)
• Different mix of unit types (instead of all three -bedroom units, make some
one- or two -bedroom units)
The Board will further discuss the above two issues with the architect on
Wednesday, December 6, At that time, a f ormal recommendation will be forwarded
to the Community Development Department for the City Council to take into
consideration. The Board, overall, was impressed with the project and especially
liked the idea of two separate homeowners' associations - one for the free-market
units and one f or the deed -restricted units.
dchlwoni\hef nMwh,dec
6
Lance Clarke, 03:02 PM 10/31/00 -0700, referral - West Hopkins Housing
Page 1 of 1
X-Sender: lancec@comdev
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:02:26 -0700
To: Nickl@ci.aspen.co.us
From: Lance Clarke <lancec@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: referral - West Hopkins Housing
Nick- A few comments on the proposed annexation /rezoning/PUD:
-It appears the development will infringe on 30% slopes. This would not be permitted were the property
to be developed in Pitkin County.
-This general area can be subject to rockfall hazard, avalanche hazard and slope instability. A geologic
hazards analysis and proposed mitigation should be part of any review of this property for development.
Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 11/30/00
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Lelack, Community Development Department
From: Lee Cassin, City Environmental Health Department
Date: November 30, 2000
Re: NEW West Hopkins Ave. Housing Project
Parcel ID #2735-1...
The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under
authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 "It shall be unlawful for the owner or
occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on -
site sewage disposal device."
The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department.
The site has an old abandoned septic system that recently served a restaurant. The contents of a
septic tank, vault, or seepage pit, the use of which has been terminated, must be properly disposed
of. Then the emptied tank, vault, or pit must be filled with soil or rock, or the County
Environmental Health Department may require the tank or vault to be removed and disposed of
properly.
A condition of approval should be that the applicants comply with County
Environmental Health Department requirements for abandonment of the system and
properly disposing of waste material.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 "All buildings, structures, facilities,
parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system."
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental
Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen water supply meets all
standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water quality. A letter of agreement
to serve the project must be provided.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 "For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its
municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction
within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal
water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted."
A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive and parking areas will be
evaluated by the City Engineer.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code] to achieve
the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and
techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..." The Land Use Regulations seek to
"lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by
protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project.
PM-10 (83% of which comes from traffic driving on paved roads) is a significant health concern in
Aspen. The traffic generated will also produce carbon monoxide and other emissions that are
health concerns. The municipal code requires developments to achieve the maximum practical
degree of air purity by using all available practical methods to reduce pollution. The applicant
needs to implement measures that will minimize traffic increases of the development, or offset the
emissions from the project with PM10 reduction measures elsewhere.
Standards used for trips generated by new development are the trip generation rates and
reductions from the 'Pitkin County Road Standards' which are based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, Fifth Edition. Housing units use the trip
generation rate for ITE Land Use code 210, which is 9.55 trips per day per unit. Residential units
located within one half mile of a transit stop are allowed a reduction of 1.5 trips per day. The
project would generate 105 trips/ day without any reductions, and would generate 88 trips/ day
with the reduction for its location within 1/2 mile of transit. This site is ideally located close to mass
transit so vehicles would not be needed for shopping or skiing.
This is a significant number of trips given the air pollution problems the community has been
dealing with for the last thirty years, the vast majority of which comes from cars. Additional
measures are required to mitigate these trips to comply with the requirements of the Municipal
Code. Since this project is partly affordable housing, we recognize the need to limit costs, so we
recommend the applicant consider additional measures from the list below, many of which have
low or no cost to the applicants. As an example, some of the market incentives cost the applicant
nothing and could provide a significant financial benefit to single parents and families trying to
purchase an affordable unit.
Mitigation measures proposed by the applicant are provision of seasonal bus passes to employees,
and provision of secure bicycle parking and lockers at the affordable housing lots. These facilities
should be provided prior to issuance of a CO. The applicant also proposes to provide a legal
easement for the pedestrian/bike trail across the property that has been used historically. The
applicant proposes two parking spaces/ unit. It would be desirable if the applicants believe there
will be very few trips, to provide long-term car storage instead of this number of spaces onsite, but
it is beneficial that additional spaces are not provided.
Examples of mitigation measures that have been employed in the past by developers include
providing carpool/vanpool financial incentives to employees, providing free bus passes,
providing vanpools, providing dial -a -ride service, paying for additional RFTA buses and service,
providing private bus service for employees, limiting parking, allowing residents to pay for
parking spaces if they choose and giving discounts to those who don't, having homeowners
association fees on a sliding scale depending on the number of cars, providing connecting bike
path links in populated areas, plowing bike paths in populated areas, paving dirt shoulders or
high -use parking lots, providing covered and secure bike storage, providing free bike fleets for
residents, building sidewalks to adjacent commercial areas, donating connecting bike path links,
and other measures. Whatever combination of measures the applicant chooses to mitigate PM-10
emissions and trips generated, is acceptable as long as it prevents additional traffic that would
significantly impact air quality. The City Environmental Health Department has no preference for
which trip reduction measures are used, and typically an applicant chooses measures that provide
an ancillary benefit to the project.
It is very important for the City's efforts to provide easy bicycle/pedestrian access throughout
town, to maintain the West Hopkins Pedestrian/ Bikeway. With additional development along
this corridor, there could be pressure to open this street to vehicle through -traffic. It is hoped that
the applicants will work to ensure this street continues to serve as a connecting bicycle/ pedestrian
link. The separate trail easement and trail are an added amenity, as is the easement for continued
pedestrian/ bike use of the old railroad right of way trail.
A condition of approval should be that the applicant develop additional traffic
reduction measures for the project prior to detailed submission, in order to
comply with code requirements. The applicant should work with the
Environmental Health Department to determine whether the measures are
sufficient.
FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant commits to installation of gas fireplace
appliances and to no woodstoves or gas log fireplaces. This will prevent the emissions that would
occur if woodstoves were used, or if gas log fireplaces were installed and used with wood by
owners unaware of city and county regulations.
FUGITIVE DUST A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to
fencing, watering of dirt roads and disturbed areas, daily or more frequent cleaning of adjacent
paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary
to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. Dust control
will be crucial due to the closeness of existing homes to the site.
CARPORTS The applicant must consult with an engineering firm about design of the carport
parking ventilation system to ensure that ventilation is adequate to prevent carbon monoxide
from reaching high levels inside the carports or in the units above them. This is a concern because
the carports are under overhanging units with bedrooms immediately above the parking spots, so
that fumes might collect beneath sleeping areas in areas where air circulation is poor. An engineer
who specializes in design of heating and ventilation systems must certify that the proposed design
will prevent excessive levels of carbon monoxide from concentrating inside the carports or in
buildings above.
ECOLOGICAL BILL OF RIGHTS
The only energy efficiency feature appears to be use of efficient boilers. The applicant should use
other inexpensive options and we recommend they contact the CORE office for assistance.
We recommend the applicant amend the provision related to recycling to state that the containers
will be maintained as long as public or private pickup services are available. We recommend the
applicant specify that facilities will be provided for recycling of at least cardboard, glass, plastic,
cans, office paper, newspaper and magazines. We encourage the applicants to also provide a
backyard composting facility for use by the complex.
The applicant could make this a project that is a model of goals contained in the Ecological Bill of
Rights at minimal cost to the project. Recycled -material decking could be used, compact
fluorescent or other high -efficiency lights could be used outside (and inside), setback thermostats
could be provided, low -flow faucet fixtures could be provided... the list is endless, but we
encourage the applicant to incorporate some of these or other features.
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of
environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety
and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors ...... Accordingly, it is the policy of council to
provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various tunes and to prohibit
noise in excess of those levels."
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and
construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. No construction is allowed on Sundays.
It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some
negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to
minimize the predicted high noise levels.
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Lelack, Community Development Department
From: Lee Cassin, City Environmental Health Department
Date:, November 30, 2000
Re: Barbee, Parking Lot, and Mine Dump Apartments Conceptual Application
Parcel ID # 2735-1.. .
The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the Barbee/Parking
Lot/ Mine Dump Apartments land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the
City of Aspen, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 "It shall be unlawful for the owner or
occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on -
site sewage disposal device."
The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 "All buildings, structures, facilities,
parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system."
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental
Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen water supply meets all
standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water quality
AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code] to achieve
the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and
techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..." The Land Use Regulations seek to
"lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by
protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project.
PM-10 (83 % of which comes from traffic driving on paved roads) is a significant health concern in
Aspen. The traffic generated will also produce carbon monoxide and other emissions that are
health concerns. The municipal code requires developments to achieve the maximum practical
degree of air purity by using all available practical methods to reduce pollution. The applicant
needs to implement measures that will minimize traffic increases of the development, or offset the
emissions from the project with PM10 reduction measures elsewhere. In order to do this, the
applicant will need to determine the traffic increases generated by the project (using standard ITE
trip generation rates), commit to a set of control measures, and show that the control measures
offset the traffic or PM10 produced by the project.
Standards used for trips generated by new development are the trip generation rates and
reductions from the 'Pitkin County Road Standards' which are based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, Fifth Edition. Housing units use the trip
generation rate for ITE Land Use code 210, which is 9.55 trips per day per unit. Residential units
located within one half mile of a transit stop are allowed a reduction of 1.5 trips per day.. The
applicant states that the project will generate an additional 136 trips/day, a significant number of
trips and resultant pollution. It is difficult to accurately assess the number of trips, because of the
uncertainty about interval ownership, which will generate more trips than normal ownership,
and because the new location of the Rift Raft parking is unknown. (Therefore the amount of
pollution generated by the replacement parking lot location could either increase or decrease.)
The application contains one traffic mitigation measure, building of sidewalks on Juan and
Garmisch Streets. This single measure will not offset the emissions of an additional 136 (possibly
more) trips/ day. We suggest the applicant consider measures that have been proposed by others,
including many that have low or no cost to the applicants.
Examples of mitigation measures that have been employed in the past by developers include
providing carpool/vanpool financial incentives to employees, providing free bus passes,
providing vanpools, providing dial -a -ride service, paying for additional RFTA buses and service,
providing private bus service for employees, limiting parking, allowing residents to pay for*
parking spaces if they choose and giving discounts to those who don t, having homeowners
association fees on a sliding scale depending on the number of cars, providing connecting bike
path links in populated areas, plowing bike paths in populated areas, paving dirt shoulders or
high -use parking lots, providing covered and secure bike storage, providing free bike fleets for
residents, building sidewalks to adjacent commercial areas, donating connecting bike path links,
and other measures. Whatever combination of measures the applicant chooses to mitigate PM-10
emissions and trips generated, is acceptable as long as it prevents additional traffic that would
significantly impact air quality. The City Environmental Health Department has no preference for
which trip reduction measures are used, and typically an applicant chooses measures that provide
an ancillary benefit to the project.
A condition of approval should be that the applicant provide a PM10 mitigation
plan for approval from the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department,
which offsets increases in PMio caused by the project. This plan should be
approved prior to detailed submission.
FUGITIVE DUST A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to
fencing, watering of dirt roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to
remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent
windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. Dust control will be crucial
due to the closeness of existing homes and businesses to the site.
ASBESTOS Prior to demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments, including removal of drywall,
carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos
inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits
until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is
present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it.
ECOLOGICAL BILL OF RIGHTS
The application does not address consistency with the Ecological Bill of Rights portion of the
Aspen Area Community Plan. The applicant could use a number of inexpensive energy -saving
options and we recommend they contact the CORE office for assistance.
The applicant could provide facilities for recycling of at least cardboard, glass, plastic, cans, office
paper, newspaper and magazines. We encourage the applicant to also provide a backyard
composting facility for use by the complex.
Recycled -material decking could be used, compact fluorescent or other high -efficiency lights could
be used outside (and inside), setback thermostats could be provided, low -flow faucet fixtures
could be provided... the list is endless, but we encourage the applicant to incorporate some of
these or other features.
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of
environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety
and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors ...... Accordingly, it is the policy of council to
provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit
noise in excess of those levels."
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and
construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. No construction is allowed on Sundays.
It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some
negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to
minimize the predicted high noise levels.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: SAVANNAH CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT &
REZONING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on December 5, 2000)
at a meeting to begin at 4:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission,
Sister Cities Room, City Hall 130 South Galena, Aspen, to consider a Conceptual
Planned Unit Development & Rezoning to Lodge/Tourist Residential application
submitted by Savannah Limited Partnership for the Mine Dumps Apartment parcel, the
Aspen Skiing Company Parking Lot, and a portion of the Barbee PUD located on S.
Aspen Street. This public hearing date will primarily consist of a presentation of the
proposed project by the applicant. The land is legally described as Lots 7-12, Eames
Addition, Lots 13-20, Eames Addition, and Block 6, Eames Addition. For further
information contact Nick i.elack at the Aspen /Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 South Galena St., Aspen, CO. (970) 920-5095.
S/Bob Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
S/City of Aspen Account
Published in the Aspen Times on November 18, 2000