Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.Aspen Highlands Village.A040-002735-142-13-001 A040-00 Aspen Highlands Village PUD Amendment PI Ul COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street „ Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 City of Aspen Land Use: 1041 Deposit 1042 Flat Fee 1043 HPC 1046 Zoning and Sign Referral Fees: 1163 City Engineer 1205 Environmental Health 1190 Housing Building Fees: 1071 Board of Appeals 1072 Building Permit 1073 Electrical Permit 1074 Energy Code Review 1075 Mechanical Permit 1076 Plan Check 1077 Plumbing Permit 1078 Reinspection Other Fees: 1006 Copy 1302 GIS Maps 1481 Housing Cash in Lieu 1383 Open Space Cash in Lieu 1383 Park Dedication 1468 Parking Cash in Lieu Performance Deposit 1268 Public Right-of-way 1164 School District Land Ded. TOTAL NAME: ADDRESS/PROJECT: x" PHONE: CHECK# CASE/PERMIT#: DATE: Z,r-?a (r # OF COPIES: INITIAL: k CASE NUMBER A040-00 PARCEL ID # 2735-142-13001 CASE NAME Aspen Highlands Village PUD Amendment PROJECT ADDRESS Aspen Highlands Village PLANNER Nick Lelack CASE TYPE PUD Amendment OWNER/APPLICANT Hines Highlands Limited Partnership REPRESENTATIVE Davis/Horn Inc. DATE OF FINAL ACTION 6/9/00 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION Withdrawn BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 8/1/00 BY J. Lindt PARCEL ID: 2735 142-13001 DATE RCVD: 3/22/00 # COPIES:F CASE NAME:IAspen Highlands Village PUD Amendment _-.. _. Ik- PROJ ADDR: lAspen Highlands Village } CASE TYP: PUD Amendment OWN/APPA Hines Highlands Lim AD C/S/Z: REP: Davis/Horn Inc. ADR: 125 S. Monarch Ave., C/S/Z: Aspen/CO/81611 FEES DUE: 480 D FEES RCVD: 480 CASE NO A040-00 R: 1`� STEPS: PHN iPHN. 925-5180 TAT: r REFERRALS REF:1 BY DUE: MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTIC 4 DATE OF FINAL ACTION: o REMARKS CITY COUNCIL:- i 4w ✓��. PZ:� BOA: CLOSED: BY: � DRAC: I W1 Wfs � PLAT SUBMITD PLAT (BK,PG): ADMIN: Davis Horn• PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSULTING June 9, 2000 Nick Lelack Aspen Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Highlands Village Planned Unit Development: Amendment Dear Nick: Davis Horn Incorporated represents Hines Highlands. We request that the Aspen Highlands Village Planned Unit Development Amendment request for approval to detach the townhouses be withdrawn from future consideration by the City of Aspen. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, MNCORPORATED AICP ALICE DAVIS, AICP S GLENN HORN, AICP 215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. • SUITE 104 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 970/925-6587 • FAX: 970/925-5180 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directory FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner�� RE: Aspen Highlands Village PUD Amendment - First Reading DATE: June 12, 2000 f y 1 t ` s Block C Maroon Creek Rd. v; u Village Core: Block E restaurants, office, dorms, commercial, lodge/condo Ar + APPLICANT: SUMMARY: Hines Highlands Limited The purpose of this application is to detach most of the approved Partnership townhouses in Blocks C & E into single-family residences. Detaching these units requires a PUD amendment to the Aspen REPRESENTATIVE• Highlands Village PUD. The Planning and Zoning Commission Glenn Horn voted 7-0 to recommend City Council deny this application. LOCATION: APPROVED LAND USE: PROPOSED LAND USE: Aspen Highlands Base Village Blocks C & E Block C Blocks C & E Townhouse Neighborhoods 2 duplexes & 12 single family residences CURRENT ZONING: Block E Under Review 1 triplex & 11 single family residences 1 REVIEW PROCEDURE Planned Unit Development Amendment Reviews: A PUD amendment found to be inconsistent with the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director shall be subject to final development review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution recommend City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the PUD amendment. STAFF COMMENTS: Hines Highlands Limited Partnership (Applicant), represented by Glenn Horn of Davis Horn, Inc., is requesting approval of an amendment to the Aspen Highlands Village PUD to detach approved townhouses in Blocks C and E. According to the PUD, Blocks C and E were approved as "townhouse neighborhoods", including 32 attached townhouses. The proposal is to detach all of the townhouses in Block C except two (2) duplexes, and to detach the townhouses in Block E except the completed triplex in the picture and the completed duplex. As a result, Blocks C and E would consist of 9 attached townhouses and 23Ak i _ ��- detached single family residences. All of the dwellings would be located within the approved building envelopes and comply with all other aspects of the PUD. The PUD specifically allows 56,000 square feet of floor area for each block, with a maximum of 3,500 square feet for each townhouse. The maximum height is 28 feet. According to the application, the reasons for the request are to "increase the amount of natural light and ventilation, improve This picture shows the only constructed triplex in Block E; the other structures will surround this building. Nil 1 views and reduce massing. . ,xr City Staff discussed the PUD and pending application extensively �.. .. s;. with County Planning Deputy Block C has not yet been developed. Director Lance Clarke to develop a complete understanding of the Board of County Commission's (BOCC) land use 2 approvals for this project. City Staff, Mr. Clarke, and Mr. Horn agree that the proposal is not consistent with the approved PUD. County Planning Deputy Director Lance Clarke explained to City Staff that the townhouse neighborhoods were reviewed during the general submission review (conceptual), but not during the detailed submission review (final). He specifically explained that the Applicant provided illustrative site plans showing one possible configuration of townhouses in Blocks C and E. Mr. Clarke said that the BOCC granted the Applicant flexibility regarding the location, configuration, architecture and materials to be used for the townhouses as long as they were located within the approved building envelopes and met the PUD dimensions described above. However, he is absolutely certain that it was never represented nor contemplated that the units would be detached. Blocks C and E are situated between the most intensive uses at the base village (the lodge condominium buildings, mountain operations and skier services buildings, and multi- family buildings) and the least intensive uses (single family residences). Staff believes that the townhouses were planned and approved as part of the village cluster at the base of the mountain. Staff also believes the character of the townhouses in the attached configurations are a much better match with the Village Core than detached townhouses or single family residences, which are appropriately located on the periphery of the base village. The townhouse clusters provide an appropriate scale and massing as a transition area from the core of the base village to the lower density single family residences surrounding the core. The 31 single family residential lots on the periphery are allocated from 5,000 to 5,500 square feet of floor area each. The townhouses are allocated 3,500 square feet of floor area each. Currently, the Village Core has six (6) very large buildings. As proposed by the Applicant, 23 significantly smaller, detached dwellings would be located along with 9 townhouses on the east and west ends of the core. Finally, on the periphery of the village would be situated low density single family dwellings that are 1,500 square feet to 2,000 square feet larger. Staff strongly believes that duplexes of 7,000 square feet or triplexes of 10,500 square feet would provide a better transition from the Village Core to the 5,000 — 5,500 square foot single family residences on the periphery. Staff is also concerned that the site plan for the detached units trades usable open space areas between and around the townhouses for driveways to access each separate residence within the blocks, and creates 6-10 foot strips of unusable space between the buildings. In sum, Staff recommends denial of the PUD amendment for three reasons: 1. The amendment is not consistent with the approved PUD; single-family residences were never considered for Blocks C and E. 2. Duplexes and triplexes are more compatible with the village cluster approved for the core of base village than single-family residences. 91 3. The site plan indicates that open space between and around the single-family residences will be primarily driveways required to access each dwelling rather than landscaping in the townhouse configurations. Staff does not believe the proposed amendment meets PUD criteria A(2), The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff believes the attached townhouses were approved because these structures are believed to be consistent with the character of existing land uses surrounding the area. In particular, these structures provide an appropriate transition from the core of the base village to the single-family residential areas on the periphery of the village. Staff also does not believe the amendment meets criteria B(2), The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Detaching the townhouses would reduce the scale and massing of the duplexes and triplexes. Separated units would provide some visual relief by creating open spaces between each unit. However, driveways serving each residence rather than one driveway per duplex or triplex would pave more of the site. Consequently, more of the open space on the two sites appears to be paved rather than landscaped. In addition, staff believes the scale and massing of the duplexes and triplexes are appropriate given their location between the core of the base village and the single family residences surrounding the village. Planning and Zoning Commission Action On June 6, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend City Council deny the PUD amendment for the reasons outlined in the Staff report. Additional PUD Amendment Issues Please note that the application also requests approvals for (1) constructing the Maroon Creek Road retaining wall, (2) increasing the height of the high school lift towers, and (2) permitting vendor carts, outdoor restaurants and special events at the Base Village. The Maroon Creek retaining wall is proposed to be built primarily in the county right- of-way; however, a portion of this wall may be proposed for the Highlands property, and therefore within the City limits. The Applicant is currently surveying the sites for the retaining wall and will submit separate applications to the County and City for this project. Staff will review the high school lift tower height increase administratively based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's actions and comments on approval of increasing the same lift towers under the Moore Planned Unit Development. Finally, the vending carts, outdoor restaurants and special events requests will be reviewed separately from this application. 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council deny the Aspen Highlands Village Planned Unit Development amendment to detach the townhouses in Blocks C and E. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. , Series of 2000, an amendment to the Aspen Highlands Village PUD." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Development Application C:\home\nickl\Active Cases\Highlands Amendment\CC memo First Reading.doc EXHIBIT A ASPEN HIGHLANDS BASE VILLAGE PUD AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS 26.445.050 Review Standards: PUD Amendment A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding Staff does not believe the proposed PUD amendment to detach the townhouses would conflict with the AACP because the units would continue to be located within established building envelopes, and the dimensions and densities would remain the same. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding Existing land uses in the Aspen Highlands Base Village include single family residences, duplexes, multi -family residential, skier services, commercial, office, retail, restaurant, lodge, and recreation. Blocks C and E are situated between the most intensive uses at the base village — all of the mountain operations and services, and multi -family buildings — and the least intensive use — single family residential. Staff believes the townhouse clusters provide an appropriate scale and massing as a transition area from the significantly larger lodge condominium, retail/restaurant/commercial, and skier services buildings in the core of the base village and the lower density single family residences surround the core. Duplex above Triplex 4 Maroon Creek Rd. "`` , Block C .p•I " yR `fir„ IMF �"" ;•. �,, •� � Sri �� �- ' i,• w- - •.., ;`' • �»_..., W psi AV Block E ... • 3."' .bi5r ,.tea:. ... .., ..., . Block E is to the left of the Lodge Block C is located to the right of this building; Condominiums building. The arrows point this building hosts skier services, restaurants, and to the completed triplex and Block E. affordable housing units on the upper floors. Co City and County Staff do not believe detaching the units is consistent with the approved site plan. Instead, both staffs believe that the townhouses were planned and approved as part of the village cluster at the base of the mountain. City staff believes the character of the townhouses in duplex and triplex configurations is a better match with the core of the base village than single family residences, which are appropriately located on the periphery of the base village. Staff does not believe this criteria has been met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding Staff does not believe the proposed development would adversely affect future development of the surrounding area because detaching the dwellings would not expand beyond the established building envelopes. The surrounding areas will be developed according to the approved PUD. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding The proposed PUD amendment would not require additional GMQS allotments or be subject to growth management provisions of the land use code. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. 7 Staff Finding Dimensions of the approved units are not proposed to be changed; the only request is to detach the townhouses into single-family residences. Height, floor area, building footprints, parking, and building envelope dimensions among others would remain the same as those in the approved PUD. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding Detaching the townhouses would reduce the scale and massing of the duplexes and triplexes. Separated units would provide some visual relief by creating open spaces between each unit. However, driveways serving each residence rather than one driveway per duplex or triplex would pave more of the site. Consequently, more of the open space on the two sites appears to be paved rather than landscaped. In addition, staff believes the scale and massing of the duplexes and triplexes are appropriate given their location between the core of the base village and the single family residences surrounding the village. Staff does not believe this criteria has been met. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding The number of cars used by those in the development is not expected to change, nor are any changes proposed in the number of parking spaces on -site. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding There are no infrastructure capacity issues that would prohibit detaching the townhouses. Staff does not recommend any reductions in the development being proposed. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if. a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding There are no known natural hazard or site limitations that prohibit detaching the approved townhouses. Staff does not recommend any reductions to the proposed development based on this standard. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Finding The applicant is not requesting an increase in density beyond what is allowed within the PUD. In addition, the site's physical capabilities can accommodate detaching the townhouses into single-family residences. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent M public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding Blocks C and E are both currently under development; no natural site features above ground remain. A recently completed triplex and temporary fence have been constructed on Block E. Therefore, detaching the units would impact no unique natural or man-made features. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding The approved duplexes and triplexes have been appropriately clustered within each building envelope in Blocks C and E. The proposal to detach the townhouses will spread the single- family houses out across the building envelopes. It is difficult to determine whether spreading the houses out would improve vistas from residences surrounding Blocks C and E, or what the impact would be on open space within each Block. Views of Blocks C and E from the mountain may be improved because the structures would be smaller; however, the views may not improve because several more structures would be present in each block. And, driveways within the blocks would consume space available for landscaping, and more structures would be visible. There are no significant vistas that would be enhanced by detaching the townhouses. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding The proposed detached units would be appropriately oriented to the streets, and contribute to the visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff believes the context of the base village and location of the approved townhouses next to the much larger lodge condominium, retail/restaurant/commercial, and skier services buildings is better served with duplexes and triplexes than single family homes. Single-family homes are already located on the periphery of the core of the base village. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding A condition of approval is that the Aspen Fire Marshall shall approve emergency access to Blocks C and E if the amendment is adopted. 10 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding Pedestrian and handicapped access is provided via the Aspen Highlands Base Village internal street and walkway networks. Access to the building envelopes would change only slightly if the PUD amendment is approved. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding A condition of approval is the requirement that the Applicant shall submit a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction if the City Engineer decides to impose the requirement. The reason for the condition is that site drainage may function differently with single-family residences than with duplexes and triplexes, particularly with increased impervious surface created by the driveways. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding This standard is not applicable because this application is for a residential land use. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding A condition of approval is that, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan to the Community Development Department and Parks Department showing the size, species, quantity, and location of all planned native and non-native vegetation on the portion of the portion of the site located on Blocks C and E. The Community Development Director shall approve the final landscape plan after considering a recommendation by the Parks Department. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less -intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding No changes in architectural character are proposed by this amendment. Scale and massing would be modified if the amendment is approved. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate WYTi F1lam 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up -lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. 12 Staff Finding All new lighting for the Aspen Highlands Village must be in compliance with the City's lighting code adopted in November 1999. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding This PUD amendment does not propose any changes to the Aspen Highlands Village open space, common parks, or recreation areas. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. 13 Staff Finding The proposed PUD amendment should not affect public utilities for the dwellings in Blocks C and E. Referral agencies recommended approval of the Aspen Highlands Base Village PUD with conditions. L Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding Access to the building envelopes in Blocks C and E are via internal streets within the Aspen Highlands Base Village. The only required changes to access and circulation would be to install driveways to each single-family residence rather than to each duplex or triplex. Curb cuts would be reduced to each Block, but more space within each Block would be devoted to driveways. A condition of approval is that the Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve emergency access to residences in the two blocks. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding Staff does not believe detaching the townhouses would impact vehicular access points, parking arrangements or traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the Aspen Highlands Base Village. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Staff Finding Detaching the townhouses would not affect any areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, public lands, or rivers. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, 14 and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding The AACP does not propose additional trails for this parcel. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Staff Finding Detaching the townhouses would minimally affect the streets within the PUD. As previously stated, the Aspen Fire Marshall shall approve access to and within Blocks C and E if this amendment is approved. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding Gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions are not proposed for the PUD. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees - in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding Detaching the townhouses would not change the phasing of the Aspen Highlands Base Village development. 15 ORDINANCE N0. (SERIES OF 2000) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO DETACH TOWNHOUSES IN BLOCKS C AND E, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Hines Highlands Limited Partnership, represented by Glenn Horn of Davis Horn, Inc., for an amendment to the Aspen Highlands Village Planned Unit Development (PUD) to detach townhouses approved for Blocks C and E; and, WHEREAS, the Board of County of Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, approved Resolution No. 97-67, granting Detailed Submission, Planned Unit Development, 1041 Environmental Hazard Review, Special Review Approval, and Growth Management Quota System Allotments (GMQS) to the Aspen Highlands Village PUD; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2000, the Aspen City Council annexed the property known and designated as the "Aspen Highlands Village PUD"; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a Planned Unit Development, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering comments from the general public, and recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the PUD amendment and recommended denial; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 6, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, that the Aspen City Council deny the amendment to the Aspen Highlands Village PUD; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Cectinn 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen Highland Village PUD amendment to detach approved townhouses in Blocks C and E is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. An amended Aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the following: 2. An amended Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by City Council and shall include: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical improvements and parking spaces within City rights -of -way, and location of utility pedestals. b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved. c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 3. Prior to an application for a building permit: a. The PUD Guide and the Final PUD Plans shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. b. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan to the Community Development Department and Parks Department showing the size, species, quantity, and location of all existing and planned native vegetation on the portion of the parcel located above Power Plant Road. The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Community Development Director after considering a recommendation by the Parks Department. No other landscape improvements or changes to the terrain, except those approved by the Community Development Director, are approved outside the established building and access envelopes. 4. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. 6. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 7. The Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve emergency access to and within Blocks C and E of the Aspen Highlands Base Village. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12`h day of June, 2000. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Rachel Richards, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 26t' day of June, 2000. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Rachel Richards, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcestor, City Attorney Davis I Hor nllnc•`" PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSULTING March 20, 2000 Joyce Ohlson City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Highlands Village: Planned Unit Development Amendment Dear Joyce: Davis Horn Incorporated and Kaufman & Peterson represent the Hines Highlands Limited Partnership ("applicant") in this land use application. The applicant is the developer of Aspen Highlands (AHV) Planned Unit Development (PUD). The City of Aspen is in the process of annexing and zoning Aspen Highlands Village (AHV) Planned Unit Development. This land use application seeks minor amendments to the PUD. The applicant requests the amendments to be considered simultaneously with the annexation and zoning process to allow for construction to occur in the spring/summer 2000 building season. The following three requests are changes to the PUD requiring action by the City. Maroon Creek Road Retaining Wall - A retaining wall is proposed on the uphill side of Maroon Creek Road below Lots 17, 18 and 19. This wall help stop bank erosion. 2. Modification to Maroon & Thunderbowl Townhouses - original concept plans for the townhouses proposed primarily attached units. However, Pitkin County approvals provided flexibility for the applicant to vary the configuration of the units. The applicant is now proposing a combination of attached and detached townhouses. High School Lift Towers - The AHV Planned Unit Development Guide (PUD Guide) restricts the height of lift towers to 40 feet. The applicant is proposing lift towers as high as 55 feet. In addition to the preceding requests which require a PUD amendment, the annexation and zoning process needs to address the following two material representations made by the applicant during the PUD approval process which are not explicitly addressed in the ALICE DAVIS, AICP 1 GLENN HORN, AICP 215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. • SUITE 104 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 970/925-6587 • FAX: 970/925-5180 Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 2 approval documents: Vendor Carts & Outdoor Restaurants - The applicant consistently represented that there would be street vendors and outdoor restaurants on plazas and streets. Special Events - The applicant consistently represented during the land use review process that AHV and Aspen Highlands Ski would intermittently sponsor special events such as ski races. Ancillary activities including, but not limited to, outdoor advertising, blow-up sponsor balloons and amplified music may take place in association with some special events. The applicant requests that findings be made in the annexation and zoning process recognizing that street vendors and outdoor restaurant seating are permitted on the streets and plazas in AHV. Additionally, there should be findings that special events with ancillary activities may occur in AHV. These findings are consistent with approvals granted by Pitkin County. LAND USE APPROVALS On June 28, 1999 the City of Aspen approved Ordinance No. 24 Series of 1999 which established a procedure and standards for minor PUD amendments to the Moore Family PUD. Section 4 of the ordinance states the procedure is intended to address changes to "elements or conditions of the development permit." We anticipate similar standards will be adopted to address the AHV PUD annexation. This letter demonstrates compliance with these standards. The City of Aspen recently adopted Ordinance No. 35 series 1999 which establishes new PUD regulations (Section 26.445.100). This letter also demonstrates compliance with Section 26.445.100 of the Regulations. Standards appear in bold followed by the applicant's response. Standard a. The amendment must be a clarification or a technical correction to the plat. Response The plat is not affected by any the proposed changes. Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 3 Standard b. The amendment must not change the use of the proposed development between residential, commercial and tourist accommodations uses. Changes in uses are not proposed. Standard c. The amendment must be consistent with action taken during the review of the original development and does not constitute new land development activity. Maroon Creek Road Retaining Wall Attachment 1, Maroon Neighborhood Grading Plan which is drawing L-204 in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan, does not show a retaining wall below Lots 17, 18 and 19. There has been an eroding cut bank located above Maroon Creek Road for many years. Much of the bank is located within the Maroon Creek Road right-of-way. The erosion is not a product of AHV, rather it results from the original development of Maroon Creek Road. The grading plan originally submitted should have proposed a retaining wall below Lots 17, 18 and 19 to address the historic erosion problem. It was an oversight for the applicant and Pitkin County not to address this problem. The County Engineer, Bud Eylar, has been consulted regarding the erosion problem. The applicant is coordinating with Bud regarding the construction of the retaining wall. Attachment 2 is a July 22, 1999 letter from John Mechling of CTL/Thompson, Inc. describing the plans for the retaining wall. Modification to Maroon & Thunderbowl Townhouses Attachments 3 and 4 are copies of the drawings L-201 and L-203 in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. These drawings establish the building envelopes for the Maroon and Thunderbowl townhouse neighborhoods. The final plans do not include specific plans for the configuration of the townhouses. Pitkin County approved the future subdivision of the townhouse neighborhoods. Townhouse plats and condominium maps must be filed in with the Clerk & County Recorder in accordance with Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 4 Colorado statutes. The County approvals provided flexibility to the applicant to vary the configuration of the townhouses. Condition # 2 of Board of County Commissioners Resolution 97-167 (see Attachment 5) which granted Detailed Submission approvals addressed representations made in the approval process. During the AHV PUD general and detailed submission reviews the applicant proposed that the Maroon and Thunderbowl townhouses would include a variety of attached and detached configurations. The following attachments depict the approved concepts incorporated into the Detailed Submission for the townhouses: Attachment 6 - AHV PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-100 General Submission Site Plan. Attachment 7 - AHV PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-200 Site Plan. Attachment 8 - AHV PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-201 Village Grading Plan Part One. Attachment 9 - AHV PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-203 Village Grading Plan Part Three. Plans for the Maroon and Thunderbowl townhouses have been refined since final County approvals. The applicant would like to clarify the current configuration of the townhouses. Most of the townhouses in each neighborhood will be detached rather than attached townhouses, generally in accordance with the concepts illustrated in attachments 8 and 9. All of the townhouses will be located within the established building envelopes in compliance the final PUD approvals (see Attachments 3 and 4 Drawings L-201 & 203). The primary purposes of detaching the townhouses are to increase the amount of natural light and ventilation, improve views and reduce massing. Attachments 10 and 11 depict the current conceptual site plans for the Maroon and Thunderbowl townhouses. High School Lift Towers - The Area & Bulk requirements of the ARV PUD Guide restricts lift towers to 40 feet. Since the adoption of the PUD Guide preliminary engineering for the lift has been completed. Some of the lift towers will exceed 40 feet. Modifying the tower height limitation is not inconsistent with original land use approvals. Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 5 Standard d.i. The proposed activity does not change the basic character of the approved use land on which the activity occurs including the basic visual appearance and method of operation. The change to the townhouses and the construction of the retaining wall will improve the visual appearance of the Village. Both changes are improvements to the PUD. The detached townhouses will reduce massing and increase the quality of the habitable space. The increase in lift tower height will not result in a change in the visual appearance of AHV. Standard d.ii. The proposed activity does not increase off -site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed minor amendments will not result in an increase in off -site impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The detached townhouses will be a positive impact on the neighborhood and the retaining wall will prevent erosion which would impact Maroon Creek Road. The increased height of lift towers will not impact the neighborhood. Standard d.iii. The proposed activity does not endanger public health, safety or welfare. The proposed amendments do not affect public health, safety or welfare. Standard d.iv. The proposed activity does not substantially increase the need for on -site parking or utilities, or affect affordable housing generation. The proposed amendments do not affect on -site parking, utilities or affordable housing generation. Standard d.v. The proposed activity does not increase the floor area of the use by more than two (2) percent or decrease open space on the site by Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 6 more than three (3) percent. Open space and floor area are not significantly affected by the proposed amendment. Section 26.445.100 The proposed AHV PUD amendments comply with all of the standards of Section 26.445.100 of the Regulations with the exception of standard # 9. Standard # 9 states that: "Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements." All three of the requested PUD amendments are clarifications to the AHV PUD. Each of the changes represent improvements to the approved Plan for reasons stated in this letter. The proposed retaining wall on Maroon Creek Road will address an historic erosion problem. The County approvals provide for flexibility in the layout of the townhouses. The applicant is proposing primarily detached townhouses rather than attached. The height of the lift towers will be higher than anticipated to facilitate the most efficient lift design. SUMMARY The applicant is seeking minor amendments to the AHV PUD to address issues which have come up during the construction process. The proposed amendment complies the minor PUD amendment standards established in City or Aspen Ordinance NO. 24 series of 1999 and Ordinance NO. 35 series of 1999. The applicant is submitting $ 480.00 with this application. The following Attachments are attached to this letter for your information. Attachment 1: Maroon Neighborhood Grading Plan, drawing L- 204, Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan, Attachment 2: July 22, 1999 letter from John Mechling of CTL/Thompson, Inc. Attachment 3: Drawing L-201 Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 7 Attachment 4: Drawing L-203 Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. Attachment 5: Board of County Commissioners Resolution 97- 167 Granting Detailed Submission approval to Aspen Highlands Village PUD Attachment 6: Aspen Highlands Village PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-100 General Submission Site Plan Attachment 7: Aspen Highlands Village PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-200 Site Plan. Attachment 8: Aspen Highlands Village PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-201 Village Grading Plan Part One. Attachment 9: Aspen Highlands Village PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-203 Village Grading Plan Part Three. Attachment 10: Conceptual Site Plan for Maroon Townhouses Attachment 11: Conceptual Site Plan for Thunderbowl Townhouses Attachment 12: Letter from Hines Highlands Limited Partnership authorizing Davis Horn Incorporated to submit a land use application to the City of Aspen and represent them in the land use approval process Please contact me at 925-6587 if I can provide any additional information and or materials. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, DA IS HORN 17RATED � f GLENN HORN AICP FAMOVA DaVisMorn,- PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSULTING June 9, 2000 Nick Lelack Aspen Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Highlands Village Planned Unit Development: Amendment Dear Nick: Davis Horn Incorporated represents Hines Highlands. We request that the Aspen Highlands Village Planned Unit Development Amendment request for approval to detach the townhouses be withdrawn from future consideration by the City of Aspen. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, DAVIS HOP."Kd INCORPORATED �;i "" G HORN AICP ALICE DAVIS, AICP I GLENN HORN, AICP 215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. • SUITE 104 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 970/925-6587 • FAX: 970/925-5180 00 grac spy �'1d . � � � U � y •• � 3 w w �" bnOca a� y U p=„U �E�w g,'� O 5 8 c c� � vTw c% o ^� ^' V C3 • aU U U 52 O yU i9 os�Z- ayi ro. cb3C"� c° ns^v v� o co .cZmtaEiEai�y°a�'�y^>'� Oenv�`c°E= c an [= c E °'� aEi a w E+ 3 E2 >,= o.i u RU doo r`L ob=�' GA���cU�c �Nc c Q bA o W O, C' C v c= s. L. p 3 ou � c° � ao K Q.: c vyi o� > C 3 E k! y c❑ ., t- c° c•C•�.� a� 3 c o O ie aci i o 3>= '°d o o E � E^a°i "or- e� a v•°°� c r yr E a� cd a� E e• '� °' E c � o an'�S 5= . an_ aci — c.7 0 3 �s c ct -0 5 c ,�� �':E g`= ;E ¢.gib °3 C, » CA� C U U N cy> fu ca F a — a� s J cs oODs :a� m "0 3C7cm 3 c° >> E U-0 > 3 o�aa Q —��� E 'O w N L ••-, a U p p OU Vo sccn O'oo-vt� My� O 'N � � � � U � cs"3 � � E.8 cc 0 w o4 E . o. v°yac C0 �y aEi�R��o, 2�04 E�ccca� c w 'O 40-a E °moo c°p3-r- a'>v O c� E�c> co>� °E y ca O c r; >, U i N cif a•� E �.� O U u bA > O- p U c ca ., Y p N PZ, $. OUaioDc�Eu a > w �. a� a� -o a� a mQ b o.sR. o >'u ace MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director�� FROM: Nick Lelack, PlanneXX'N/ RE: Aspen Highlands Ba\s�e' Village Planned Unit Development Amendment Public Hearin DATE: June 6, 2000 r w� Block C Maroon . Creek Rd.`+ Core Base Village — Block E skier services, lodge/ condos dorms, restaurant, ' t etc. ,c� X, y ter " APPLICANT: SUMMARY: Hines Highlands Limited The purpose of this application is to detach most of the Partnership approved townhouses in duplex and triplex configurations in Blocks C & E into single-family residences. Detaching REPRESENTATIVE: these units requires a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Glenn Horn amendment to the Aspen Highlands Base Village PUD. LOCATION: APPROVED LAND USE: PROPOSED LAND USE: Aspen Highlands Base Village Block C Block C Blocks C & E 5 duplexes & 2 triplexes 2 duplexes & 12 single family residences CURRENT ZONING: Block E Under Review 1 duplex & 4 triplexes Block E 1 triplex & 11 single family residences REVIEW PROCEDURE Planned Unit Development Amendment Reviews: A PUD amendment found to be inconsistent with the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director shall be subject to final development review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution recommend City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the PUD amendment. STAFF COMMENTS: Hines Highlands Limited Partnership (Applicant), represented by Glenn Horn of Davis Horn, Inc., is requesting approval of an amendment to the Aspen Highlands Base Village PUD to detach approved townhouses in Blocks C and E. According to the PUD, Block C is approved for five (5) duplexes and two (2) triplexes; and Block E is approved for one (1) duplex and four (4) triplexes. The proposal is to detach all of the townhouses in Block C except two (2) duplexes, and to detach all of the townhouses in Block E except the completed triplex in the picture. All of the dwellings would be located within the approved building envelopes and comply with all other aspects of the PUD. a Detaching the units would , s effectively create a combined 23 single-family residences in ,��' C^-•} Blocks C and E and leave 7 units attached as townhouses. According to the application, the reasons for the request are to This picture shows the only constructed triplex in "increase the amount of natural Block E; the other structures will surround this light and ventilation, improve building. views and reduce massing." City and County planning staff;` and Mr. Horn agree that the ` proposal is not consistent with the approved PUD. County staff contends that the duplex and triplex configurations were --.a.. i+Ire represented to the Countys `. Planning and Zoning ;4 Commission and Board of County Commissioners throughout the review process,"--�' m and that the flexibility granted to the Applicant regarding the Block C has not yet been developed. configuration of the townhouses did not include detaching the units. Rather, the flexibility was related to the placement of the townhouses within the building envelopes, as well as to the architecture and materials used to design the units. Blocks C and E are situated between the most intensive uses at the base village (the lodge condominium buildings, mountain operations and skier services buildings, and multi- family buildings) and the least intensive uses (single family residences). Staff believes that the townhouses were planned and approved as part of the villa e cluster at the base of the mountain. to f also believes the character of the townhouses in duplex and triplex configurations is a better match with the core of the base village than single family residences, which are located on the periphery of the base village. The townhrn_s c_l algrs provide an appropriate scale and massing as a transition area from the core of the base village to the lower density -single family residences surround the core. Staff is also concerned that the site plan for the detached units trades open space areas between and aroun the duplexes and triplex for driveways to access each separate residence within the blocks. In sum, Staff recommends denial of the PUD amendment for three reasons: 1. The amendment is not consistent with approved PUD; single-family residences were never considered for Blocks C and E. 2. Duplexes and triplexes are more compatible with the village cluster approved for the core of base village than single-family residences. 3. The site plan indicates that open space between and around the single-family residences will be primarily driveways required to access each dwelling rather than landscaping in the townhouse configurations. Staff does not believe proposed amendment meets PUD criteria A(2), The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff believes the duplexes and triplexes were approved because 62,) these structures are believed to be consistent with the character of existing land uses surrounding the area. In particular, these structures provide an appropriate transition from the core of the base village to the single-family residential areas on the periphery of the village. Please note that the application also requests approvals for (1) constructing the Maroon Creek Road retaining wall, (2) increasing the height of the high school lift towers, and (2) permitting vendor carts, outdoor restaurants and special events at the Base Village. The Maroon Creek retaining wall is proposed to be built primarily in the county right- of-way; however, a portion of this wall may be proposed for the Highlands property, and therefore within the City limits. The Applicant is currently surveying the sites for the retaining wall and will submit separate applications to the County and City for this project. Staff will review the high school lift tower increase administratively based on the Commission's actions and comments on increasing the lift towers for the Moore Planned Unit Development. Finally, it has not yet been determined how the final requests will be reviewed, but they are not the subject of this public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of the Aspen Highland Base Village Planned Unit Development amendment to City Council. NOTE: Staff has provided two (2) draft resolutions, one recommending approval of the amendment and the other recommending denial. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTLOIJA ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. Series of 2000, recommending City Council approve the Aspen Highlands Base Village Planned Unit Development amendment." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Development Application 0 EXHIBIT A ASPEN HIGHLANDS BASE VILLAGE PUD AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS 26.445.050 Review Standards: PUD Amendment A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding Staff does not believe the proposed PUD amendment to detach the townhouses would conflict with the AACP because the units would continue to be located within established building envelopes, and the dimensions and densities would remain the same. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding Existing land uses in the Aspen Highlands Base Village include single family residences, duplexes, multi -family residential, skier services, commercial, office, retail, restaurant, lodge, and recreation. Blocks C and E are situated between the most intensive uses at the base village — all of the mountain operations and services, and multi -family buildings — and the least intensive use — single family residential. Staff believes the townhouse clusters provide an appropriate scale and massing as a transition area from the significantly larger lodge condominium, retail/restaurant/commercial, and skier services buildings in the core of the base village and the lower density single family residences surround the core. Duplex above Triplex Maroon Creek Rd. Block C . +..-" _ Lii� �". 1`��.4 Y 't�wR�_. ;i'&'�• T+.t'. - ice' � ,� ��'j}d ��.� �!• INI S 0 wL. ti Block E AM Block E is to the left of the Lodge Block C is located to the right of this building; Condominiums building. The arrows point this building hosts skier services, restaurants, and to the completed triplex and Block E. affordable housing units on the upper floors. 5 City and County Staff do not believe detaching the units is consistent with the approved site plan. Instead, both staffs believe that the townhouses were planned and approved as part of the village cluster at the base of the mountain. City staff believes the character of the townhouses in duplex and triplex configurations is a better match with the core of the base village than single family residences, which are appropriately located on the periphery of the base village. Staff does not believe this criteria has been met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding Staff does not believe the proposed development would adversely affect future development of the surrounding area because detaching the dwellings would not expand beyond the established building envelopes. The surrounding areas will be developed according to the approved PUD. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding The proposed PUD amendment would not require additional GMQS allotments or be subject to growth management provisions of the land use code. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. G Staff Finding Dimensions of the approved units are not proposed to be changed; the only request is to detach the townhouses into single-family residences. Height, floor area, building footprints, parking, and building envelope dimensions among others would remain the same as those in the approved PUD. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding Detaching the townhouses would reduce the scale and massing of the duplexes and triplexes. Separated units would provide some visual relief by creating open spaces between each unit. However, driveways serving each residence rather than one driveway per duplex or triplex would pave more of the site. Consequently, more of the open space on the two sites appears to be paved rather than landscaped. In addition, staff believes the scale and massing of the duplexes and triplexes are appropriate given their location between the core of the base village and the single family residences surrounding the village. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding The number of cars used by those in the development is not expected to change, nor are any changes proposed in the number of parking spaces on -site. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding There are no infrastructure capacity issues that would prohibit detaching the townhouses. Staff does not recommend any reductions in the development being proposed. 7 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding There are no known natural hazard or site limitations that prohibit detaching the approved townhouses. Staff does not recommend any reductions to the proposed development based on this standard. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the'site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Finding The applicant is not requesting an increase in density beyond what is allowed within the PUD. In addition, the site's physical capabilities can accommodate detaching the townhouses into single-family residences. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding Blocks C and E are both currently under development; no natural site features above ground remain. A recently completed triplex and temporary fence have been constructed on Block E. Therefore, detaching the units would impact no unique natural or man-made features. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding The approved duplexes and triplexes have been appropriately clustered within each building envelope in Blocks C and E. The proposal to detach the townhouses will spread the single- family houses out across the building envelopes. It is difficult to determine whether spreading the houses out would improve vistas from residences surrounding Blocks C and E, or what the impact would be on open space within each Block. Views of Blocks C and E from the mountain may be improved because the structures would be smaller; however, the views may not improve because several more structures would be present in each block. And, driveways within the blocks would consume space available for landscaping, and more structures would be visible. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding The proposed detached units would be appropriately oriented to the streets, and contribute to the visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff believes the context of the base village and location of the approved townhouses next to the much larger lodge condominium, retail/restaurant/commercial, and skier services buildings is better served with duplexes and triplexes than single family homes. Single-family homes are already located on the periphery of the core of the base village. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding A condition of approval is that the Aspen Fire Marshall shall approve emergency access to Blocks C and E if the amendment is adopted. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 0 Staff Finding Pedestrian and handicapped access is provided via the Aspen Highlands Base Village internal street and walkway networks. Access to the building envelopes would change only slightly if the PUD amendment is approved. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding A condition of approval is the requirement that the Applicant shall submit a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction if the City Engineer decides to impose the requirement. The reason for the condition is that site drainage may function differently with single-family residences than with duplexes and triplexes, particularly with increased impervious surface created by the driveways. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding This standard is not applicable because this application is for a residential land use. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding A condition of approval is that, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan to the Community Development Department and Parks Department showing the size, species, quantity, and location of all planned native and non-native vegetation on the portion of the portion of the site located on Blocks C and 10 E. The Community Development Director shall approve the final landscape plan after considering a recommendation by the Parks Department. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less -intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding No changes in architectural character are proposed by this amendment. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up -lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding All new lighting for the Aspen Highlands Village must be in compliance with the City's lighting code adopted in November 1999 by November 2000. 11 G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding This PUD amendment does not propose any changes to the Aspen Highlands Village open space, common parks, or recreation areas. A. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding The proposed PUD amendment should not affect public utilities for the dwellings in Blocks C and E. Referral agencies recommended approval of the Aspen Highlands Base Village PUD with conditions. 12 L Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1&2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the.development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding Access to the building envelopes in Blocks C and E are via internal streets within the Aspen Highlands Base Village. The only required changes to access and circulation would be to install driveways to each single-family residence rather than to each duplex or triplex. Curb cuts would be reduced to each Block, but more space within each Block would be devoted to driveways. A condition of approval is that the Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve emergency access to residences in the two blocks. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding Staff does not believe detaching the townhouses would impact vehicular access points, parking arrangements or traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the Aspen Highlands Base Village. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Staff Finding Detaching the townhouses would not affect any areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, public lands, or rivers. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding The AACP does not propose additional trails for this parcel. 13 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Staff Finding Detaching the townhouses would minimally affect the streets within the PUD. As previously stated, the Aspen Fire Marshall shall approve access to and within Blocks C and E if this amendment is approved. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding Gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions are not proposed for the PUD. I Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees - in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding Detaching the townhouses would not change the phasing of the Aspen Highlands Base Village development. 14 RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO DETACH TOWNHOUSES IN BLOCKS C AND E, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Hines Highlands Limited Partnership, represented by Glenn Horn of Davis Horn, Inc., for an amendment to the Aspen Highlands Village Planned Unit Development (PUD) to detach townhouses approved for Blocks C and E; and, WHEREAS, the Board of County of Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, approve Resolution No. 97-67, granting Detailed Submission, Planned Unit Development, 1041 Environmental Hazard Review, Special Review Approval, and Growth Management Quota System Allotments (GMQS) to the Aspen Highlands Village PUD; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2000, the Aspen City Council annexed the property known and designated as the "Aspen Highlands Village PUD"; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.445, the City Council may approve an amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the PUD amendment and recommended denial; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 6, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a _ to _ L-� vote, approval of the amendment to the Aspen Highlands Village PUD; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the Highlands Village PUD amendment to detach approved townhouses in Blocks C and E with the following conditions: 1. An amended Aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the following: 2. An amended Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by City Council and shall include: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical improvements and parking spaces within City rights -of -way, and location of utility pedestals. b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved. c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 3. Prior to an application for a building permit: a. The PUD Agreement and the Final PUD Plans shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. b. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan to the Community Development Department and Parks Department showing the size, species, quantity, and location of all existing and planned native vegetation on the portion of the parcel located above Power Plant Road. The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Community Development Director after considering a recommendation by the Parks Department. No other landscape improvements or changes to the terrain, except those approved by the Community Development Director, are approved outside the established building and access envelopes. 4. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. 6. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 7. The Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve emergency access to and within Blocks C and E of the Aspen Highlands Base Village. Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3• This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 6th, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Robert Blaich, Chair RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO DETACH TOWNHOUSES IN BLOCKS C AND E, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Hines Highlands Limited Partnership, represented by Glenn Horn of Davis Horn, Inc., for an amendment to the Aspen Highlands Village Planned Unit Development (PUD) to detach townhouses approved for Blocks C and E; and, WHEREAS, the Board of County of Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, approve Resolution No. 97-67, granting Detailed Submission, Planned Unit Development, 1041 Environmental Hazard Review, Special Review Approval, and Growth Management Quota System Allotments (GMQS) to the Aspen Highlands Village PUD; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2000, the Aspen City Council annexed the property known and designated as the "Aspen Highlands Village PUD"; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.445, the City Council may approve an amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the PUD amendment and recommended denial; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 6, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a _ to _ L-� vote, denial of the amendment to the Aspen Highlands Village PUD; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen Highland Village PUD amendment to detach approved townhouses in Blocks C and E is denied. Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3• This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Denied by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 6th, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Robert Blaich, Chair I Davis Horn - PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSULTING March 20, 2000 Joyce Ohlson City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Highlands Village: Planned Unit Development Amendment Dear Joyce: Davis Horn Incorporated and Kaufman & Peterson represent the Hines Highlands Limited Partnership ("applicant") in this land use application. The applicant is the developer of Aspen Highlands (AHV) Planned Unit Development (PUD). The City of Aspen is in the process of annexing and zoning Aspen Highlands Village (AHV) Planned Unit Development. This land use application seeks minor amendments to the PUD. The applicant requests the amendments to be considered simultaneously with the annexation and zoning process to allow for construction to occur in the spring/summer 2000 building season. The following three requests are changes to the PUD requiring action by the City. Maroon Creek Road Retaining Wall - A retaining wall is proposed on the uphill side of Maroon Creek Road below Lots 17, 18 and 19. This wall help stop bank erosion. 2. Modification to Maroon & Thunderbowl Townhouses - original concept plans for the townhouses proposed primarily attached units. However, Pitkin County approvals provided flexibility for the applicant to vary the configuration of the units. The applicant is now proposing a combination of attached and detached townhou High School Lift Towers - The AHV Planned Unit Development Guide (PUD Guide) restricts the height of lift towers to 40 feet. The applicant is proposing lift towers as high as 55 feet. In addition to the preceding requests which require a PUD amendment, the annexation and zoning process needs to address the following two material representations made by the applicant during the PUD approval process which are not explicitly addressed in the ALICE DAVIS, AICP S GLENN HORN, AICP 215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. • SUITE 104 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 970/925-6587 • FAX: 970/925-5180 Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 2 approval documents: !' Vendor Carts & Outdoor Restaurants - The applicant consistently represented that there would be street vendors and outdoor restaurants on plazas and streets. Special Events - The applicant consistently represented during the land use review process that AHV and Aspen Highlands Ski would intermittently sponsor special events such as ski races. Ancillary activities including, but not limited to, outdoor advertising, blow-up sponsor balloons and amplified music may take place in association with some special events. The applicant requests that findings be made in the annexation and zoning process recognizing that street vendors and outdoor restaurant seating are permitted on the streets and plazas in AHV. Additionally, there should be findings that special events with ancillary activities may occur in AHV. These findings are consistent with approvals granted by Pitkin County. LAND USE APPROVALS On June 28, 1999 the City of Aspen approved Ordinance No. 24 Series of 1999 which established a procedure and standards for minor PUD amendments to the Moore Family PUD. Section 4 of the ordinance states the procedure is intended to address changes to "elements or conditions of the development permit." we anticipate similar standards will be adopted to address the AHV PUD annexation. This letter demonstrates compliance with these standards. The City of Aspen recently adopted Ordinance No. 35 series 1999 which establishes new PUD regulations (Section 26.445.100). This letter also demonstrates compliance with Section 26.445.100 of the Regulations. Standards appear in bold followed by the applicant's response. Standard a. The amendment must be a clarification or a technical correction to the plat. Response The plat is not affected by any the proposed changes. Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 3 Standard b. The amendment must not change the use of the proposed development between residential, commercial and tourist accommodations uses. Changes in uses are not proposed. Standard c. The amendment must be consistent with action taken during the review of the original development and does not constitute new land development activity. Maroon Creek Road Retaining Wall Attachment 1, Maroon Neighborhood Grading Plan which is drawing L-204 in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan, does not show a retaining wall below Lots 17, 18 and 19. There has been an eroding cut bank located above Maroon Creek Road for many years. Much of the bank is located within the Maroon Creek Road right-of-way. The erosion is not a product of AHV, rather it results from the original development of Maroon Creek Road. The grading plan originally submitted should have proposed a retaining wall below Lots 17, 18 and 19 to address the historic erosion problem. It was an oversight for the applicant and Pitkin County not to address this problem. The County Engineer, Bud Eylar, has been consulted regarding the erosion problem. The applicant is coordinating with Bud regarding the construction of the retaining wall. Attachment 2 is a July 22, 1999 letter from John Mechling of CTL/Thompson, Inc. describing the plans for the retaining wall. Modification to Maroon & Thunderbowl Townhouses Attachments 3 and 4 are copies of the drawings L-201 and L-203 in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. These drawings establish the building envelopes for the Maroon and Thunderbowl townhouse neighborhoods. The final plans do not include specific plans for the configuration of the townhouses. Pitkin County approved the future subdivision of the townhouse neighborhoods. Townhouse plats and condominium maps must be filed in with the Clerk & County Recorder in accordance with Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 4 Colorado statutes. The County approvals provided flexibility to the applicant to vary the configuration of the townhouses. Condition # 2 of Board of County Commissioners Resolution 97-167 (see Attachment 5) which granted Detailed Submission approvals addressed representations made in the approval process. During the AHV PUD general and detailed submission reviews the applicant proposed that the Maroon and Thunderbowl townhouses would include a variety of attached and detached configurations. The following attachments depict the approved concepts incorporated into the Detailed Submission for the townhouses: Attachment 6 - AHV PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-100 General Submission Site Plan. Attachment 7 - AHV PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-200 Site Plan. Attachment 8 - AHV PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-201 Village Grading Plan Part One. Attachment 9 - AHV PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-203 Village Grading Plan Part Three. Plans for the Maroon and Thunderbowl townhouses have been refined since final County approvals. The applicant would like to clarify the current configuration of the townhouses. Most of the townhouses in each neighborhood will be detached rather than attached townhouses, generally in accordance with the concepts illustrated in attachments 8 and 9. All of the townhouses will be located within the established building envelopes in compliance the final PUD approvals (see Attachments 3 and 4 Drawings L-201 & 203). The primary purposes of detaching the townhouses are to increase the amount of natural light and ventilation, improve views and reduce massing. Attachments 10 and 11 depict the current conceptual site plans for the Maroon and Thunderbowl townhouses. High School Lift Towers - The Area & Bulk requirements of the AHV PUD Guide restricts lift towers to 40 feet. Since the adoption of the PUD Guide preliminary engineering for the lift has been completed. Some of the lift towers will exceed 40 feet. Modifying the tower height limitation is not inconsistent with original land use approvals. Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 5 Standard d.i. The proposed activity does not change the basic character of the approved use land on which the activity occurs including the basic visual appearance and method of operation. The change to the townhouses and the construction of the retaining wall will improve the visual appearance of the Village. Both changes are improvements to the PUD. The detached townhouses will reduce massing and increase the quality of the habitable space. The increase in lift tower height will not result in a change in the visual appearance of AHV. Standard d.ii. The proposed activity does not increase off -site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed minor amendments will not result in an increase in off -site impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The detached townhouses will be a positive impact on the neighborhood and the retaining wall will prevent erosion which would impact Maroon Creek Road. The increased height of lift towers will not impact the neighborhood. Standard d.iii. The proposed activity does not endanger public health, safety or welfare. The proposed amendments do not affect public health, safety or welfare. Standard d.iv. The proposed activity does not substantially increase the need for on -site parking or utilities, or affect affordable housing generation. The proposed amendments do not affect on -site parking, utilities or affordable housing generation. Standard d.v. The proposed activity does not increase the floor area of the use by more than two (2) percent or decrease open space on the site by Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 6 more than three (3) percent. Open space and floor area are not significantly affected by the proposed amendment. Section 26.445.100 The proposed AHV PUD amendments comply with all of the standards of Section 26.445.100 of the Regulations with the exception of standard # 9. Standard # 9 states that: "Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements." All three of the requested PUD amendments are clarifications to the AHV PUD. Each of the changes represent improvements to the approved Plan for reasons stated in this letter. The proposed retaining wall on Maroon Creek Road will address an historic erosion problem. The County approvals provide for flexibility in the layout of the townhouses. The applicant is proposing primarily detached townhouses rather than attached. The height of the lift towers will be higher than anticipated to facilitate the most efficient lift design. SUMMARY The applicant is seeking minor amendments to the ARV PUD to address issues which have come up during the construction process. The proposed amendment complies the minor PUD amendment standards established in City or Aspen Ordinance NO. 24 series of 1999 and Ordinance NO. 35 series of 1999. The applicant is submitting $ 480.00 with this application. The following Attachments are attached to this letter for your information. Attachment 1: Maroon Neighborhood Grading Plan, drawing L- 204, Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan, Attachment 2: July 22, 1999 letter from John Mechling of CTL/Thompson, Inc. Attachment 3: Drawing L-201 Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 7 Attachment 4: Drawing L-203 Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. Attachment 5: Board of County Commissioners Resolution 97- 167 Granting Detailed Submission approval to Aspen Highlands Village PUD Attachment 6: Aspen Highlands Village PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-100 General Submission Site Plan Attachment 7: Aspen Highlands Village PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-200 Site Plan. Attachment 8: Aspen Highlands Village PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-201 Village Grading Plan Part One. Attachment 9: Aspen Highlands Village PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-203 Village Grading Plan Part Three. Attachment 10: Conceptual Site Plan for Maroon Townhouses Attachment 11: Conceptual Site Plan for Thunderbowl Townhouses Attachment 12: Letter from Hines Highlands Limited Partnership authorizing Davis Horn Incorporated to submit a land use application to the City of Aspen and represent them in the land use approval process Please contact me at 925-6587 if I can provide any additional information and or materials. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, DA IS HORN 17RATED 1 GLENN HORN AICP FRUIVA 1 . - ! MIN UZI • • �_•. _�'� t O P- d'� 4 �1 �; \ '�i'Ea•®yam e11 f�g•#a U 3 o ASPEN HI S AXMK Y.rW, ROBERTAM STERN ARCHITEM C nnin . '. SCHYVESCR GORpOR. YEYCR \ T - VULAGE GRADING PLAN `Ar ��T _ �� _ _ _ PART ONE _���' �L-201 �� ? A ff �:aJi I Z W U 1111 1 �C 6 at ROBERT AM STERN ��. c M Brno ==__-------- __ - B 11 cn / x..,.�..�. CREEK —ROAD- -- — — — -- ---- -- -- - -- -_ !� RO r MAROONws �9 / UAGEGRADING PLAN PART THREE a — L-203 — -- ' i 2 a y i 6 7 b 9 i ,� tI t ;S 1 to ATTACMW A RESOLL71ON OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMSSIONERS OF PTTKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, GRANTING DETA= SUBMISSION. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMUUgT, 1041 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD REVIE:I.:.IND SPECIAL REVIEW .APPROVAL. TO THE ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE PUD Resolution No. 97-. P.:.^isms 1. :applicant. Project Location. and Approval Requests - HILp mountain Limited Parmership, Aspen Highlands Mountain Linut J Liability Company, Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation. Whipple Van Ness Jones and Hines Highlands Limited Partnership. (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") have applied to Pitkin County for approval of the .-kspen Highlands Village ("AHV") project. The appiicauon specifically requests approval for Rezoning, Sc=:al Review. Growth Management Quota Svstem Allotments (,"GMQS") and Detailed SubmissionlPlanned Unit Development ("PUD"). The A .Aspen Highlands Village site is located in the -Maroon C:ee:; Valley at the base of the Aspen Highlands Ski Area and contains approximateiv 70 acres. The parcel is snore specifically described in Exhibit A. The SubdivWotvPUD General/Conc=tual Submission was approved with conditions as evidenced in Board of County Commissioners ("Board") Resoluhon 96-i41 ("Exhibit B"). 2. Existing Uses - The subject site is improved with the Maroon Creek Lodge three ski Iifts and the Aspen Highlands Ski Area base area facilities and a parking lot containing approximately 742 off- street parking spaces. Existing buildings contain approximateiv 39.194 square feet of commercial space, 1,970 square feet of skier services. and 13 tourist accommodation units in the Maroon Creek Lodge. In the late 1980's Pitkin County issued a demolition permit to demolish the Highlands Ian which contained forty -tune (49) tourist accommodation units. 4W souare feet of retail space and =.500 square .ztc .,f jar -no :estauram space. she ligmanos .nn was aemousnea sur)sequem to the issuance of the demolition permit. 3. The Plan - The land use actions identified in the title of this resolution are the second step in the approval process necessary to enable the Applicants to demolish all of the existing buildings at the base of the Aspen Highlands Ski Area and construct AHD . a new mixed -use village on the site. The Plan summarized in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission: Consolidated Doctnnents, September 1997 constitutes the Site Specific Development Plan as defined in Section 6-5.7. of the Pitldn County Land Use Code. The AHV Plan includes the following elements; • Thirty-one (3 1) single family detached free-market dwelling units, • Thirty-two (32) townhouse free-market residential dwelling units; • Sevenry-three (73) tourist accommodation units; • Thirry-seven (37) Category 1 dorm units (housing 61 people); • Twenty-two (22) single family Category 4 affordable housing sale units (4 bedroom); • One (1) single family Category 4 affordable housing sale unit (3 bedroom); Twenty-eight (28) townhouse Category 3 affordable housing sale units (3 bedroom); • Eight (8) Category 1 and eig ht (8) Category _multi -family sale twits (1 bedroom); : • Three (3) Category 3 one bedroom rental units; • Four (4) Category 3 two bedroom rental units; Ten ! 10) Caretaker Dwelling Units; Resoiuuon No. 97-: Pane • Twenrv-one thousand, six hundred (21.600) square feet of retail space (Net Leaseable Area "N�"): • Twelve thousand (12.000) square feet of accessory skier services (1YLA): • Fourteen thousand. one hundred twenty -rive (14.125) square feet of restaurant space NLA): • three thousand (3.000) square feet of condominium meeting rooms ( NL.-\): • One thousand eight hundred (' .;100) square !;:t or aicetu� rooms (NLA ); • T wo thousand two hundred _.300) square fer, � s;:: . • tour hunured fifty (450) parin.;.-a 5torage WLA): g spaces for cnr Aspen Highlands Sid Area: and • Two hundred and thirty (230) off-street parking spaces for the affordableiousme and tourist accommodation units and AHV eamiovees. - The Dr000sed ohysical lavout of the project is depicted on the attached "Exhibits C :hroueh F . " The County certified Aspen Highlands Village: Detailed Submission subsmntiaiiv comDiete m January of 1997. -,n addition. m accoraance with common practice. esters and supplemental information have been suornined to the record by the Applicant. County staff and the public. The Aspen Highlands Detailed Submission Consolidated plan was submitted to the record so reference materials comprisingall the Site Specific Development Plan would be available in one document. 4. Applicable Land Use Code - The Applies submitted the .4liV: General Submission land use application in June of 1993 and did not receive General Submission val until April of 1994, the Board of County Commissioners ado aggro Min 13. 1996. In resolution (Board Resolution # 94-08), the Board a �w land use code. By separaze established a policy for the review of land use applications which were in process at the time of adoption of the "new" Code. Resolution ; 94-68 specifically states that "all active land use applications that have been submitted by March shall '-e o.vP? 6. i aoa ,; -- - - - --.:tie term active pas been established by the Board as meaning an application which is substantially complete and ready to be scheduled for review. Since the AHV application was not only complete, but had actually been before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners prior to March 16th, the Board found that the Highlands Village application met the criteria for an "active" application at the time of the adoption of the "new" Land Use Code. In accordance with Board Resolutions 95-10 and 96-6. the Board and Applicant Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) allotments and e muwally agreed that all to Sections 3-140, 3-150, 3-160 of the "new". Pitkin.Co ad Use exemptions would be processed pursuant County Land Use Code. 5. Planning and Zoning Commission Detailed Submission Review submitted the AHV: Detailed Submission in November of 19% and the County The Applicant additional materials prior to certifying the application as complete. The guested ided additional materials in January of 1997, and the application was scheduled for review by th the pitldn County Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission ("Commission") considered the application at on March 18, 1997, April 1, 1997, April 7, 1997, April 14, 1997 ands meetings application, Co April �, 1997. After consideration of the County staff and public comments the Commission recommended approval of the application with conditions. IIIII IIIII I IN 1111111111111,I ?lily 9';:111111111IIN Resolution No. 97- lam' Page 3 6. Growth Management Quota System Review Process - T1;.- application specifically requests Aspen Metro Area allotments for commercial Employee Generation Units (EGU's), tourist accommodation units, affordable housing units and free market units in the Affordable Housing Overlav (AHO) zone. On March 18. 1997. the Growth Management Commission ('GMC-) considered the applicant's reouest for 11 Aspen Metro Area 1996 tourist accommodation allotments __ . -uly noticed public heating and :ecommenaed that the Aspen City Couuc:l ("Council ind :he Boc_ :-:rt allotments to AHV. The Council approved the allotments pursuant to Aspen City Council Resoiution 41 Series of 1997 and the Board granted the allotments pursuant to this resolution. The remaining 62 tourist accommodation alloQnents necessary to build AHV areldemoiidon and reconstruction credits for the demolition of the Highlands Inn and the Maroon Creek Lodge. On August =6, 1997 the Commission heid a duly noticed public hearing to consider the .-3ppiicanr's request for 29 Employee Generation Units (EGU's) available to the 1996 Pitkin County Commercial Growth Management Quota System i'"GMQS"} Competition. After scoring the application the Commission recommended that the Board grant the =9 EGU's to AHV. The Board granted the allotments pursuant to Resolution No. 97-185. On .august 26. 1997 the GMC held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Applicant's request to be designated as an exceptional project pursuant to Section 3-160.30 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. The GMC found AHV co meet the standards for designation as an exceptional project and recommended that the Board and City Council award forry-three (43) free market units (AH associated) and one hundred twelve (112) deed restricted affordable housing units (affordable housing) multi -year allotments to AHV. The Board granted the allotments pursuant to this resolution and the Council approved the allotments pursuant to City Council Resolution 44. Series of 1997. .ice -- '' -- i-in*ier Reo+ew �cess - -he Board considered the AHV Detailed .. .. _ - Submission application at public meetings on June 6. 1997, June �0, 1997, .iuty lb, ; 99 7, anu September 10, 1997. The Board considered the AHV Detailed Submission at a duly noticed public hearing on September 24. 1997. The Board considered the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Subrnission Consolidated Plan at the September 24, 1997 public hearing. The Board finds that the Detailed Submission changed during the review process in response to commetus by the public, Commission and Board. The Board specifically finds that changes to the AHV Detailed Submission are typical of changes to significant land use applications in Pitkin County and such changes do not constitute a new land use application. The Board finds that the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan, September 1997 constitutes the Site Specific Development Plan as defined in Section 6-5.7 of the Code. 8. Aspen Area General -Plan - The Board finds that the AHV Detailed Submission as modified during the review process is consistent with the Aspen Area General Plan as amended by applicable comprehensive plans and the policies and regulations of the Piddn Co City Land Use Code. 9. Pitidn County Land Use Code Compliance - The Board -finds the application to be in compliance with the Planted Unit Development (PUD) standards (Section 3-7) and permits variations from Land Use Code requiremems as represented in the Aspen Highlands PUD and requested by the applicant in accordance with the Aspen Highlands VMage Detailed Submisdon Consolidated Plan in i iniii nisi ime mm mii 111 1111w 1 Hiii lill IN Resolution No. 97-L� Page 4 accordance with the standards of Section : =. The Board finds that -the proposed Plan. subject to sansfacuon of conditions listed in this Resoluuon. adequately avoids or mitigates Geologic Hazard Areas (5-401), Floodplam Hazard Areas (5-�01). Wig Hazard Areas (5-404), Histonc and Archaeological Resource Areas (5-405). Addiuonaiy, the Board fords the proposed land use application complies with Land Use Code standards for Activities of Local and State Interest (5-407 2.h) Finally, the Board finds the proposea land use application complies with the Detailed Submission standards of the Code (6-;). NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOL17" by the Roan� ghat it does hereby grant Detaiied Submission. Planned Unit Development. 1041 Environmentai Hazard Review. Subdivision Ese=tion for Condominiums. and Special Review approval for multi -family and retail uses and as a TDR receiving site for'_0 single family dweang units for AHV subject to the conditions iisted.below. Additionally. he Board does hereby ;rant AHV 11 Mello Area tourist accommodation allotments. ? 1? Metro Area affordable housing allotments for an affordable housing development. and 43 Metro Area free market housing allotments for an AH associated development. 1. All conditions of BOCC Resolution No. 96-141 shall be adhered to unless specifically modified by the terms of these conditions. 2. The applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application, supplemental materiais. and in public meetings. The applicant or development entity shall be responsible for all material representations made in General Submission, Detailed Submission. Final Plat, the Aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide and the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA). In the event of conflicting representations during the four vear land use review process, the last representations made shall control. 4. The applicant must file condominium maps in accordance with C.R.S. Section 38-33-101. 5. All floor area and dimensional requirements are as detailed in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. 6. The phasing plan that clearly identifies the ridership threshold on the existing .Castle/Maroon Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFtA) route that will trigger a requirement for the applicant to make a cash payment to RFTA for the purchase and operation of one additional bus on the route will be as documented in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. The agreement stipulates the amount of money the applicant will pay to Pitkm County for increasing the level of service on the CasdwMaroon route. In the event RFTA replaces the Castle/Maroon route with another form of transit, Piddn County may use the applicant's payment for such replacement transit service, however, the replacement service must provide service to AHV . IIIIII Illl Illllilllll IIIII III IIIIIII III ills Ell IN 472029 09/=/VM =:Z! RESOLlJTI OAVIS SILVI 4 of 54 R 0.00.0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Resolution No. 97-. Page 5 7 • The applicant and the County have agreed upon an operations and service phasing plan for an to be operand by the applicant as documented is the on -demand (Dial -a -Ride) transit system Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. g. The Aspen Skiing Company (ASC; and the Country have agreed upon an operanons and service - phasing plan for a remote parkingiskier shuttle service to be operated between AHV and 135 new dest^_nated remote pariung spaces to be estabiished at Buttermilk Ski Area as documented in the Aspen Highlands Ski Area AF-Ski Master Planapproved by the BOCC on October 1997. 9. The appiicant and the County nave agreed on a comprehensive trafficruansiuDaridn9 monitoring system plan to be undertaken by the applicant. This plan was approved by the BOCC on October 22. 1997 as Dart of the Aspen Highlands AF-Ski Master Plan. The Dian will be inciuded in the Aspen Highlands Village Demiied Submission Consoiidated Plan. This Dian shall include measures to insure Increased mitigation actions if monitoring shows that the miugauon plan is not adequate. "he SIA shall require the Applicant to minister the monitoring plan through the conclusion of Phase 4 of the construction. and for three years thereafter. The monitoring system address the following issues. a) If the trips generated by -' V exceed projections in the "Revised Maroon Creek Corridor Detailed TransPOM-mon Plan . February, 1997, so as" to require mitigation for those additional impacts the additional mitiganon required by the applicant must be approved by the BOCC based upon recommendations of the Community Development Department and any appropriate referral agency (e.g.. RFrA and/or the County Engineer)• b) If the number of trips generatedis lower than projected. then the applicant shall be entitled to suggest a reduction in the traffic mitigation programs then being funded. Such reduction shall be based upon a finding by the BOCC that the reduction is appropriate. In no case, ti.,•v?•�- shall the Applicant be eligible for a refund of amr portion of the infrastructure donation described in paragraph 9 oeiow. c) The SIA shall specify that the applicant shall be responsible for the performance of this P condition and security for such performance shall be provided. 10. The transportation and air quality monitoring required by the Applicant shall be the subject of an annual report which shall contain at a minimum the following information: 1. Daily weather conditions. 2. Notation if Aspen schools are open on given day. 3. Air quality readings at Maroon Creek and downtown monitors. 4. Daily slier visits based upon Aspen Skiing Company surveys — this data may not be available for each day 5. Daily parking lot counts and HOV counts. 111111111111111111111111111111xmmm�m�Ia Resolution -No. 97—�' Page o 6. Daily RFTA ridership — on survey days data will be collected identifying skiers vs. non -skiers vs. employees. 7. Daily notanon of any special event taking place at Aspen Highlands. 8. Daiiv traffic counts at specific locations to be identified by the applicant and the County Transportation Consultant. 9. Daily counts of cars parked in Aspen Highlands Subdiv•...: iseiitu Park. 10. Establish set days to do surveys in parking lots — surveys to include: point of ongin. peopie in ar, type of pass. skiers vs. zNt-skiers.:HOV's. 11. Daily indication if streets in area were swept that day. 12. Courtesy van drop-off counts. 13. Signs on State Highway 82 and Maroon C=k Road and the effea on traffic when sins nonce that parking lot is fuel or that paid parking is in effect — sign locations should include: prior to Tiehack. prior to Brush Creek Road, Castle Creek/Maroon Creek. 11. Applicant has agreed to donate 5650.000 for infrastructure improvements along the Maroon Creek/Casde Creek/Highway 82 intersection and Maroon Creek Road. The applicant has also committed to a donation of S350.000 for long-range improvements to the Castle Maroon intersection as agreed to by the BOCC and Aspen City Council. The donations shall be made upon Final Plat recordation. 12. The Planning and Zoning Commission strongly encourages that the proposed short-term improveme= :o ;he Castle. Marcon/Hiehwav 821 intersection be made forthwith and that the County and City work together to devise a mutually acceptable ante timely solution to the ongoing problem. 13. The 450 space skier parking lot shall be paid parking when the ski area is open for skiing. Utilization of summer parking shall be reviewed by the BOCC two years after completion of Phase Four to determine if paid parking should be implemented. 14. Consistent with existing practice, the primary stazin4 for the Maroon Bells bus shall not occur at AHV . The preferred start point for Maroon Bells tours shall be at Ruby Park- For down- vallev visitors using RFTA or the train there shall be a transfer at the proposed station at the intersection of Highway 82 and Maroon and Castle Creek Roads. The Maroon Bells tour buses shall pick-up riders at Highlands and tickets shall be available for sale to Highlands residents and guest. 15. Any overflow parking whether from skiers, or residents, or visitors to the village shall not be allowed on Maroon Creek Road or other public rights of way in the neighborhood. If parking on the Maroon Creek Road becomesa problem, the applicant will assist Pitidn County in enforcement of this provision through sigmge and public awareness measures. 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN Resolution No. 97- page 7 - 16. An audit of "Full Time Equivalent Employees" shall be conducted at the applicant's expense one vear after completion of Phase Four. The applicant shall be responsible for housing mitigation of airy employee generation over and above that contemplated at the time of Detailed Subdivision approval. If the reauired audit shows a reduction in employee generation the applicant may seeic a credit to be used on other Pitldn County projects. 1-. The ^colic. shall be allowed to lease two Category = :wo-bedroom units to qualified emptovees u( the applicant's choice. 18. The applicant shall be allowed to sell four single-family homes, four town homes. and two one - bedroom units to qualified ernjipvees of the applicant's choice. In all cases the requirements of the Housing Authority must be met along with the qualification that in the three -and four - bedroom units, at least one of the uidividuais must be a dependent as defined in the Housing Authonry guidelines. 19. Pnonty for the use of the proposed dormitory units shall be given to employees of the project or the aspen Skiing Company during the fall. winter and spring. in the summer season use priority will be for Music Associates of aspen students. employees and/or teaching staff. 20. The floor plans for the dormitory units shall be developed as reviewed and approved by the Housing Office. 21. All designated affordable housing shall be appropriately deed restricted and such restrictions shall be recorded prior to conveyance of such housing. 2-1. Those lots which will be permitted to have caretaker Units shall be designated on the Final Plat. 23. The use of transferable development ngnu k'TDt2s snau or ..pp:��G• .0 submission, provided however, that the total floor area exempted from growth management for every TDR transferred is 5.000 square feet and any additional square footage beyond 5,000 square feet for any single unit utilizing a TDR shall require a growth management allotment or an additional TDR. The required TDRs must be acquired prior to approval of final plat. 24. Affordable housing shall be consmicted and made available according to the phasing plan as presets in the written description in the Aspen Highlands Village Derailed Submission Consolidated Plan. 25. Prior to approval of Final Plat by the BOCC the applicant shall provide evidence that the project will be served with public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 26. No building permits for the parking structure shall be issued until such time as the State of Colorado Department of Health approves the ventilation system for the parking structure. The ventilation system shall be presented to the. Pitkin County EnvirormettaI Health Department for review and comment. I!I III 11111 IIIIII IIIIII IIIII 1111111111 III IIIII IIII illl 4225� W38 LM a3;=P IMSOLUTI 7AVIS SILVI 7 of 54 R a.00 D 6.00 N 0.00 PMIN COUNTY CO iResolution No. 07- Page s � 7, No building permits shall be'ss� until a fugitive dust controi plan has been reviewed and r approved by the Environmental Health Department. T inatrngin riTr= Preservarinn[Weed CM110i ' The AHV weed d controi plan for all areas to be disturbed shall be as approved by the County Lan:. :nd dccumerted in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Comuiivated Plan. ' 39k11 stoctmilcd soils will be treated with a biodegradable hydro mulch to serve as a dust palliative. in scre--=g along \Maroon Creels Road shall be cotnDleted in the rust 3Q• The proposed Iandst.ap g� ;rowing season after completion of the parking structure and project entryway. 31• The Wiitrout Pond area shall be enhanced with additional landscaping as shown on the pian. 32. Project Lighting levels. standards. and limitations shall comply with .men Highlands Tillage Detailed Submission Consolidated Pla n. These tstandthe a� amebas cmhe Subdivision � �rovemetns Highlands Village PUD Guide to P Agreement - landscaping plan shall be included in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed 33. The revised landscap g d Plan. Wildflower species to be used must be listed by scientific name Submission Consolidate and common name and must be native species indigenous w the Roaring Fork Valley..T local wildflower seed source must be used with the seed to be collected from the Roaring o ' Valley. L�-4—;;-i nibmission 34. Landscaping associates wttn rnaseb documents, shall be contained in detail in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement ("SIA"). The Applicant shall be responsible for the performance of all landscaping associated with Phases 1 through 4 and the performance of all landscaping obligations shall be secured through one of the following performance guaramem: bond, letter of credit, cash escrow or a guarantee enforceable by the County or the City upon annexation. The security shall be in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of completion of the landscaping- 35. The SIA shall specify a definite landscaping phasing schedule, which includes the specific timing for all landscaPing installation along with each phase of the development. 36. The SIA shall require the applicant to provide guarantees for all plant materials for two growing seasons after initial installation. 37. The SIA shall require the applicant to revegetate all disturbed areas- These area shall be planted with a mixture of indigenous grasses and wildflowers and the use of invasive grasses shall be prohibited. i mill mn1111E 1119-1�m IF � o1111111 Resolution No. Page 9 ' 38 The SIA snail include a weed control plan. paracularhv in the wildflower meadows. The first level of weed control should be non -chemical, though chemicals may be permitted if weed control fails. 39. The single-family landscaping requirements small be included in the Aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide. The single-family lands,- mg requirements shall be specifically enforceable by the County. or the City upon annexadon. and shall: a) reauin:::: revegetation cI all disturbed areas wit :he planting of a mixture of indigenous grasses and wildflowers. l A list or proposed sDecirs snail be provided to the County Land Manager for review and approval prior to approval of final plat): ..! b) prohibit the use of all non -indigenous plant species, particularly invasive grasses. c) prohibit landscape lighting. 40. Tree removal will be limited to approved building envelopes and driveways. roads rights -of - way and utiliry corridors. 41. The landscaping improvements committed to by the applicant as part of the detailed submission shall be specific obligations of the applicant or his assigns. 42. At Final Plat a benchmark elevation will be established in the proposedVillage-Core in order to provide a reference point for reconstructed grade and all other elevation measurements. 43. All variances from current Code standards will be established. in a Aspen Highlands Village DT m Guide to be adopted at final plat approval. Any subsequent variances shall require modification of the Detailea Sunmvtston approva► "a" ..=_ _ _ _ _ except for variances which may Qualify as Minor Amendments to a Development Permit under Code Section 3,200.80. 44. The height of all structures in the Maroon. Thunderbowl Neighborhoods will be measured from the grades established by a grading plan approved by the BOCC in an adopted Aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide. In the case of any grading manipulation within a building envelope which alters this adopted grading plan. height measuremem will be from the final finished grade or the adopted grading plan which ever is more restrictive. 45. A topographic map of the reconstructed grade has been adopted as shown in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan, and will also be. included in the Aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide to be adopted at the same time as the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. The reconstructed grade topographic map shall be unlized as the basis for measuring the height of all strictures in the Village Core including the parking and transit drop-off area. 46 All setbacks will be established by building envelopes as shown on a site plan and table in the Aspen Highlands Village Derailed Submission Consolidated Plan and will also be included in the Aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide to be adopted at final plat approval. 11111101111 IM111 Ill 1E1 1111 ICI 422629 09/30/1998 03:2Zr RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 9 of 54 R 0.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PIWIN COUNTY CO Resolution No. 97- Page 10 47. Floor Area will be measured and defined as shown in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan and m the Aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide to be adopted at final plat approval. 48. Protective covenants shall be subrrutted to the Country prior to approval of the final plat. 49. T.ie concepts for the proposed architecn.ral guidelines for the singie-family units are as documented in the aspen Highlands Village Detailed Stu ::us.on :-nsoiidated Plan. 50. The applicant shall not be permitted to construct any building with a reflective metal roof or any other roof material that cads to reflect light. 51. No development or ciearmg of vegetation outside of established building enveiopes. utility corridors or platted roaas will be permitted. Planting of indigenous species of plants and trees will be permitted outside of building envelopes. No land forms higher than three feet will be allowed to be constructed inside building envelopes. 52. A detailed construction trafficrparking management/phasing plan shall be as documented in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consoliciared Plan. It addresses the following: a) The sequence of construction. b) The hours of proposed construction for each day of the week. c) The proposed permitted delivery hours; and d) How the car-pooling, em. will be enforced. 53. The Pitkin County Noise Ordinance must be adhered to at all times ana any vtoiauons wut result in appropriate enforcement and sanctions. 54. During construction, no parking will be permitted by any Highlands visitor, employee, or contactor except on -site or approved pooling locations. 55. No dogs shall be permitted on the construction site. 56. Prior .to Final Plat approval by the BOCC a Storm Water Management Plan which includes at a minimum a storm water pollution prevention component shall be submitud and approved by the County Engineer, the Solid Waste Manager, the State, and Director of Envirommental Health. This plan shall address the innizUenwre of the various components of the storm water pollution prevention, such as drainage -of ponds. removal and disposal of silt and debris, mainrrnanCe of the condition of silt fencing, removal, disposal, and replacement of hay bales and other preventative measures. 57. All permanent inf-Astrucinre subject to the Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall be cleaned by applicant and inspected by the County Engineer before acceptance. i ium n� olio iiim imi ni iii��oi iii oau m im Resolution No. 97— (^ Page 11 58. Prior to issuance of development permit the applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan for the approval of the County Engineer. This plan snail show the typicaldetails and locations of nprap structures. Parks and Schools Detiic�rinn A..n. ;9. Requirements for schools land dedications or cash -in -lieu fees shall be as per the Land Use Code. 60. The aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan shall have vesring for a period or years from approv* of this resolunon. but substantial Drogress will be interpreted after compienon of Phase 1. 61. Parks dedication shall be as deu_ acted on drawing P 2 of the AM= Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. 62. The effective date of this resolution shall be the same as the effective date of the ordinance rezoning the aspen Highlands Village: Ordinance No. 97-39 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON THE=ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1997. INTRODUCED, AND FIRST READ AT THE REGULAR MEETING ON THE LOTH DAY OF SEPTEIIBER, 1997. APPROVED AND ADOPTED AFTER SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING �N TPJE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER. 1997. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION IN THE ON 'THE7 v DAY O ,1997. — Jeanette Jones D4uty Clerk and APPROVED AS TO FORM BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PrrKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Bill Tuite Chairman DATE: :r— �— RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION John Ely Cindy Houben Attorney Community Development Director i Illill IIIII IIIIII IIIIII illll III IIIlIII !II IIIIII III Ilil 422629 09/30/19" 0322lr It DAVIS SILVI 11 of 54 R 0.00 0 0.08 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ORDINANCE NO.B (Series of 2000) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE "ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE PUD" ANNEXATION. WHEREAS, on January 14, 2000, one hundred percent (100%) of the owners of certain property situate adjacent to the boundaries of the City of Aspen did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen, whereby real property described in said Petition for Annexation, is being petitioned for annexation to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2000, the City Council did adopt Resolution No. 7, Series of 2000, finding substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; establishing March 13, 2000, as the date for a public hearing to determine compliance with Sections 31-12-104 and 31- 12-105, C.R.S.; and authorizing publication of said hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 30, Series of 2000) at its regular meeting on March 13, 2000, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with §§ 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the annexation of said territory to be in the City's best interest; and WHEREAS, Pitkin County granted the owners of the Aspen Highlands Village PUD land use approvals that have been memorialized in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement and Planned Unit Development pursuant to the County's Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations; and WHEREAS, the Pitkin County PUD regulations differ slightly from the City's PUD land use regulations and experience has indicated that on occasion, following an annexation of property into the City that has received land use approvals in the County, it becomes necessary to make minor amendments to the Final Plat and PUD; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to allow the City's Community Development Director to approve said minor amendments to the PUD and Final Plat consistent with the County PUD land use regulations that do not clearly contradict City PUD regulations without the necessity to amend the City land use regulations or require the applicant to follow needlessly cumbersome City land use regulations for minor amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Annexation. commonly referred to as the "aspen Highlands Village PUD", and as shown on the annexation maps, is hereby annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado. Section 2. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows: (a) To file one copy of the annexation maps with the original of this annexation ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen. (b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation maps with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. (c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation maps with the Division of Local Government of the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado. Section 3. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend the Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this annexation ordinance. Section 4. The Community Development Director is hereby authorized to approve minor PUD amendments to the Aspen Highlands Village PUD which are intended to change an element or condition of the development permit; provided, however, that the proposed amendments are consistent with the following standards: a. The amendment must be a clarification or a technical correction to a plat. b. The amendment must not change the use of the proposed development between residential, commercial and tourist accommodation uses. C. The amendment must be consistent with action taken during the review of the original development and does not constitute new land development activity. d. The proposed activity does not: i. Change the basic character of the approved use of land on which the activity occurs including basic visual appearance and method of operation; ii. Increase off -site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood; iii. Endanger public health, safety or welfare; iv. Substantially increase the need for on -site parking or utilities, or affect affordable housing generation; and V. Increase the floor area of the use by more than two (2) percent or decrease open space on the site by more than three (3) percent. Section 5. The Community Development Director is hereby authorized to approve minor plat amendments to the Aspen Highlands Village PUD; provided, however, that the proposed amendments are consistent with the following standards: a. The amendment increases or does not affect the degree of compliance with land use code standards; 3 b. The amendment is being made to a recorded plat which has been approved by the City; and C. The amendment is consistent with representations made to Pitkin County during the conceptual and detailed subdivision reviews whichever is applicable. Section 6. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the /0 day of , 2000, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the � day of , 2000. chel E. Richards, M yor 4 Al 14 Ow - � �• l �� •tom R'�� ®?:. • " 'm: j��F r�'v�� �� �-a i �,•�'1��-• ~I���.'"'d _ ..<c'�yy •"''µ yf „j'l���i �i�� \ � ;' • � �_ • �• 1. A� ` 7 ��,// j • I r t' / �� �gls4T:\��`� ` /� - �:.,: •,.:.,�.�� - .. � � ...u.,,,„. _ // �' ;!,�.,,='Y', - ,;. ROBERT A.M. STERN ARCHTI'ECTS `\ �•.�' t. ,i:'� .. ��'',,.s ��//�/' �" 460WFSI74thSiRt,NEW YOMNY10001 • - \ '�\ = -- 'V . �'., J _ .� 'r,�"�,7/ i .'r/, / / TF3. (212) %7.5100 • FAX (212) 967.55U �Qa• •► � �` � •• • � %� .� � j SCNYUESER. CORDON. MEYER I O� + • ��.�'• "`(" ` � __'-� _ - _ _-= `_ .�N�t;� �, / � •�•.,� �� / aa.om vacs. m . wi SITE PLAN y i =6o31 Oi A&Ir !. w.p CAD P. o Scar A o,a.,.o Na. , -'------- -- L-200 --_ - - 3 4 5/ 1 6 1 7 8 1 9 1 10 )) 12 .,c _v[r.,zv.� wc:•cvr.o a-,-s __ , i H r E 3 A • , /'totWE op, j NMI =�� hv'.�/�'� -- , P�, v���NI//A,.`, �� • �� a���q•3'.��� �� �� � � /j��?�//A/A R,. 7/J6 III_ \l�S�'+'r/� • • �G v� \� � `s� , � K�r� t� / //y�%9'�w�� s ///4/�yytp � 4 _ 0 y 4O%ALL n 2 3 1 4 5 1 6 1 7 I g 1 9 I 10 tt 12 I I ' ROBERT AM STERN ARCEIITEM .66 WXFr )Ii STLLPPl. NEW TOIL NY IWD1 TEL R1n W-5100 . FAX alT 967430 SCHYUESER, GORDON. MEYER /�,G1 QI1m0. fco .,., am) m-mo. VII.LAGE GRADING PLAN PART ONE Projs, " Dom 46=a .L 9. iao6 CJ�D M M0. SCAM Liao 0.0 r.3oo' O,." n,a. L-201 w % U t X+ ca 0 T7 S ME 'rT + a n •n +7 4 14 ot 7� LEV ELEV ELEV • STC-PS DN RISERS e• TREADS .eon / A FLE V p G E R OA D L L ji .. ., , is%d/,%!•.. !' / . .i. r]b 'KANSIT PLAZA ELEV m� a• —*ERRAC.E ELEV ID A I ?e&, IJI 80Bb- PRIVATE 1—j TERRACES j . \ 10 X LEGEND Ll non AND i • ^ \ / / POOL 7L'RRA[f •saes , � •\. � / � \ WALL STM • \ / ' \ \ / /� M NTRANGE L'V. / I] YIALL \ I O \ // %O AV/ \\ y •9 a � / A ELEV nDR I AGGESS. / • ./ "- ._ - \ 1 AND ` CART / / / /' -_ - - ,, _•\ 1 O \ � 1. v KEY PLAN 19 —40— 85 ibtoa PO, \\�11 U 4 R PARKING R P A R K I *' G DECK ELEV — ^i b n — DAY SKIER ENT ELEV • GAR ENTRANCE TO LD/•ER / I 50-70 _ - — — - - •gale' , . CREEK ROAD LEFT Tl1RN LANE -- _ --- __._ _—_ —_-- — _• �j_�s1aass. I E mom_ B ICD � • ' MAROON C IL ROBERT A.M. STERN ARCH[TECfS G 4b0 wPSf Nm 57111s7.74°�1 YORC HY IOOOt TM(213)%7-5100 •FAX(ZJZ)%7S= SCHUMER. GORDON. YEYER I' -LLAGE GRADING PLAN PART THREE j30 .o. Scale L-203 (JI � W d ma'I C4 W Z. 40 j_ • I f 1 DavIs Hornc - PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSULTING March 20, 2000 Joyce Ohlson City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Highlands Village: Planned Unit Development Amendment Dear Joyce: Davis Horn Incorporated and Kaufman & Peterson represent the Hines Highlands Limited Partnership ("applicant") in this land use application. The applicant is the developer of Aspen Highlands (AHV) Planned Unit Development (PUD). The City of Aspen is in the process of annexing and zoning Aspen Highlands Village (AHV) Planned Unit Development. This land use application seeks minor amendments to the PUD. The applicant requests the amendments to be considered simultaneously with the annexation and zoning process to allow for construction to occur in the spring/summer 2000 building season. The following three requests are changes to the PUD requiring action by the City. 1. Maroon Creek Road Retaining Wall - A retaining wall is proposed on the uphill side of Maroon Creek Road below Lots 17, 18 and 19. This wall help stop bank erosion. 2. Modification to Maroon & Thunderbowl Townhouses - Original concept plans for the townhouses proposed primarily attached units. However, Pitkin County approvals provided flexibility for the applicant to vary the configuration of the units. The applicant is now proposing a combination of attached and detached townhouses. 3. High School Lift Towers - The AHV Planned Unit Development Guide (PUD Guide) restricts the height of lift towers to 40 feet. The applicant is proposing lift towers as high as 55 feet. In addition to the preceding requests which require a PUD amendment, the annexation and zoning process needs to address the following two material representations made by the applicant during the PUD approval process which are not explicitly addressed in the ALICE DAVIS, AICP i GLENN HORN, AICP 215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. • SUITE 104 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 970/925-6587 • FAX: 970/925-5180 Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 2 approval documents: 1. Vendor Carts & Outdoor Restaurants - The applicant consistently represented that there would be street vendors and outdoor restaurants on plazas and streets. 2. Special Events - The applicant consistently represented during the land use review process that AHV and Aspen Highlands Ski would intermittently sponsor special events such as ski races. Ancillary activities including, but not limited to, outdoor advertising, blow-up sponsor balloons and amplified music may take place in association with some special events. The applicant requests that findings be made in the annexation and zoning process recognizing that street vendors and outdoor restaurant seating are permitted on the streets and plazas in AHV. Additionally, there should be findings that special events with ancillary activities may occur in AHV. These findings are consistent with approvals granted by Pitkin County. LAND USE APPROVALS On June 28, 1999 the City of Aspen approved Ordinance No. 24 Series of 1999 which established a procedure and standards for minor PUD amendments to the Moore Family PUD. Section 4 of the ordinance states the procedure is intended to address changes to "elements or conditions of the development permit." We anticipate similar standards will be adopted to address the AHV PUD annexation. This letter demonstrates compliance with these standards. The City of Aspen recently adopted Ordinance No. 35 series 1999 which establishes new PUD regulations (Section 26.445.100). This letter also demonstrates compliance with Section 26.445.100 of the Regulations. Standards appear in bold followed by the applicant's response. Standard a. The amendment must be a clarification or a technical correction to the plat. Response The plat is not affected by any the proposed changes. Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 3 Standard b. The amendment must not change the use of the proposed development between residential, commercial and tourist accommodations uses. Changes in uses are not proposed. Standard c. The amendment must be consistent with action taken during the review of the original development and does not constitute new land development activity. Maroon Creek Road Retaining Wall Attachment 1, Maroon Neighborhood Grading Plan which is drawing L-204 in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan, does not show a retaining wall below Lots 17, 18 and 19. There has been an eroding cut bank located above Maroon Creek Road for many years. Much of the bank is located within the Maroon Creek Road right-of-way. The erosion is not a product of AHV, rather it results from the original development of Maroon Creek Road. The grading plan originally submitted should have proposed a retaining wall below Lots 17, 18 and 19 to address the historic erosion problem. It was an oversight for the applicant and Pitkin County not to address this problem. The County Engineer, Bud Eylar, has been consulted regarding the erosion problem. The applicant is coordinating with Bud regarding the construction of the retaining wall. Attachment 2 is a July 22, 1999 letter from John Mechling of CTL/Thompson, Inc. describing the plans for the retaining wall. Modification to Maroon & Thunderbowl Townhouses Attachments 3 and 4 are copies of the drawings L-201 and L-203 in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. These drawings establish the building envelopes for the Maroon and Thunderbowl townhouse neighborhoods. The final plans do not include specific plans for the configuration of the townhouses. Pitkin County approved the future subdivision of the townhouse neighborhoods. Townhouse plats and condominium maps must be filed in with the Clerk & County Recorder in accordance with Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 4 Colorado statutes. The County approvals provided flexibility to the applicant to vary the configuration of the townhouses. Condition # 2 of Board of County Commissioners Resolution 97-167 (see Attachment 5) which granted Detailed Submission approvals addressed representations made in the approval process. During the AHV PUD general and detailed submission reviews the applicant proposed that the Maroon and Thunderbowl townhouses would include a variety of attached and detached configurations. The following attachments depict the approved concepts incorporated into the Detailed Submission for the townhouses: Attachment 6 - AHV PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-100 General Submission Site Plan. Attachment 7 - AHV PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-200 Site Plan. Attachment 8 - AHV PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-201 Village Grading Plan Part One. Attachment 9 - AHV PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-203 Village Grading Plan Part Three. Plans for the Maroon and Thunderbowl townhouses have been refined since final County approvals. The applicant would like to clarify the current configuration of the townhouses. Most of the townhouses in each neighborhood will be detached rather than attached townhouses, generally in accordance with the concepts illustrated in attachments 8 and 9. All of the townhouses will be located within the established building envelopes in compliance the final PUD approvals (see Attachments 3 and 4 Drawings L-201 & 203). The primary purposes of detaching the townhouses are to increase the amount of natural light and ventilation, improve views and reduce massing. Attachments 10 and 11 depict the current conceptual site plans for the Maroon and Thunderbowl townhouses. High School Lift Towers - The Area & Bulk requirements of the AHV PUD Guide restricts lift towers to 40 feet. Since the adoption of the PUD Guide preliminary engineering for the lift has been completed. Some of the lift towers will exceed 40 feet. Modifying the tower height limitation is not inconsistent with original land use approvals. Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 5 Standard d.i. The proposed activity does not change the basic character of the approved use land on which the activity occurs including the basic visual appearance and method of operation. The change to the townhouses and the construction of the retaining wall will improve the visual appearance of the Village. Both changes are improvements to the PUD. The detached townhouses will reduce massing and increase the quality of the habitable space. The increase in lift tower height will not result in a change in the visual appearance of AHV. Standard d.ii. The proposed activity does not increase off -site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed minor amendments will not result in an increase in off -site impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The detached townhouses will be a positive impact on the neighborhood and the retaining wall will prevent erosion which would impact Maroon Creek Road. The increased height of lift towers will not impact the neighborhood. Standard d.iii. The proposed activity does not endanger public health, safety or welfare. The proposed amendments do not affect public health, safety or welfare. Standard d.iv. The proposed activity does not substantially increase the need for on -site parking or utilities, or affect affordable housing generation. The proposed amendments do not affect on -site parking, utilities or affordable housing generation. Standard d.v. The proposed activity does not increase the floor area of the use by more than two (2) percent or decrease open space on the site by Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 6 more than three (3) percent. Open space and floor area are not significantly affected by the proposed amendment. Section 26.445.100 The proposed AHV PUD amendments comply with all of the standards of Section 26.445.100 of the Regulations with the exception of standard # 9. Standard # 9 states that: "Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements." All three of the requested PUD amendments are clarifications to the AHV PUD. Each of the changes represent improvements to the approved Plan for reasons stated in this letter. The proposed retaining wall on Maroon Creek Road will address an historic erosion problem. The County approvals provide for flexibility in the layout of the townhouses. The applicant is proposing primarily detached townhouses rather than attached. The height of the lift towers will be higher than anticipated to facilitate the most efficient lift design. SUMMARY The applicant is seeking minor amendments to the AHV PUD to address issues which have come up during the construction process. The proposed amendment complies the minor PUD amendment standards established in City or Aspen Ordinance NO. 24 series of 1999 and Ordinance NO. 35 series of 1999. The applicant is submitting $ 480.00 with this application. The following Attachments are attached to this letter for your information. Attachment 1: Maroon Neighborhood Grading Plan, drawing L- 204, Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan, Attachment 2: July 22, 1999 letter from John Mechling of CTL/Thompson, Inc. Attachment 3: Drawing L-201 Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. Joyce Ohlson March 21, 2000 Page 7 Attachment 4: Drawing L-203 Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. Attachment 5: Board of County Commissioners Resolution 97- 167 Granting Detailed Submission approval to Aspen Highlands Village PUD Attachment 6: Aspen Highlands Village PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-100 General Submission Site Plan Attachment 7: Aspen Highlands Village PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-200 Site Plan. Attachment 8: Aspen Highlands Village PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-201 Village Grading Plan Part One. Attachment 9: Aspen Highlands Village PUD Detailed Submission September 12, 1996 drawing L-203 Village Grading Plan Part Three. Attachment 10: Conceptual Site Plan for Maroon Townhouses Attachment 11: Conceptual Site Plan for Thunderbowl Townhouses Attachment 12: Letter from Hines Highlands Limited Partnership authorizing Davis Horn Incorporated to submit a land use application to the City of Aspen and represent them in the land use approval process Please contact me at 925-6587 if I can provide any additional information and or materials. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, DA IS HORN CORPORATED 1 GLENN HORN AICP I_10►lrl In III I Il ° rc i 'f ; I IY16i W I � �77 • I I I i I I( i (�lu ") ❑ ❑ � I I i j' � it c� 1 Q I`�I Cd I C.4 4 s s u v: I I 1 ` / / I .'I Illl / // /'"' /j/// -/ //i.�•\��\�\�•/ A II Ii-IIII'1\\\\\\ jv fit \\ � 1 1 1 V� \ \ ,11 � , ' 1 ► I I I I I • � I � I � i l / / � / / / / \ i � \ \ \\ \ \ f 1 1 I I `\ I 11 1 1 1' I�•}' 1 �\�\ \ YI I II 111;1, /%'/ l/ \\ �' 11 t\} \�• 1 I )' �11'! \' \�\\'I){� 111 I 1 1 II lilll//i// — ' / I,:_i'It X\\k \T 1 , \ 1 I \ \ 1 \� / \\ �\\,� , \ , , • � 1 / It ' I '-! � % 1\ \\ \ \ \\ \\. \\\\\��� I / `� � — - -- - \ Alt, 1 1 { \ \ \ \ I I \\\ \ �, v. \ AN .'l I I 1 Vr,;t.\t {�;I jl`` •�\ \ .\.� _\.\ y\ ',•''`;,.=I1 Li \ \ ,\•\\t \ \\\\\9c ?• �\ \\�� \ \ \ ' �/ 1 I 1 li�.t \�� 1 111 II; _ \ `\• . 1,,., \ (-` \<; , il'\ i�- / �tlllll Iljl!1��'- l/ � \\+ \\,i e{_Uli 11 11 JI111 \_� .' ` )11 I - _1\ ��\t\ • �� P � \ \ \ � �� � co I I \1 \• . I ' � \ I : 1_LIII 1 I r � 41�_l.—��-I 11' lr, �\\Y I';\\I I I /! ,Y �_ �}t�ju-_ ,l' � 1 III IIII _ _ � L_ _ . � \ \ \ \ — � \ � � I 1 ► , ',1 . , I \ } I I � . I" �- " E ti•' �•� � � \ \\ � � 1 • r L f�l � 1.. �:i � �Ow:, a \ � I I ) I , • ' I I . I ' 1 / ! ! 111 � 11 ! I ��I � \ \ ` t•, � 1 , 1 \t\. F�:I t;1. \ I , , / 1 r 11 it V � I,I\ � �-. _ _ -\ �'?- \\` � � � \ \ � �\\ \ 1 I � 1 I�,;� JI/ .�IJ � \ \'C\`_\�a�\\\ \\•\. I r Ili-1 / \ X/ �- •\�.-•Illl�.\ M � \ �\\ I t 1. 1 III �• / � r� � I I r - \ / \ / A� � _ .�.: • o .,\\ \ \ �. \ \ . I�lj %i/ -- \�""r_!=_ \ \ \ • \ II •` II p I 1 k\ \ - �:...:-\:< ;`.\ \ � \ 1 I II!' I� 1_� _ - \ i I o • .� _. � // /_-_ --_ _\\ �\� �:;\\\ \ \ \ \ '\ II • .I I III .�I ; ,\, u ��, .`:�\,t��\�\\h 1 I I 1�'GIL�=i-1��\ I � \ {' // /__ _ 1 \\ \ ,\\\ " `\ \ \ \ 1 \ 1 \ � J \• .. ;I:.I_ =_1 =❑ \ �\ `\\ \ 1 I ) I 1 1 �'• 1 1 1 �1� - � ' t I . � I I II I IPII 1 \ \� � �_` ` / - / \ LID / . I I r 1 11° Ili � �' l ♦ \ _ \� \ nnll hll v /,rli1 r I 1 1 I I 1 I I t / II I �_� I,1 j \ � 140 Y�y _ I 11 I I 1, 11 \ \ \ ,\11\J ,\�-_I.a'•"/,/ 1-�L11\�\ � �I\\tl;;i�\'��-��\\\\\\ �\\\ � _ \ � � �� �\\`, II1111 liviltlr,\ �) ` X\° % 1 I` / I / ♦♦ Ill�ylj'tI ''II I r is-:,>i II tllll l.��yl 1`✓ f\1' I III I / /? _ I I I \ \ \• I 1' •,, 1! 1}I I I � I ' / r- , �/If/ I I I-T\I � ♦ °,r '� '1 I I,/ ` \� — � 1'1;'I', 11 IIIIIII 1 r.LT--;._ �o ��./ / /j�--���f "� � I\I p ,1 � // \_ �// / I t\ \ \ I I \I � � ,' I\111 1111'I� 1 /;•li/:�, � j///�l� �\ \I/{!-t"T'-\l\ \ \ 't \ I 1 1 y \ I t 11 ! // /\\` / 1 1 / I `� I ,III . I '.. � / / J_c•�3� l / 1 C�_F7 \ 1 \ \ I PP t I� / / � ; ; / ♦ / O / I IIll II � l / r // I I I / / / / /. ;/.•ice / � I �!� '=�-� I l I I \ III , / ! 6 I I I \ • II 1 I 1 \ `� t•' \ ' I I I' Ir .I II ' ! II ll• 1,/,' I I I I 1 \ \ 1 II I Ile / ' 11 I! 1 I 1 I 1 I I /�\ I I I I I / I 1 I I 1 I I \ I r r l/ l !1 / ;❑ . i �i. I / A �\ \\\\\�• ArrACwENT July 22, 1999 Hines Highlands Limited Partnership P.O. Box 5115 0230 Thunderbowl Road Aspen, CO 81612 Attention: Mr. Jack Donovan Senior Construction Manager Subject: Retaining Wall Adjacent To Maroon Neighborhood Lots 17, 18 and 19 and Maroon Creek Road Aspen Highlands Pitkin County, Colorado Job No. GS-2356 Gentlemen: A retaining wall will be constructed on the lower part of the slope between tiiaroon Creek Neighborhood Lots 17,18 and 19 and an open space area and Maroon Creek Road. We were asked to evaluate the suitability of a proposed retaining wall concept. The following paragraphs describe the existing slope geometry and subsurface conditions and the planned retaining wall and presents slope stability analyses and our conclusions and recommendations. Existing Slopes The existing slope ranges in total height from approximately 35 to 80 vertical feet. The ground surface generally slopes at grades of 65 percent (1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical) to 100 percent( I horizontal to 1 vertical) at lower parts of the slope and grades of 30 percent (3 horizontal to 1 vertical) to 70 percent (1.4 horizontal to 1 vertical) at r:termediate and upper parts of the slopes. Vegetation is aspen and pine trees, oak brush and native ground cover plants. Steeper areas are lacking vegetation due to slope surface erosion. Subsurface Conditions We drilled exploratory borings on Lots 17, 18 and 19 as part of previous investigations (our Job Nos. GS-2480 and GS-2480-B). Subsoils were 7 feet to 15 feet of man placed fill built with clayey gravel and gravelly clay underlain by native silty to CTL/THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 23•1 C[:N1ER DRIVE n GLE.NI.-AXu r, SFIRINGS, COLORADO81601 ■ (970;945-2809 clayey gravels with cobbles and boulders. No ground water was encountered in the borings. Soils in the exposed slope face between the subject lots and Maroon Creek Road are similar to the native gravels found in our borings. Proposed Retaining Wall The proposed retaining wall conceptwas described as. a single row of soil nails at staggered elevations installed at horizontal distances of approximately 6 to 10 feet. A single row of large boulders would then be dry stacked against the cleared and grubbed and soil nailed slope for erosion protection. Drainage behind the rocks would be accomplished via wick drains. Additional drains would be installed in existing drainages. Slope Stability Analyses Our analyses evaluated the existing slope stability and the affects of soil nail/stacked rock and rock buttress retaining structures on global slope stability and as mitigation of future erosional slumps. A global failure is a landslide involving the majority of the existing slope. An erosional slump is a smaller failure feature. We determined the existing factor of safeties with respect to a global failure ranges from 1.3 to 1.8. In our opinion the calculated global factor of safeties are marginally acceptable for a slope adjacent to Maroon Creek Road. Computer printouts of selected analyses results are shown in Appendix B. Comparatively small slope failures we consider erosional slumps have occurred. The slope failure locations are shown on Figufe A-1 in Appendix A. Global Stability The soil nails planned would be installed from a drill rig on Maroon Creek Road. Installation of nail heads at elevations greater than 10 feet above the road elevation is not likely practical. We modeled soil anchors installed at 10 feet above the road elevation with lengths of 20, 30, 40 and 50 feet. The modeled nails were inclined at 12 degrees down from horizontal. Because of the location of the theoretical failure surface soil nail lengths less than 40 feet do not significantly increase global slope stability. The nails do not intersect the failure surface. Nail lengths of 40 and 50 feet increased the calculated factor of safeties by approximately 0.2 to 0.4. Therefore, after installation of "longer" nails the resultant factor of safeties were 1.5 to 2.2. To significantly increase the global stability more than one row of nails would be required and nails would have to be installed more toward the middle of the slope. Our experience is that the calculated factor of safety increases are small relative to the cost of soil nail installation. We next modeled a rock buttress built at the toe of the slope to evaluate the benefit to global slope stability. A rock buttress approximately 10 feet high and 6 feet wide at the existing slope base increased the global factor of safety by only a small amount (1.4 compared to 1.3 in the case of Lot 17). 2 To significantly increase global factory of safety retaining methods other than that proposed would be required. Installation of driven piles with wood lagging or a mechanical stabilized earth (MSE) toe buttress might be appropriate methods to allow construction of a vertical wall adjacent to Maroon Creek and allow regrading of the natural slope to a flatter inclination. Erosional Slump Mitigation A rock buttress constructed as described above would greatly mitigate the possibility of additional erosional slumps at lower parts of the existing slopes. The following guidelines should be followed for a rock buttress wall. The base -to -height ratio should not be less than 0.6; 2. Maximum height of a dry stacked rock walls should not exceed 10 feet; The first course of rocks must be embedded under the ground surface. The depth of embedment should. be at least 2 feet; 4. The allowable steepness of a rock wall face depends largely on the rock size and shape. Rocks with weight greater than 500 lb and angular in shape can be used to create a wall face of steepness up to 4 (vertical) to 1 (horizontal) slope. Smaller or rounded rocks should be limited to the construction of dry stacked rock walls not steeper than 3 (vertical) to 1 (horizontal) slope; 5. Rocks should be placed in fairly uniform lifts, and infilled with a granular material such as a aggregate base course. The infilling should be completed prior to placing the next lift of rocks. Figure B-4 show a'rock wall sections we believe appropriate. The rock sizes shown are what we consider as the minimum size acceptable. The rocks have a minimum length of 3 feet. Generally, the larger the rock, the better. Drainage System Improper drainage systems are one of the major causes of retaining wall failures. Drainage systems are required to eliminate excess hydrostatic pressures. The drain can also mitigate damage from frost action. Drain discharge locations should be identified to allow inspection at later dates. A layer of natural clays should be placed on top of wall backfill to reduce infiltration of surface water from rainfall or snow melt. Provisions of a drain should reduce hydrostatic pressures. At least 12-inches of backfill directly behind the lower one-third of the retaining wall should consist of free draining gravel. The gravel should be washed 3/4 inch to No. 4 screen material with less than 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. A CDOT Class 6 aggregate base course should be used behind the upper two- thirds of the wall. 7ml Additional protection against hydrostatic pressure build up could be accomplished via weep holes. Weep holes, should be a pipe, at least 3 inches in diameter, extending through the stem of the wall. They should be protected against clogging by pockets of gravel in the soil backfill or by the use of filterfabric adjacent to the wall directly behind the weepholes. The weepholes are commonly spaced not more than 10 feet apart vertically and horizontally. Limitations Our analyses was to assist the owner in enhancing the stability of the existing slope adjacent to Maroon Creek Road. The lots above will be developed and we do not known the future development plans. Development above could increase or decrease the slope stability. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please call if you have questions. Very Truly Yo APPENDIX A 1 FIGURE FROM PREVIOUS REPORT 10 Feet High Wall 'x 1.5 3x 1.5 4x 4' x 2' ti •.. 3'C\' 3' x 2' 00000ao° WASHED °o 39 2, 3, x 2 ROCK °o NATIVE CLAY CDOT CLASS 6 AGG. BAS 10 Ft ------------------- 2 Ft minimum 1 Ft minimum ROCK WALL SECTIONS Job No. GS— 2356 LTR 7/22/99 LM APPENDIX B SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES V N O Tt O m C Q Z CL C (n r O Q CCD QCCi C C C _ 0 ~ Z O O •� _3UI� R L (g i d V I- r A LL � r r: r; i r> >.. r 0 � m _N ;' caO CLO CLsf j U Cl) , V> y(`M O C O O C O L ' r , r r r r , r 8 O U O � (19a1) UO]Jenal:� -0 a) O _0 O C E. co O:E Q 0) Q Z Q00 C 00 Q O Co Q) N E CC)C C Z cu 00 •� U tL V 7 N --9 r r y r � M r m a I r r: r r r r r r s r _r r r. r i i t i c r � - rn C iiT I � Ura O u O CM d O + Q 6O rn � Cl) > Z5 U M U N U I 3 I I S o 18 Is 1F Moo {g (Iaa}) U0116Aai*:� O fV 0 e $ _ (IGGI) UOIJLM;J�] 10 Feet High Wall 3' x 1.5 3' x 1.5 4' x 2' f •r 3' x 2' t 3' x 2' 3' x 2' 3' x 2' NATIVE CLAY CDO T CLASS 6 AGG . BA; 2 10 Ft 1 WASHED ROCK 2 Ft minimum 1 Ft minimum ROCK WALL SECTIONS LTR 7/22/99 Job No. GS— 2356 Fla B=a APPENDIX C EXISTING CUT SLOPE PHOTOGRAPHS �' ` yr. r• ! � .` i '. '`�•. tat d'. '. .. a�' i ., 'I3 `- � :. .•. -- � "tom', ''t ,. �' f+� s� ' }..1 �� r� t � i r..-: �•;;,,r r w, -7 ' �A� •�+ yam- , 40 te�iF `r� •� � y�i�'� -� j+ T?`7"��� :.3 - r ..� +J' , � s f �.' t r `i. • r T_ s +S-�. '� �S.M_.. �.,�,, ra�+s.,1i1,. ti '11 � L � JJ,�.l_w,,�,,tfr,,.]."�t �Y+.. .rS6 :�i�v. y�v. �1..��9;•�' -�L ., .� t * 1.• dJ -YM ���.r..s a�. • !.^;;,me;µ �►� ? � ��-=T::�-�. 's�,�'.•3�. w�►�;�'�-vacr,,,,•� ',T�` y ._ `� `�'' �f_ � N�: �, �.w�`� `ram � Y��•�: `�y'�v.�"L� „ wC,�..".�°,�•Y"�j�, s•����.�.�sc a�7�jr: � .r. c7�.•Csw—:CIS.'• r +f,"S. "'� �* ., 4'h"'`C,•a` --•�j���S�'..�� , ty„1 G'i .�:•��s .....r.. •. �:.y*x ryry� ♦i t.��rr.• .� _ .^_ ^; ..�Sa T .�!'S i- "rrit2;' •. p }'� . d - r y hd `r � ��-'.... ; � c Ttw 4 .:� "L S 5���.••L.�_�r , ,'..'« i' r 4 T •L•_-.,..i�i�.,s •L• �'t.i �;arl � _. .� 1i _.. ~r+R3Yi�`1:,`'_J r-';-y r� _` :��.KL-�ti�p.;��'��4r:�y �� ,Lati r�..L, :.•"�_. •L- <> c g .4 I / 'MMENT —KEY PLAN ,_'•��'� � �� Qom: •�'i®� i ,�` � • / �ij'����I%f % � ` � �`v:J�>�` �f� ���c. �e �,•'�� �,,,`` �'� .%may% �'�d I�' l 4 5 I 61 7 1 8 9 1 10 i 1 12 I 4 I ROBERT AM STERN ARCHITECT'S 40 WWr 346 STREET. NEW YOM NY 10001 M (710) %7.5100 - FAX (217) %7"S5o SCHYUESER. CORDON. MEYER er ■. ala.om ,n•a w uAi VH.LAGE GRADING PLAN PART ONE vroi•n �+e- oor e60T d y !. Me6 CAD �r Me. Scar D'...e0 eye. j L-201 7 7 • S 14 O a�_ RAGE ELEV ELEV •STEPS Dr. �\ / 5-i/7• RISERS D' TREADS •�� ._ AZA ELEV 8 DODD'-O / L L A G E R OA D O V I i /011010 /r.. /, �.`L 't`�Ho � '- ELEV / rs "a^I, I PLAZA - ��^^'c� DS ELEV DODT eoeb- PMVATE / TEgRALES I O cO .MAL�i10 .. ELEV LEV •DO - • y -r • Ate/ z ee�r lilt r ° • o MVII .o 3 o— • R PARKING � - R !- n AR DECK ELEV. K I NG K IN5 _ DAY `.SKIER ENT ELEV • GAR ENTRANCE TO LOhfR L - eo-►o LEFT Tl1RN LANE — — _ — — — — — .— ._ — — — - �l- — - � 1p, ,v E \ 113150 �P •. NUEN COUN" DETNLED 1 0/23/96 SUBMISSION SET D Q No. KSUE I DATE oe EXHIBITION LANE qp"'o �.. D ASPEN HIGHLANDS ASMNCOLORAM ROBERT A.Nt STERN ARCHITECTS AW WEST Nm STRM. NEB'YORCNYIowI "G TEL (212) %7.5I00 - FAX (7I7) 967.55N B CD 9 ' 1 1 � SEHYUESER. CORDON. PETER R O _ CREEK MAROON /� / j / _LLAGE GRADING PLAN PART THREE .IKI No. I De % / / wT+rn o 1AF6 L-203 I 2 i 1 4 1 5 1 b I / b I y � U I I G I i J ' I I ATTA{:HtM_�, A RESOLL71ON OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITIEN COUNTY, COLORADO. GRANTING DETAII.ED SUBMISSION. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, 1041 ZN�v'IRONl1g.NTAL xa7.aRn REVIE:I. - ND SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL. TO THE ASPEN HIGEa ANDS VM"GE PUD Resolution No. 97-• P.----itais i Applicant. Project Location. and Approval Requests - HIL.P Mounrain Limited Parmershm, Ashen Highlands Mountain Limue Liability Coamanv. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation. Whipple Van Ness Jones and Hines Highlands Limited Parmership. (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") have applied to Pitkin County for approval of the As= Highlands Village ("AHV") project The appucanon specifically requests approval for Rezoning, Sr:::W Review, Growth Management Quota System Allorments ("GMQS") and Detailed SubmissioniPlInned Unit Development ("P(,'D")The Aspen HiQhl� Village site is located in the Maroon C:e-i; Vallev at the base of the Aspen Highlands Ski Area and contains approximateiv 70 acres. The parse: is more specifically described in Exhibit A. The Subdivision/PUD General/Conceatual Submission was approved with conditions as evidenced in Board of County Commissioners ("Board") Resolution 96-i41 ("Exhibit B"). 2. Existing Uses - The subject site is improved with the Maroon Creek Lodge three ski lifts and the Aspen Highlands Ski Area base area facilities and a parking lot containing approximamAv 742 oty street parking spaces. Existing buildings contain approximareiv. 39.194 square feet of commercial space, 1,970 square feet of skier services, and 13 tourist accommodation units in the Maroon Creek Lodge. In the late 1980's Pitkin County issued a demolition permit to demolish the Highlands Ida which contained forry-nine (49) tourist accommodation units. 400 souare feet of rerakl space and 2.500 souare :ee.l 'A jar .nn .estauram space. Lilt: zigluanas ,tin was aemoiisnea suosequem to the issuance of the demolition permit. 3. The Plan - The land use actions identified in the title of this resolution are the second step in the approval process necessary to enable the Applicants to demolish all of the existing buildings at the base of the Aspen Highlands Ski Area and construct AHN'. a new mixed -use village on the site. The plan summarized in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission: Consolidated Documents, September 1997 continues the Sim Specific Development Plan as defined in Section 6-5 7. of the PhIdn County Land Use Code. The AHV Plan includes the following elements: • Thirty-one Q 1) single family detached free-market dwelling units. • Thirty-two (32) townhouse free-market residential dwelling units; • Seventy-three (73) tourist accommodation units; • Thirty-seven (37) Category 1 dorm tuts (housing 61 people); • Twenty-two (22) single family Category 4 affordable housing sale units (4 bedroom); One (1) single family Category 4 affordable housing sale unit (3 bedroom); • Twenty-eight (28) townhouse Category 3 affordable housing sale units (3 bedroom); • Eight (8) Category 1 and eight (8) Category 2 multi -family sale units (1 bedroom); • Three (3) Category 3 one bedroom rental units; • Four (4) Category 3 two bedroom natal units; • Ten ! 10) Caretaker Dwelling Units; 1�91!i �9111111111 IIIIII III III illitn m imi nn u�� Resoiuuon No. 97-'� Pace • Twenty-one thousand. six hundred (21.600) square feet of retail space (Net T easeable Area "NLA"); • Twelve thousand (12.000) square feet of accessory slier services (NL.A): • Fourreen thousand. one hundred twenty-five (14.125) square feet of restaurant space NLA): • three thousand (3.000) square feet of condominium meeting rooms i NLA); • One thousand eight hundred (I -J00) square eet or alcewig rooms (NL.A): • Two thousand two hundred :.2001 square 2Gv storage (NL,�I: Four nunurea fifty �450) oar -mg spaces for :fir Aspen Hi • Two hundred and thn-ry (230) off-street t) ghlands Sid Area: and arising spaces for the aiforaabie :Housing and tourist accommodation units and AHV rmpiovees. The proposed ohvsical layout of the project is depicted on the attached "jthibits C ;hroueh F. " The COunry cernfied Aspen Highlands Village: Detailed Submission subsmnrWly compie;e in January of 1997, in addition. m accordance with common practice. errers and suppbeen suomlaed th to the record by e Applicant. County staff and du p=liemezzta! information have The Aspen Highlands Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan was submined to the record so all reference r document. naLcnais comet_ rising the Sire Specific Develonmem Plan would be available in one 4. Applicable Land Use Code - The Applicant submitted the AHV: application in June of 1993 and did not receive General Submission land use General Submission approval until March 1_. 1996. In April of 1994, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a new land use code. By separate resoiunon (Board Resolution # 94-68), the Board established applications which were in process at the rime of adoptioof thpolicy for 0 �� of land use " Resolution i# 94-68 specifically states that "all active land use applications that have been submitted by March ? 6. , ooa shallI-P-...:e.�P,:.,.,_...-... L, ,_.:__ _- - - - - _ ��---, —Jr- ae term active pas peen established by Board as meaning an application which is substantially complete and readyto be the Since the AHV application was not only complete, but had scheduled for review. r� actually been before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners prior to Mauch 16dL the Board found that the Highlands Village application met the criteria for an "active" application at the time of the adoption of the "new" Land Use Code. In accordance with Board Resolutions 95-10 and 96-6. the Board and Applicant mumally agreed that all Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) allotments and motions would be processed to Sections 3-140, 3-150, 3-160 of the "new". Pitkin•Co pursuam rimy Land Use Code. . 5. Planning and Zoning Commission Detailed Submission Review Process -The Applicant submitted the AHV: Detailed Submission in November of 1996 and the County staff requested additional materials prior to certifying the application as complete. The applicam provided the additional materials in January of 1997, and the application was scheduled for review by the Pirlaa County Planning and Zoning Coammission. The Planning and Zoning Commission ("Commission") considered tiro mmtngs on Martin 18, 1997, A 1, 1997, application � �� April April 7, 1997, April 14, 1997 and April 29, 1997. After consideration of the application., County staff and public can meats the Commission ended approval of the applicarion with conditions. IIIIV Iltll IIIIII IOW nlp l±I aIIIIlI III 1�11� Ilp Resolution No. 9,- l Page 6. Growth Management Quota System Review Process - Th-. application specifically requests Aspen Metro Area allotments for commercial Emplovee Generation Units (EGU's), tourist accommocianon units. affordable housing units and free market untts in the Affordable Housing Overiav (AHO) zone. On March 18. 1997. the Growth Management Commission ("GMC") considered the appiicam's request for 11 ASDen Metro Area 1996 tounst accommodation allotments ._ . :ulv noticed public heating and recommenaed that the Aspen City Coullc:i ("Council"'; -:-,.d he Bo=_ :-rrt allotments to AHV. The Council approved the allotments pursuant to Aspen City Council Resoiution 41 Series of 1997 and the Board granted the allotments pursuant to this resolution. The remaining 62 tourist accommodation allotments necessary to build AHV areflemoiition and reconstruction credits for the demolition of the Highlands Inn and the Maroon Creek Lodge. On August 26. 1997 the Commission heid a duly noticed public nearing to consider the A. p cam's request for 29 Employee Generauon Units (EGU's) available m the 19% Pitkin County Commercial Growth Management Quota System i "GMQS"} Competition. After scoring the anpiication the Commission recommended that the Board grant the =9 EGU's to AHV. The Board granted the allotments pursuant to Resolution No. 97-185. On August 26. 1997 the GMC held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Applicant's request to be designated as an exceptional project pursuant to Section 160.30 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. The GMC found AHV to meet the standards for designation as an exc.-pdonal project and recommended that the Board and City Council award forty-three (43) free market units (AH associated) and one hundred twelve (112) deed restricted affordable housing units (affordable housing) multi-vear allotments to AHV. The Board granted the allotments pursuant to this resolution and the Council approved the allotments pursuant to City Council Resolution 44. Series of 1997. .......:--onner Review P"-cess - ?ire Board considered the AHV Detailed Submission application at public meetings on June 6. 1997, June 30, 1997, Jury it), :yy 1, anti September 10. 1997. The Board considered the AHV Detailed Submission at a duly noticed public hearing on September 24, 1997. The Board considered the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Snhnxi son Consolidated Plan at the September 24, 1997 public hearing. The Board finds that the Detailed Submission changed during the review process in response to comments by the public, Commission and Board. The Board specifically finds that changes to the AHV Detailed Submission are typical of changes to significant land use applications in Pitkin County and such changes do not constitute a new land use application. The Board finds that the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. September 1997 constitutes the Site Specific Development Plan as defined in Section 6-5.7 of the Code. . 8. Aspen Area General -Plan -The Board finds that the AHV Detailed Submission as modified during the review process is consnteatt with the Aspen Area General Plan as amended by applicable comprehensive plans and the policies and regulations of the Phil n County Land Use Coda 9. Pitltm County Lind Use Code Compliancx - The Board -Ends the application to be in compliance with the Planned Unit Development (PUD) standards (Section 3-7) and permits variations from Land Use Code requirements as represented in fire Aspen ftliiands PUD and requested by the applicant in accordance with the Aspen Ifthi' rids Village Dcu ed Sabndsdon Consolidated Plan in 111111 Hill IMF 111111111111111 IM iffil oil in Resolution No. 97-L I Page 4 accordance with the standards of Section =. The Board finds that.the proposed Plan, subject to satisfaction conditions listed in this Reso►unate on. adequately avoids or mitigates Geologic Hazard ;r Areas (5-401), Floodp l5-.i01). Wildfire Hazard Areas (5-404). Historic and lain Hazard Areas �. Archaeological Resource Areas (5-405). Addiuonaily, the Board finds the proposed land use ; Archaeological complies with Land Use Code standards for Activities of Local and Stare Interest (5-�07 appficanon d land use application complies with the Detailed Submission 2.h). Finally. the Board finds the propose standards of the Code (6-4)• NOVA-. THEREFORE. BE IT HESOL= by the Roar. :'.rat it does herebv grant Detailed Submission. Planned Unit Development. 1(41 Envtronmentai Hazard Review. Subdivision Exemption for Condominiums. and Special Review approval for multi -family and retail uses and as a TDR receiving site for '_'0 single family dwet]Mng units for AHV subject to the conditions listed below . Additionally. me Board aces herebvmm�rant Tor affordable �o�stourist accommodatiingg development. and 43lMetm area Metro Area affordable housing allo free market housing allotments for an .-I-H associated development General 1 :ill conditions of BOCC Resolution No. 96-141 shall be adhered to unless specifically modified by the terms of these conditions. ?. The applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application. supplemental mati enais, and in public meetings. i; 3. The applicant or development entity shall be responsible for all material rep resentadons made 41 in General Submission. Detailed Submission. Final Plat, the Aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide and the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA). In the event' of conflicting representations during the four year land use review process, the last representations made shall control. ° i� 4 The applicant must file condominium maps m accordance with C.R.S. Section 38-3:-101. 5. All floor area and dimensional requirements are as detailed in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. plan that clearlyent identifies the ridership threshold on the existing .Casde/Maroon 6. The phasing Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTp) route that will trigger a requires for the applicant to make a cash payment to RFTA for the purchase and operation of one additional bus on the ro= will be as doh m the Aspen village Deed Submission Consolidated Plan. The ape = stipulates the amotmt of money the applicant will Pay to Pitidn Couzny for er increasing the level of service on the CastlelMaroon route. In the event RFTA replaces the Casd&Maroon route with another form of uansit, Pitltin County may use the applicant's payment for such replacement transit service. however, the replacement service must Provide service to AHV - ������Illl�III loll III 111111111111 IMI III 4 of 54 R 6.00 .0 11 , 00 N 0 , N FITKIN COLKry CO Resoiu ion No. 97-• ' Page 5 7. The applicant and the County have agreed won an operations and service phasing plan for an on -demand (Dial -a -Ride) transit system to be operated by the applirnnr as documented in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. g The men Skiing Company (ASC, and the County have agreed upon an operations and service paasmg plan for a remote parking skier shuttle service to be operated between ARV and 135 new destcnaced remote pariang spaces to be esmolished at Buttermilk Ski area as documented Master Plan. zpproved by the BOCC on Oerooer in the Est en Highlands Ski Area AF-Slci 1997. 9. The applicant and the County have agreed on a comprehensive trafficitransiuparidng monitoring system plan to be uidertaken by the applicant. This plan was approved by the BOCC on October 22. 1997 as part of the .-knen Highlands AF-Ski Master Plan. The plan will be mcivaed in the tsnen Highlanas Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. This pian shall mcivae measures to insure Increased miuganon actions if monitoring shows that the mitigation plan is not adequate. -he SIA shall require the Applicant to administer the monitoring plan through the conc:usion of Phase 4 of the construction. and for threce years thereafter. The monitoring system address the following issues. a) If the trips generated by AHV exceed projections in the "Revised Maroon Creek Corridor Detailed Transportation Plan". February, 1997, so as- to require mingation for those additional impacts the additional mitigation required by the applicant must be approved by the BOCC based upon recommendations of the Community Development Department and any appropriate referral agency (e.a.. RFI'A and/or the County Engineer). b) If the number of trips generated -is lower than projected. then the applicant shall be entitled to suggest a reduction in the traffic mitigation programs then being funded. Such reduction shall be based upon a finding by the BOCC that the reduction is appropriate. In no case, ....vr•-- =hall The Apolicant be eligible for a refund of any portion of the " donation described in paragrapn 9 oeiow. c) The SIA shall specify that the apPlicarl shall be responsible for the performance of this condition and security for such performance shall be provided. 10. The transportation and air quality monitoring required by the Applicam shall be the subject of an annual report which shall contain at a minimum the following information: 1. Daily weather conditions. 2. Notation if Aspen schools are open on given day 3. Air quality readings at Maroon Creek and downtown monitors. 4. Daily skier visits based upon Aspen Siding Company surveys —this darn may not be available for each day• 5. Daily parking lot counts and HOV counts. Be �03 wu ni uuni e e� � kesolution No. 97- Page 6 6. Daily RFTA ridersiup — on survey days data will be collected identifying skiers vs. non -skiers VS. employees. 7. Daily notanon of any special evern taking place Aspen Highlands. 8. Daily traffic counts at specific locations to be identified by the applicant and the County Transportation Consultant. 9. Daily counts of cars parked in Aspen Highlands Subdi,,-•...: iseiiii Park. 10. Establish set days to do survevs in parking jots -- surveys to include: point of origin. peooie in car, type of pass. skiers vs. z66-siaers. HOV's. 11. Daily indication if streets in area were swept that day. 12. Courtesy van drop-off counts. 13. Signs on State Highway 82 and -Maroon Creek Road and the effect on traffic when silts nonce that parking lot is foil or that paid parking is in effect — sign locations should include: prior to Tiehack. prior to Brush Creek Road. Castle Creek/Maroon Creek. 11. Applicant has agreed to donate S650.000 for infrastructl= improvements along the Maroon Creek/Castle Creek/Highway 82 intersection and Maroon Creek Road. The applicant has also CO to a donation of S350.000 for long-range improvements to the Castle Maroon intersection as agreed to by the BOCC and Aspen City Council. The donations shall be made upon Final Plat recordation. 12. The Planning and Zoning Commission strongly encourages that the proposed short-term :mprovetneats :o •,he Castic!maroon/Hienwav 82/ intersection anti deforthwith s and that the n to me County and City work together to devise a mutually acceptableY ongoing problem. 0. The 450 space skier parking lot shall be paid parking when the ski area is open for skiing. shall be rMewed by the BOCC two years after completion of Utilization of summer parPhase Four to determine if Paid Pig should be implemented- Consistent Consistent with existing Price. the perry staff for the Maroon Bells bus shall not occur at AHV, The preferred start point for Maroon Bells tours shall be at Ruby Park. For down - valley visitors using RFTA or the train there shall be a transfer at the proposed stanon at the intersection of Highway 82 and Maroon and Castle Creels Roads. The Maroon Bells tour buses shall Action riders at Highlands and tickets shall be availablefor sale to Highlands residents and guest overflow parking whether from skiers, fir reside=- or visitors to the village shall not be 15. Creek Road or other public rights of way in the neighborhood- If Parking on the Maroon Creek Road becomes a Pro ill allowed Maroon blew. the applicant wassist PWM CouwcY in enforcement of this provision through signage and Public swam measures. 1611422M1109/38/IM W 0111 I�BI N�II � fl I�III N Iml EI � Resolution No. 97- , r page 7 - 16. An audit of -Full Time Equivalent Employees" shall be conducted at the applicant's expense one vear after co=ietion of Phase Four. The applicant shall be responsible for housing tninganon of any employee generation over and above twat contemplated at the time of Detailed Subdivision approval• If the reauired audit shows a reduction in employee generation the applicant may seer a credit to be used on other Pitkin County projects. 1-. The ^roate iic, shall be allowed to lease two Cgory = two -bedroom unit to qualified emplovees u[ the applicant's chouc:. 18. The applicant shall be allowed to sell four single-family homes, four town homes. and two one - bedroom units to qualified erruiioyees of the applicant's choice. In all cases the requiremetuts of the housing Aumoriry must be met along with the aualification that in the three -and four - bedroom units. at least one of the uidividuais must be a dependent as defined in the Housing Authority guidelines. 19. Priority for the use of the proposed dormitory units shall be given to emplovees of the project or the Aspen Skiing Company during the fall. winter and spring. in the summer season use priority will be for Music Associates of Aspen students. employee and/or teaching staff 20. The floor plans for the dormitory units shall be developed as reviewed and approved by the Housing Office. 21. All designated affordable housing shall be appropriately deed restricted and such restrictions shall be recorded prior to conveyance of such housing. 2,) . Those lots which will be permitted to have caretaker Units shall be designated on the Final Plat. 23. The use of transferable development ngm k 'TDrs ) snau oe .is "pp;ovC';.& submission, provided however, that the total floor area exempted from growth management for every TDR transferred is 5.000 square feet and any additional square footage beyond 5,000 square feet for any single unit utilizing a TDR shall require a growth management allotment or an additional TDR. The required TDRs must be acquired prior to approval of 5nal plat. 24. Affordable housing shall be consuucted and made available according to the phasing plan as presented in the written description in the Aspen Highlands Village Derailed Submission Consolidated Plan. 25. Prior to approval of Final Plat by the BOCC the applicant shall provide evidence that the protect will be served with public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Distric t- 26. No building pew for the parking structure shall be issued until such time as the State of Colorado Department of Health approves the ventilation system far the parking structure. The ventilation system shall be presented to the. Pitidn County Environmental Health Department for review and commetu. III IN all in 110 M III lit IN 422629 M/38/2M 63:22P RESMJM DWIS SILVI ,.e eta R a . 00 0 0 88 N Ia. M PrMN COtsm CO Resolution No. 07- Page 8 27. No building permits shall be issued until a fngirive dust control plan has been reviewed and approved by the Environnnenral Health Department. I.'iIIGSCnT21.,giTr= presery tion(Weed C,introl �. r.�+--- 28The ..,,HV weed control plan for ail areas to be disturbed shall be as approved by the County Lan:. \1a:;a�cr :rid dcctunet:ted in the -mmen Highlands Village Detaiica Submission Comuiivated Plan. 39. All stocaniled soils will be treated with a biodegradable hydro mulch to serve as a dust palliauve. Is 30. The proposed landscaping/screening along Maroon Creels Road shall be completed in the nrst orowuzg season after compieuon of the paridng structure and Project enn-vway. 31. The Wiltrotu Pond area shall be enhanced with additional landscaping as shown on the pian. Project Lighting ighting levels. standards. and limitations shall comply with :aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. These standards will be included in the :aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide to be adopted at the same time as the Subdivision Improvements Agreemennt- 33. The revised landscaping Plan shall be included in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. Wildflower species to be used must be listed by scientific name to the rk Valley. A and common name and mustbe st be usede species with the seed to bescollecud fr�theoRoaring Fork local wildflower seed source must Valley. �� ;-•,�z,..: cubmission 34. Landscaping associates wttn documetus, shall be consamed in detail in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement ("SIA"). The documents. shall be responsible for the performance of all landscaping associated with AppiicPhases 1 through 4 and the performance of all landscaping obligations shall be secured through one of the following perforce guaranmes. bond, later of credit, cash escrow or a guarantee enforceable by the County or the City upon anneaarion. The security shall be in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of completion of the landscaping. 35. The SIA shall specify a definite landscaping phasing schedule, which includes the specific timing for all landscapmg t. installation along with each phase of the developmen require the applicant to provide guararttees for all plant materials for two 36. The SIA shall growing seasons after initial installation. 37. The SIA shall require the applicant to revegetate all disturbed areas. These areas shall be planted with a mixture of indigenous grasses and wn7dflowets and the use of invasive grasses shall be prohibited. 1111111IFl19A0-:91!N it 111111 flMll I ILI 1111 Page 9 38. The SIA snail include a weed control plan. pamculariy in the wildflower meadows. The first level of weed control should be non -chemical. though chemicals may be permitted if weed control fails. 39. The single-family landscaping requirements shall be included in the Aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide. The single - the tandscaping requirements shall be specifically etuorceable by the County. or the City upon annexation. and shall: a) requi:_ ::. revegetation c1 .:11 disturbed area_- wi:'- :he nianting of a mixture of indigenous (A list of proposed spectra shall be provided to the County Land grasses and wildflowers. Manager for review and approval prior to approval of final plat): .f b) prohibit the use of all non -indigenous Dian species. pamculariy invasive grasses. c) prohibit landscape lighting. 40. Tree removal will be limited to approved building em'eiopes and driveways. roads rights-oi- wav and uuhry corridors. 41 The landscaping improvements committed to by the applicant as part of the detailed submission shall be specific obligations of the applicant or his assigns. 42. At Final Plat a benchmark elevation will be established in the proposedVillage•Care in order to provide a reference point for reconstructed grade and all other elevation me2suremencs. 43. All variances from current Code standards will be established in a Aspen Highlands Village or m Cuide co be adopted at final plat approval. Any subsequent variances shall require modification of the Demilea supdivtsuon approva, ,.n......� except for variances which may qualify as Minor Amendments to a Development Permit under Code Section 3,200.80. 44. The height of all structtues in the Maroon. Thunderbowl Neighborhoods will be measured from the gnu established by a grading plan approved by the BOCC in an adopted Aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide. In the case of any grading manipulation within a building envelope which alters this adopted grading plan, height measurement will be from the final finished grade or the adopted grading Plan which ever is more restrictive. 45. A topographic map of the reconstructed grade has been adapted as shown in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan, and will also be. induded in the Aspen Higblands Village PUD Guide to be adopted at the same time as the Subdivision Improvements Agreement- The reconsrcted grade topograPhic map shall be unli=d as the basis for measuring the height of all =u=res in the Vuglage Core including the parking and transit drop-off area- 46. All setbacks will be established by building envelopes as shown on a site plan and table in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan and will also be included in the Aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide to be adopted at final plat approval. IIIII Hill III IIIIII M I Ill III III M III "/=/UM 0 ter REsoi uTs orm suet 9 of s4 R ILM 0 e. n N SM PnXZN COUNT? CO Resolution No. 97- , Page 10 47. Floor Area will be measured and defined as shown in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan and m the Aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide to be adopted at final plat approval. 48. Protecuve covenants shall be submuted to the County prior to approval of the final plat. 49. Tae concepts for the proposed architectural guidelines for the single-family units are as documented in the .-Aspen Highlands Village Detailed SL:C :: sic;n ...:nsolidated Plan. 50. The applicant shall not be permitted to construct any building with a reflective metal roof or any other roof material that ids to reflect light. 51. No develomnent or clearing of vegetation outside of established building envelopes. utility corridors or platted roads will be permitted. Planting of indigenous species of plants and trees will be permitted outside of building enveiopes. No land forms higher than three feet will be allowed to be constructed inside building envelopes. 52. A detailed construction trafficfparidng managemeatlphasing plan shall be as documented in the Aspen Highlands Village Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. It addresses the following: a) The sequence of construction. b) The hours of proposed construction for each day of the week. c) The proposed permitted delivery hours; and d) How the car-pooling, etc. will be enforced. 53. The Pitkin County Noise Ordinance must be adhered to at all times ana any vtoiauons wiu result in appropriate enforcement and sanctions. 54. During construcuon, no paridng will be permitted by any Highlands visitor, employee, or contractor except on -site or approved pooling locations. 55. No dogs shall be permitted on the constnncuon site. 56. Prior.to Final Plat approval by the BOCC a Storm Water Managemetit plan which inchuies at a minimum a storm water pollution prevention component shall be stihmirtnd and approved by the Country Engineer, the Solid Waste Manager, the State, and Director of Eaviroammral Health. This plan shall address the maintenance of the various composts of the storm water pollution prevention, such as drainage -of ponds. removal and disposal of silt and debris, ! Of the condition of silt fencing, removal, disposal, and replacement of bay bales and other preventative meastu=. 57. All permanent mfrasptuctu a subject to the Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall be cleaned by applicant and inspected by the County Engineer before acceptance. 111111111111111111 IIIIII Igll 11 Lill III iilili III IIII 09/30i:99a earn sou 1 Dews MUZ 10 of 54 R 0.00 0 0. N N 0.00 RMIN COM Y CO Resolution No. 97-, (" Page 11 58. Prior to issuance of development permit the applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage Dian for the approval of the County Engineer. This Dian shall show the typical. details and locations of rmrap structures. ;9. Reouirements for schools land dedications or cash-in-iieu tees small be as per the Land Use Code. 60. The ,aspen Highlands Village De,-- Consolidated Plan shall have vesting for a period of years from appro— ..non. but substantial progress will be interpreted afar compietion of Phase 61. Parks dedication shall xd on drawing P 2 of the Ashen Highlands Village Detaiied Submission Consolia. _.. 62. The effective date of this resolution small be the same as the effective dace of the ordinance rezoning the :aspen Highlands Village: Ordnance No. 97-39. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TUVIES WEEKLY ON THE '=ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1997. INTRODUCED, AND FIRST' READ AT THE REGULAR MEEETING ON THE LOTH DAY OF SEPTE11 BM 1997. APPROVED AND ADOPTED AFTER SECOND READING AND PUBLIC •1997. A J Jones De uy Clerk and APPROVED AS TO FORM BOARD OF COUNTY COMMSIONERS OF PTTSIlV COUNTY, COLORADO t'�iri�c..?GGL.Q �� Bill Tune, Chairman . DATE: r—zQ'--4� RECONEWE 1DED FOR ADOPTION -711i'�3. a John Ely Cindy Houben Atmrney, Community Development Director i11111 Ilill 111111 RMI 11111 Kul 11111011 ill. IN AZ I Own SIL.YI 44 -P ■A 0 01 OIA A A /M N A A/1 OT I M I N CCUNTr CC MP u> D 7 a o E 17 �- Arr ' f N - M -�� V i rol",! �• E&�� yVita •� -cam'.. �- ��>. Q� �� � ar �-{• .ram - �� / � 0 �, 1 i 3 4 ►.�� = a - a ' _ . =' �'�; ' ,' o ASPEN HIGHLANI DS '/•� / ' _ _ _ _ _ � � ,' ' AsFF.1a. COIA1tAD0 31 ROBERTA.M. STERN ARCHIT'EM .:� �� --\/�r\/r��, ` •� ;ti•�'-,:,�-/' i ��' �fOiY�'f3MtSIRFBI;NEWYOMNY(0001 . /_ \` �� =-- �'��'•` 'i - ..ice �,���' ','.�.�' �� TEL(2I2)%7-5100•FAX (2l2)967-5598 V �. • - - -- — — _ •• ,� / ;+,%,� j' 9CMIUEM. GORDON. MEYER SUE PLAN -_ _-��% .soma .,La.i... slft -200 -------- - , __-_=_ 1 7 i8 1 g i 10 11 12 3 i 14 •mxc.•s•n.�sa.:mwc-Kvrq-�w 9.i•w qua. -cs+ v U K r , • ' may. \.• = � �•�:. % -,// a� �� of `!w% i e� •`�C . • ��s Ems- � I / �a:� ` � � , a' 1« 1/,��,—. LEGEND KEY PLAN ��� `Q :�.. .� � � /,, � f - i .♦ l�j, _�_ � i�r�i'iL'i4.:r1:a.: L�'f7.�t.I�N(:. �Ci:yf • • ,� 7'�Yy/y Y, i i 8 i \ \ / \\\ \\\ 11 1 9 i 10 i 11 1 12 ! 13 14 15 A c� q d4 • �+ �- o ca �" � � tip, \ L C!" • • ^ � .� '� �" -ice' '�' �"' _...... �...� � ` ,� "'` � Nb h ' door 0400,000000ow r 0 i I k%� S^ t apt •� mow• trap O •. _ /"'�mew r i�\ doom .101 LU U r LN 0 JAj U A+ ATTACHMENT„...... r ROBERT E. DANIEL JR. HINES HIGHLANDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BOX 5115 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-920-1710 March 21, 2000 Joyce Ohlson Aspen Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Highlands Village Planned Unit Development: Minor Amendment to a Planned Unit Development Dear Joyce: Hines Highlands Limited Partnership is the developer of the Aspen Highlands Village. This letter authorizes Davis Horn Incorporated and Kaufman & Peterson to prepare a PUD amendment land use application on our behalf and represent us in the City of Aspen land use process. Thanks. Sincerely, ROBERT E. DANIEL JR. HINES HIGHLANDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director 46 FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner W RE: Aspen Highlands Base Village PUD Amendment -- Update DATE: June 6, 2000 The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the Pitkin County land use approvals concerning the townhouse neighborhoods in Blocks C and E, which are on the east and west ends of the Aspen Highlands Village (AHV) Core. The Staff report included in your packet contains the site plans approved during the general submission or conceptual review, which is what was provided in the application for this PUD amendment. Based on these site plans, the staff report states that Bloom C was approved for five (1du lexes and two 2 tri s, and that Block E was approved for one (1) duplex and four (4) triplexes. m On Monday, June 5, Staff met with the Applicant's representatives, Glenn Horn, Bill Poss, Gideon Kaufman and Dwayne Romero. The Applicant's representatives contend that the general submission plans were only illustrative, demonstrating one possible confi the townhouses. They claim that the detailed submission or fins site plans are what should e 'considered'6 for this PUD amendment even though they were not included in the as ti n. The detail submission site plans for these townhouse neighborhoods are 1&nkj and only include topography and designs for the Village Core. Attached is the approved site plan from the Aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide and Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. The Applicant asserts, and Staff agrees, that flexibility is provided wifh regard to the configuration, location and design ofthe townhouses within the established buil to s, AHV residential homes design and andscape regulations and following dimensions: Total Number of Townhouses: 32 Floor Area for each block: 56,000 square feet (total 112,000 square feet) Maximum Building Height: 28 feet Yard & Road Setbacks: "The townhouses will be located within the Townhouse Building Envelopes as depicted on Aspen Highlands Village Final Plat. Driveway, sidewalks, landscaping and retaining walls may be located between the Building Envelope and the adjoining roads." The proposal for the townhouse neighborhoods is for 9 townhouses (5 are already built — one triplex and one duplex) and for 23 detached single family residences. After meeting with the Applicant's representatives, Staff again consulted County Planning Deputy Director Lance Clarke regarding the approved site plans. Mr. Clarke stated that the townhouse neighborhoods were not discussed after the general submission review. He agrees t at the plans were illustrative and not binding. However, he also said that the general submission plans for the townhouse configurations were the only representations made for these neighborhoods. While Mr. Clarke agrees that flexibility was granted to the Applicant regar i g e location and configuration, he is certain that it was never represented nor contemplated that the units would be detached into single family residences. Staff continues to recommend denial of the PUD amendment. 2 J • • i! �r..�-•soy •�' ��q�' • + ��� IGHLANDS ASPENH ROBERT A.M. STERN ARC111TE SITE PLAN - ►• 0 � FINAL �1►FD KA►tFfl S�SMtssre�l ceNS���D�riD RAN L, t 14 B 9 to 11 17 LLGLND 4 _ _ �. _ tiIJILD N6 19 KEY PLAN Block D VILLAGE CORE - — ® - Block E 1<1� / WEST � - - / / -- Block E - r TOWNHOUSES - / \ ' TOWNHOUSES/ - - I rl- a DA A N G R O A �/ - \ / i�-/ � / / / \v /' / 1 1_•IMM lf1J�:. 1'I tY�l1. •/f1/yr ' S.•W-SS.Vr ' 1' 7 ASPEN HIGHLANDS I B I T ` 1J �� / % Asral,caoRADo A R K I N ROBERT A.M. STERN ARCHITECTS k F ,'' ,'' M� WM fY f011�T. siv YLWJL 1A 1�1 �. \ \ , \ . \ �. Bloc - -� , raanwisfw-rNcpinw,ew 1 I I AFFORDABLE - �I 1' 13/ 1' HOUSING CO , SCIINUi'St.R. NpON. NF.YF.R ra w4 n . / ' / • / � • nawoao a....a to .ael / �' I ,' � _ _ �` � .. - � ' -• % Href as a. et.oa a AND BLOCK - - - - Y - I - / GRADING PLAN } r.eRal n. rel. t l` al.n/In� ord.:al t MAROON CREEK ROAD ` h L-203 ��14 - tr I 7 H 4 I � t 1 S 14 1 !! LEGEND J:r O / / vaaIERn ENVELOPE Block C , A.EAST %o I I TOWNHOUSES- , KEY PLAN -Block / AFFORDABLE ' I IOUS IN G , /. � / 7 �Ira,,,l,allll / i SuIMSSIr. \ / ♦\ r NI�iM COUMIr 1111411 r/I1/'1� I /� II 1 „ ASPCN HIGHLANDWEN. MADFLADO ROBERT A STERN ` \ ARCIiffECTS _ n �\ - N►r rnrL Nr 1p' _ -_ - _ _ — _. \ ` i / � \ � � \ W � - / ��PI ,� wun�lp r�s Pl„vrr•ffq SCIWUESI ft. GONUO`N. MF.YEN / � �f , \ \ � •� \ ! �� � i `\ -�- `t .,,..moo ,-.:�; �..•..r qA BLOCK B AND BLOCKC C L-201 i K ATTACHMENT...... ROBERT E. DANIEL JR. HINES HIGHLANDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BOX 5115 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-920-1710 March 21, 2000 Joyce Ohlson Aspen Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Highlands Village Planned Unit Development: Minor Amendment to a Planned Unit Development Dear Joyce: Hines Highlands Limited Partnership is the developer of the Aspen Highlands Village. This letter authorizes Davis Horn Incorporated and Kaufman & Peterson to prepare a PUD amendment land use application on our behalf and represent us in the City of Aspen land use process. Thanks. Sincerely, �� ROBERT E. DANIEL JR. HINES HIGHLANDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ip ��' - _ _ \ �\•\ \ \ \ \�__-�� 3,; 17 E1NVEw iiYP \'\ — _`��• i/ `�\ _. , Z. /.` • `' - , � \\. \ �.\ � NV 71 `]'/\ .,.{ I r / / / / / / I' �\ \ `,.r 1 � %, :�!�, �_V � .\` ////�/���•�/j<�� �\i jutl.r�-r;�'t�I`�` ���'`� n �, i/i,�s / / / / ///// /!n ,-- -_� �\ llr�El%\' \''�''� rT r'-�'' ~��`��— � ii �•/'//// / / / III�II.--\,.i"}FI'�� -S✓/�ii�//' / ol tI �/ L� /'III � / i / //.�/N'I%l '.I #-"�` //.- / %• / / 1 / / i� \ \ � � ii����//�t\\ � \\ /_ t�"� rlj l)•t}.� ;✓�% / I LII j}I �•'I I��, '� — y' 1 / / / / \ \ \ \ '/�/%%�i. �'/•r —1 \` _�=%—,/ \�.�f�/ �l,y�/ i\ `III t 11�//4j�r�,%'d• \ /i '//'/__,� ` //•/ /%.//(\ �_ \ j .i �i/ /�'�\ ' ��-�— ��� \ III \ \ \/" �,iil�fr Q /� // / / �/ -- - / \ /i I \ /,i \• � —a T--�� .. \ _ — � --- —--� r-- r .ill, , .. t ii \ I�/p 4%/ ♦ //// / / 'i / / /j / r l / // / /� �-- f _ low ol ASPEN HIGHLANDS ASPEN, COLORADO I ROBFTr A.M.- , ' ! ARCHITECTS 46V ' , .. r 74h S1REE7. NEW YORK. NY 10001 tLL(212)967.3100 • FV((212)067.SSU SCIIMCF.SER, CORDON. MC M •,f wfl f•M frfVt ur..ox rwws. co ufe, 1 Ufot of-,aw I MAROON NEIGHBORHOOD - - --- - GRADING PLAN - — - L-204 ATTACHMENT. July 22, 1999 Hines Highlands Limited Partnership P.O. Box 5115 0230 Thunderbowl Road Aspen, CO 81612 Attention: Mr. Jack Donovan Senior Construction Manager Subject: Retaining Wall Adjacent To Maroon Neighborhood Lots 17, 18 and 19 and Maroon Creek Road Aspen Highlands Pitkin County, Colorado Job No. GS-2356 Gentlemen: A retaining wall will be constructed on the lower part of the slope between Maroon Creek Neighborhood Lots 17,18 and 19 and an open space area and Maroon Creek Road. We were asked to evaluate the suitability of a proposed retaining wall concept. The following paragraphs describe the existing slope geometry and subsurface conditions and the planned retaining wall and presents slope stability analyses and our conclusions and recommendations. Existing Slopes The existing slope ranges in total height from approximately 35 to 80 vertical feet. The ground surface generally slopes at grades of 65 percent (1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical) to 100 percent (1 horizontal to 1 vertical) at lower parts of the slope and grades of 30 percent (3 horizontal to 1 vertical) to 70 percent (1.4 horizontal to 1 vertical) at :rtermediate and upper parts of the slopes. Vegetation is aspen and pine trees, oak brush and native ground cover plants. Steeper areas are lacking vegetation due to slope surface erosion. Subsurface Conditions We drilled exploratory borings on Lots 17, 18 and 19 as part of previous investigations (our Job Nos. GS-2480 and GS-2480-B). Subsoils were 7 feet to 15 feet of man placed fill built with clayey gravel and gravelly clay underlain by native silty to CTL/THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 23•i CEN1 ER DRIVE 0 SPRINGS. COLORADO QtGRi " (970).945-2809 clayey gravels with cobbles and boulders. No ground water was encountered in the borings. Soils in the exposed slope face between the subject lots and Maroon Creek Road are similar to the native gravels found in our borings. Proposed Retaining Wall The proposed retaining wall conceptwas described as. a single row of soil nails at staggered elevations installed at horizontal distances of approximately 6 to 10 feet. A single row of large boulders would then be dry stacked against the cleared and grubbed and soil nailed slope for erosion protection. Drainage behind the rocks would be accomplished via wick drains. Additional drains would be installed in existing drainages. Slope Stability Analyses Our analyses evaluated the existing slope stability and the affects of soil naillstacked rock and rock buttress retaining structures on global slope stability and as mitigation of future erosional slumps. A global failure is a landslide involving the majority of the existing slope. An erosional slump is a smaller failure feature. We determined the existing factor of safeties with respect to a global failure ranges from 1.3 to 1.8. In our opinion the calculated global factor of safeties are marginally acceptable fora slope adjacent to Maroon Creek Road. Computer printouts of selected analyses results are shown in Appendix B. Comparatively small slope failures we consider erosional slumps have occurred. The slope failure locations are shown on Figufe A-1 in Appendix A. Global Stability The soil nails planned would be installed from a drill rig on Maroon Creek Road. Installation of nail heads at elevations greaterthan 10 feet above the road elevation is not likely practical. We modeled soil anchors installed at 10 feet above the road elevation with lengths of 20, 30, 40 and 50 feet. The modeled nails were inclined at 12 degrees down from horizontal. Because of the location of the theoretical failure surface soil nail lengths less than 40 feet do not significantly increase global slope stability. The nails do not intersect the failure surface. Nail lengths of 40 and 50 feet increased the calculated factor of safeties by approximately 0.2 to 0.4. Therefore, after installation of "longer" nails the resultant factor of safeties were 1.5 to 2.2. To significantly increase the global stability more than one row of nails would be required and nails would have to be installed more toward the middle of the slope. Our experience is that the calculated factor of safety increases are small relative to the cost of soil nail installation. We next modeled a rock buttress built at the toe of the slope to evaluate the benefit to global slope stability. A rock buttress approximately 10 feet high and 6 feet wide at the existing slope base increased the global factor of safety by only a small amount (1.4 compared to 1.3 in the case of Lot 17). 2 To significantly increase global factory of safety retaining methods other than that proposed would be required. Installation of driven piles with wood lagging or a mechanical stabilized earth (MSE) toe buttress might be appropriate methods to allow construction of a vertical wall adjacent to Maroon Creek and allow regrading of the natural slope to a flatter inclination. Erosional Slump Mitigation A rock buttress constructed as described above would greatly mitigate the possibility of additional erosional slumps at lower parts of the existing slopes. The following guidelines should be followed for a rock buttress wall. The base -to -height ratio should not be less than 0.6; 2. Maximum height of a dry stacked rock walls should not exceed 10 feet; 3. The first course of rocks must be embedded under the ground surface. The depth of embedment should. be at least 2 feet; 4• The allowable steepness of a rock wall face depends largely on the rock size and shape. Rocks with weight greater than 500 lb and angular in shape can be used to create a wall face of steepness up to 4 (vertical) to 1 (horizontal) slope. Smaller or rounded rocks should be limited to the construction of dry stacked rock walls not steeper than 3 (vertical) to 1 (horizontal) slope; 5• Rocks should be placed in fairly uniform lifts, and infilled with a granular material such as a aggregate base course. The infilling should be completed prior to placing the next lift of rocks. Figure B-4 show a'rock wall sections we believe appropriate. The rock sizes shown are what we consider as the minimum size acceptable. The rocks have a minimum length of 3 feet. Generally, the larger the rock, the better. Drainage System Improper drainage systems are one of the major causes of retaining wall failures. Drainage systems are required to eliminate excess hydrostatic pressures. The drain can also mitigate damage from frost action. Drain discharge locations should be identified to allow inspection at later dates. A layer of natural clays should be placed on top of wall backfill to reduce infiltration of surface water from rainfall or snow melt. Provisions of a drain should reduce hydrostatic pressures. At least 12-inches of backfill directly behind the lower one-third of the retaining will should consist of free draining gravel. The gravel should be washed 3/4 inch to No. 4 screen material with less than 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. A CDOT Class 6 aggregate base course should be used behind the upper two- thirds of the wall. 91 Additional protection against hydrostatic pressure build up could be accomplished via weep holes. Weep holes, should be a pipe, at least 3 inches in diameter, extending through the stem of the wall. They should be protected against clogging by pockets of gravel in the soil backfill or by the use of filter fabric adjacent to the wall directly behind the weepholes. The weepholes are commonly spaced not more than 10 feet apart vertically and horizontally. Limitations Our analyses was to assist the owner in enhancing the stability of the existing slope adjacent to Maroon Creek Road. The lots above will be developed and we do not known the future development plans. Development above could increase or decrease the slope stability. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please call if you have questions. Very Truly You JM:cd (3 copies sent) APPENDIX A FIGURE FROM PREVIOUS REPORT 10 Feet High Wail NATIVE CLAY 3' x 1.5 .. 3' x 1.5 i• C1 T CLASS 6 4' X 2' •ti f AGG . BA 4' x 2' 10 Ft oo 3' 2' 3' x 2' 0000a°eec° °°°°e° WASHED °°°°°°°° ROCK 3 2 3 x 2' ° °vo... 2 Ft minimum o°°° 1 Ft minimum ROCK WALL SECTIONS LTR 7/22/991 Job No. GS— 2356 C-1- R=[, APPENDIX B SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES i m 6 M IL r O O v u cn 0-0 cu .Q 0) LL ' a� 2 , .0) Q i Z CL ti cu C in O_ I co r O Z r ; U LL , I CD .. � 8 m LL i Cl U� L� O OC i O QIC �3 NM � d>to r V> CD O I v v OOUCL iOUw i I Ln J M N rr I� Nm Z� m n r i O L. R 8 0 oP o O (1aa;) UOIJenaJ� 70 C/) O -O O C 0 :E m = Q. z Q00 c v, r- oQCo o (_ E °O E z O O •� -jU� 6) u t 3 N � r r LL 1 r , 1 r s r 1 , � 1 I 1 > 1 I � 1 T )n o Uc,o 0.0) C O p7L C Q. O O I j Q d 0 7 Cl) C7 U NU 47 � i 1 A 3 � I 8 co (;aa}) UOIJenaJ:� 8 ri 0 O N 1 m LL a R J a O u O O E 0) Q a-cN Z CD c Q 0 0 L ' E cr EZ cz 0 0 J U ti .3 8 -4g 10 I � re) i m LL (1aa;) UOIJBAGJ�3 10 Feet High Wall 3' x 1.51 :'•, '3' x 1.5 � j- 4' 2' f x x 2' NATIVE CLAY CDO T CLASS 6 AGG . BA; PA 10 Ft 1 eee�vovoo°°° 3' tx2' ' 3' x 2' vo;oee�oa°° .eveee.e.° WASHED ° ROCK 3' 3' x 2' ° 2 Ft minimum 1 Ft minimum ROCK WALL SECTIONS LTR 7/22/99 Job No. GS— 2356 Fla. B-a DM APPENDIX C EXISTING CUT SLOPE PHOTOGRAPHS �t"�^' .t}) is � _ 'i � ' w �� ,,, r -�i j���'•INA .�� + •,�;`��•�:�-���, ^',•i 1 tip-,• � 5,�-9„•'�' ��� �•��ti = � -L� ~'•`wit ,,� ;�;t -_; "rya + • - t^ r r ATTACHMENT,-,r. ROBERT E. DANIEL JR. HINES HIGHLANDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BOX 5115 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-920-1710 March 21, 2000 Joyce Ohlson Aspen Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Highlands Village Planned Unit Development: Minor Amendment to a Planned Unit Development Dear Joyce: Hines Highlands Limited Partnership is the developer of the Aspen Highlands Village. This letter authorizes Davis Horn Incorporated and Kaufman & Peterson to prepare a PUD amendment land use application on our behalf and represent us in the City of Aspen land use process. Thanks. Sincerely, C- ROBERT E. DANIEL JR. HINES HIGHLANDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP F E E A 2 If 7 8120- I 6110 Al 9�0;,5 " - - ARAAE p1T1iA1,G 2 3 4 fly'-•-_'-�� �\\\�\�•. / ���///,/�/ . �• �'s�—��a Est o_�g,.-���r �%��%•%��'..��= %�6 9 i 1p i 11 12 I i3 J 3--�tV 14 15 --I LEGEND o ASPEN HIGHLANDS C A 10 \ LEGEND N POOL AND- -� - - - -+.acrum 5ASE OF TERRACE - - _ - .� �•�:\�' _ / \ / ENT tLF: RAIL LEv ` ELEv W ELEv %' \U- RAIL 8' TREADS •80a / / i' i/ %// - ' \ \ / / K/ �/�1 ��p�•-' ELEV. FOR AND `� V I I- L p G E R OA D I I AGGM / - /' // I KEY PLAN /', H' 5�445GE ELEV. 6EOOt -0" \ \ \ . \ /� .;� i.• //' '-TA AND• /� \ \\ ,,:��\ : \�\` \ — ELEV. geoer j 5060 \ •�\ // F O - PR VATS // jj / ,oa'� - O TERRACES YW.L - - •\ ' / ! //� / / / E i �TKEN COUNTY DETAILED i e/i]/9� SUMSSON SET ;y / ;oe No. i :ssuE GATE o- R PARK N5 I T I O N R P A R K I DECK ELEv. _— N G ' - ASPEN HIGHLANDS Ri — — '� j ASPEN, cowxAno A _ CIA _ gyp( i ROBERT AM. STERN wEa PARKING SKIM - --_ 'BO ' -- i(� / /+{}T��/+}� ELEV a CAR ENTRANCE/iLI •' ARl.I311 Gl.lJ e4mo M0 WEST 346 STRPST. I7Ew YORE NY 10001 TII.(3t2)9fT-staoTAx C11219�r-SStl CREEK ROAD p P+9 ' -- - � /' SCHYUF7FR CORDON. Y6lER C LEfYZ \ — T Tuwr Lme MAROON VII.L?LGE GRADING PLAN ---------- 7 v; PART THREE _ CAD ��. No. xror A ,/ / - - - ------------ L-203 z 3 a I g i B ; 3 .2 ?3 14 r The arrows point to the locations of the approved triplexes — and the proposed the locations of the detached single family residences. The duplex in the background of the photo directly below is located across the street and is not in impacted by this development. The detached units would essentially surround the existing triplex in the center of the photograph. Five triplexes were approved for this site, including the one pictured. Detaching the remaining units would create 12 family residences instead of 4 triplexes. The fence is temporary to shield the residents from the other construction at Highlands. ,+�..� ter' ♦� 1. ;. 4� ,��4:. 'ice+ . _ � � ` �~"`l'_ w_a ��. • t m y fi It r '•y, +•`yam; , • F x� • 1. Yu� 4 wyIry ��^'•' _ _Mr��. '^ : 'i,_ �✓�SWi."adr..^Y • ' - O.. l- "�..A A *a R..,I Ritz Ritz .r 1 - M-I� "It 7 ou r �� r ,,..n,rv«^s �r ,i���' �".'„"M7.< •Y"�,...5�.. .. / � a K+U �Gir�"••' ,.., .r•"'t � �t I ,- � �. �. ►. � - - _ - _ � !% a _" . - t , Dorm. bar. etc All sin,Le familNr residence site A ���� 1 1. - w +• e �( .-• + .4s ylt "rti� '.'s'^...sn*•:�-:.rfilf� .il, «.\ �� sY Mom. s yr4�0�ti,fv:` lit •'7Qf L•. J�3^-�'��> ��� �:�_'�1'� _ ;..�._,Y; .r�'iTf�•' �,�+*.:.lfY,,l� 1 :� «. 46 ,, �,� a ,/ jtirr.. ... � . r •, � "fit;=} tr -. '«r•"` � �� �• ,'' " "'" _ obi + • -.. ` • �� r M "'' "`' "„ Rite Ritz _sue • r . , � s 4 1: .0., f rt.A �- _ ; t 4 rr .•..lW. - � _,`. �. � � « J'.veyfJ' ;` Ltd •� La j All single family residence site Donn, bar, etc 1 The arrows point to the locations of the approved triplexes — and the proposed the locations of the — L detached single family residences. The duplex in the background of the photo directly below is located across the street and is not in impacted by this development. ' .`�a • The detached units would "�'~ ,�"+.+r►` essentially surround the existing; triplex in the center of the photograph. Five triplexes were approved for this site, including • �, ,JY `Y, ♦ vi 4 ` E the one pictured. Detaching the remaining units would create 12 lamily residences instead ol'4 triplexes. The fence is temporaryto shield the residents from they other construction at Highlands.-=+�.;� �,. ti.;'.. •t ..�ii' , ' '�jt.,�1.. � -_ j }.._ .+rl9"��� �t �--•�=r-r� �—t-•E vi�.. 'h•��%�o�� r.•— �,r� Y J� rr '; R. y. �L, .. / tip. ♦ ,' • �,.r. AA ',•.�j .n ' -"tip~ ' _'E,4 -�� -s `�.,y� _,..- �.. �..fy`�R '. e'er -.fit• 10 Feet High Wall 4' 4'1 x 2' ' �\2' . j 3' x 2' 3' 2' 3' x 2' 0 NATIVE CLAY X2'GG 3' -x75- '3' x 1OT C1 LASS 6 . BA-c WASHED ROCK 10 Ft -------------------------- 2 Ft minimum 1 Ft minimum ROCK WALL SECTIONS .lob NO. GS— 2356 LTR 7/22/991 Cl- R=4 I APPENDIX B SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES �Cj L O !' O , t0 ;r U) CM 2 , _ Z � , ti E Z j o o 0, , i �.� t T r m = c :T i .. N O ii� r o O t,: O CL C COr U d U C7 c) I 0 r O C O r-- r - N C O L r � i r 3 r r � R 8 0 o v 0 (V 0 (}Gal) UOIJenal�] m M LL tz Ln M N (n Q1 Lr)� O N Z .fl � O n— f g cn u r O to 0 L ? i Q.. r O C i. Z � r C (n ; o¢ o i L I G C C Z s i r � O O •— i I ca I � T LOCN i O LL i PTO � ' cO �C Oc C Q.p N Q.LO a)o �, �.NL i U a)M U (D I i 3 i S d i? 3 s 9 0 LL (IGGI) UOIJenai�; v u A 7 N d O A LL 1 0 0 cu Q .flT 2 Q c N Z 0- r r 00 Q O cu _E 0) C C Z cz O O •� -iU7 I 0 PW °a fin: y I t .Xi . „ 0, a K.''" x,3 I Y ! ( s f ! T 'GCS y f I CS O � C L N L CO _ c O L I I —z i , O P FMO - 0 0 I m LL (Iaa}) Uoijena(:q 10 Feet High Wall 3' x 1.5 3' x 1.5 i- � 1• 4' x 2' ;� f 4' x 2' NATIVE CLAY COOT CLASS 6 AGG . BA� Pi 10 Ft 3' x 2' 3' x 2' °°°° WASHED 0000 0. ROCK 3' x 2' 3' x 2' 2 Ft minimum 1 Ft minimum ROCK WALL SECTIONS LTR 7/22/99 Job No. GS- 2356 Fla. B-`' APPENDIX C EXISTING CUT SLOPE PHOTOGRAPHS t l 3 1TPAC +'F 1c• C• 4,� 'r'-`r � ) r 1 i � � � �) ' Zv • rS , r7 3 j. R ita i t# fir, r: . tip.. ' �: ;;:.' .. .'r ;,:: , : •. i - ... ... i..F - _ -41 1 � •�.w:"-i t: ter• t -'R ''�•1:• Ef��'3�•.�'�►`t_'FD6'�:.::.�s �='.`a�1h']�''�=�ti�'.�i:'7'--.`.'y..�v_:, .....:n.:._� -'�' • 7 � +5 5 7 8 '0 '�'7 �3 to � I I O R LEGEND � - - j -� 1', N O ACHMENT 1/0 Poa- III — �� /'� - a ♦ \ /' 7 ' / ' i / 8110 2. ERRAc SPA OP" SPAGE RELEV - r lom"al c i • ��,�/ / \, ���///// �/ IMN • , • N. STERN Y1 GORDON.ARCHITECTS 1 ..� PART ONE 1 ? 1\4\ / I \ / �\� �� 'ram — 0 t \ , a - `(/j � DAr SKIER F A I r r .� TOW 27 130 S. Galena St. Aspen CO 81611 (970)920-5090 (970) 920-5439, fax To: L��v�s From: (G`L Fax: Pages: Phone• Date: Re: CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle • Comments: rut PROSPECTOR ROAD Ive �77 rL. 4 OOMERANG ROAD a4j 10 NI AR \ 9 ) rvreO 8� g go WO 0000-050 lo Nil SAO w: "90 ,ice • x= i � ^ +� �^7.. 7 8 10 MAROON v ""� ;fir• f • a ' r^ \ 9 p r 4 Fg PROSPECTOR ROAD L. 19 iJ �y f BOOMERANG ROAD V-! Volt- 1Yra' Y 4 . roe �, ,,'19': . 1 � ,�. �,�' t� ;� c:( {�. N:.s" ti.'" v�py. • � �y{' r ,L�+ .-,�a,�; W ", ,may ,l gr , • "i""a 4i"- Lance Clarke, 10:49 AM 511 " "' " -0600, AHV PUD Amendments Page 1 of'] X-Sender: lancec@comdev X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:49:43 -0600 To: Nickl@ci.aspen.co.us From: Lance Clarke <lancec@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: AHV PUD Amendments --To the extent the proposed retaining wall is in Pitkin County right of way, the design and construction of the wall must be reviewed and approved by Pitkin County. The wall construction constitutes a major visual change and should only be approved in the context of a public hearing with surrounding property owner notification. --The conversion of the attached units to an unattached configuration is a significant change from all previous representations and should not be approved without a public hearing with surrounding property owner notification. Total square footages should not be materially altered without public hearing and notification. Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 5/16/00 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner W RE: Aspen Highlands Base Village PUD Amendment -- Update DATE: June 6, 2000 The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the Pitkin County land use approvals concerning the townhouse neighborhoods in Blocks C and E, which are on the east and west ends of the Aspen Highlands Village (AHV) Core. The Staff report included in your packet contains the site plans approved during the general submission or conceptual review, which is what was provided in the application for this PUD amendment. Based on these site plans, the staff report states that Block C was approved for five (5) duplexes and two (2) triplexes, and that Block E was approved for one (1) duplex and four (4) triplexes. On Monday, June 5, Staff met with the Applicant's representatives, Glenn Horn, Bill Poss, Gideon Kaufman and Dwayne Romero. The Applicant's representatives contend that the general submission plans were only illustrative, demonstrating one possible configuration of the townhouses. They claim that the detailed submission or final site plans are what should be considered for this PUD amendment even though they were not included in the application. The detail submission site plans for these townhouse neighborhoods are blank, and only include topography and designs for the Village Core. Attached is the approved site plan from the Aspen Highlands Village PUD Guide and Detailed Submission Consolidated Plan. The Applicant asserts, and Staff agrees, that flexibility is provided with regard to the configuration, location, and design of the townhouses within the established building envelopes, AHV residential homesites design and landscape regulations and following dimensions: Total Number of Townhouses: 32 Floor Area for each block: 56,000 square feet (total 112,000 square feet) Maximum Building Height: 28 feet Yard & Road Setbacks: "The townhouses will be located within the Townhouse Building Envelopes as depicted on Aspen Highlands Village Final Plat. Driveway, sidewalks, landscaping and retaining walls may be located between the Building Envelope and the adjoining roads." The proposal for the townhouse neighborhoods is for 9 townhouses (5 are already built — one triplex and one duplex) and for 23 detached single family residences. After meeting with the Applicant's representatives, Staff again consulted County Planning Deputy Director Lance Clarke regarding the approved site plans. Mr. Clarke stated that the townhouse neighborhoods were not discussed after the general submission review. He agrees that the plans were illustrative and not binding. However, he also said that the general submission plans for the townhouse configurations were the only representations made for these neighborhoods. While Mr. Clarke agrees that flexibility was granted to the Applicant regarding the location and configuration, he is certain that it was never represented nor contemplated that the units would be detached into single family residences. Staff continues to recommend denial of the PUD amendment. PA 3 --- �\ '"/- \ `\ \ \ �� _� � /� i`�"1 i• %l-- �r i // //�'//' _ / /sue' h '�-_ - - �' _ -- -- - \ �\• \ \\ \ \ !_-_-� - 3,� i /",, \; �.r� � _: - -i:. jib/ yf / /--, 'V� �! /x� _-� ! / - �� , LEA Tt, - TMTY _-(��-�. �`�r - -x�/ tl �,^,,,`y �t-•�//i/�i/j;/L.. `��'�c_i•-/� ~�=`'�` / _ _ / r- - \'.. ! \ \\, \ ___ -__ _ _ _ '�� _`„ 1 _�-tea/:i i., / _ z' / ✓'/ ..?. ti 'C•/ r/ -_ _, l`• `/ice_-�__�-__ \ \ ?' 1, � � 1'\• '—\ -, 1 - ,--- — II. '�` /�/��—' / / , r /� // / / �i � _ � � PK Iv ! \ �♦ / r�/// - \f--- Tom- '�!�- '--Irrl �•- s' / /�_ // / // /�/ \ ,• _ / •� h=irT�/-;� \�� \.�i/IIII�IIIf - ��rl � /IIII'I I �'• /i /,/ / / /, 1 j \ \ \\ •, \ \ \ 10 / IF \ _� -!mot `•`r / r ♦ /V �I Y /��/ / / �-- \ \ \ / / •., ��/� 1 - _'-�`�—��_�` /; --''/I,x),1�\\\\�\:.�,,�('�I�/i/��seof //��/ ice'- -----'// \ /il I \ //� � .=a, ♦ / , y// ,A LEGEND - - - - - - EXISTING CONTCXRS PPOPOSE7 CONTOURS PROPERTY LINE ElACTIVITY ENVELOPE KEY PLAN I BUILDING ENVELOPE D �_\5:. ;�•E^. :!.•A'�_: S,.±v SS C� _ __. _-_" 4/i•/9r ASPEN HIGHLANDS ASPEN•COLORADO ROBFT'T A.NI. I ARCHITECTS Ib_' T 34dr STREET, itEW YORK NY 10001 , LL (212) 967-3100 • F kX (212) 067.5588 SCIIMUESER. CORDON. MEYER ' 'q .11 ... $1— ' ar. S.—S. co $."I i MAROON NEIGHBORHOOD -- --- - GRADING PLAN - -- 12 L-204 ATTACHMENT July 22, 1999 Hines Highlands Limited Partnership P.O. Box 5115 0230 Thunderbowl Road Aspen, CO 81612 Attention: Mr. Jack Donovan Senior Construction Manager Subject: Retaining Wall Adjacent To Maroon Neighborhood Lots 17, 18 and 19 and Maroon Creek Road Aspen Highlands Pitkin County, Colorado Job No. GS-2356 Gentlemen: A retaining wall will be constructed on the lower part of the slope between Maroon Creek Neighborhood Lots 17,18 and 19 and an open space area and Maroon Creek Road. We were asked to evaluate the suitability of a proposed retaining wall concept. The following paragraphs describe the existing slope geometry and subsurface conditions and the planned retaining wall and presents slope stability analyses and our conclusions and recommendations. Existino Slopes The existing slope ranges in total height from approximately 35 to 80 vertical feet. The ground surface generally slopes at grades of 65 percent (1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical) to 100 percent (1 horizontal to 1 vertical) at lower parts of the slope and grades of 30 percent (3 horizontal to 1 vertical) to 70 percent (1.4 horizontal to 1 vertical) at irtermediate and upper parts of the slopes. Vegetation is aspen and pine trees, oak brush and native ground cover plants. Steeper areas are lacking vegetation due to slope surface erosion. Subsurface Conditions We drilled exploratory borings on Lots 17, 18 and 19 as part of previous investigations (our Job Nos. GS-2480 and GS-2480-8). Subsoils were 7 feet to 15 feet of man placed fill built with clayey gravel and gravelly clay underlain by native silty to CTL/THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 22-1 CENT FR DRwE o G�E.rr,:c)c rI SFIRINGS. COLORADO a16ni ■ (97011,945-2809 clayey gravels with cobbles and boulders. No ground water was encountered in the borings. Soils in the exposed slope face between the subject lots and Maroon Creek Road are similar to the native gravels found in our borings. Proposed Retaining Wall The proposed retaining wall conceptwas described as. a single row of soil nails at staggered elevations installed at horizontal distances of approximately 6 to 10 feet. A single row of large boulders would then be dry stacked against the cleared and grubbed and soil nailed slope for erosion protection. Drainage behind the rocks would be accomplished via wick drains. Additional drains would be installed in existing drainages. Slope Stability Analyses Our analyses evaluated the existing slope stability and the affects of soil nail/stacked rock and rock buttress retaining structures on global slope stability and as mitigation of future erosional slumps. A global failure is a landslide involving the majority of the existing slope. An erosional slump is a smaller failure feature. We determined the existing factor of safeties with respect to a global failure ranges from 1.3 to 1.8. In our opinion the calculated global factor of safeties are marginally acceptable for a slope adjacent to Maroon Creek Road. Computer printouts of selected analyses results are shown in Appendix B. Comparatively small slope failures we consider erosional slumps have occurred. The slope failure locations are shown on Figufe A-1 in Appendix A. Global Stability The soil nails planned would be installed from a drill rig on Maroon Creek Road. Installation of nail heads at elevations greaterthan 10 feet above the road elevation is not likely practical. We modeled soil anchors installed at 10 feet above the road elevation with lengths of 20, 30, 40 and 50 feet. The modeled nails were inclined at 12 degrees down from horizontal. Because of the location of the theoretical failure surface soil nail lengths less than 40 feet do not significantly increase global slope stability. The nails do not intersect the failure surface. Nail lengths of 40 and 50 feet increased the calculated factor of safeties by approximately 0.2 to 0.4. Therefore, after installation of "longer" nails the resultant factor of safeties were 1.5 to 2.2. To significantly increase the global stability more than one row of nails would be required and nails would have to be installed more toward the middle of the slope. Our experience is that the calculated factor of safety increases are small relative to the cost of soil nail installation. We next modeled a rock buttress built at the toe of the slope to evaluate the benefit to global slope stability. A rock buttress approximately 10 feet high and 6 feet wide at the existing slope base increased the global factor of safety by only a small amount (1.4 compared to 1.3 in the case of Lot 17). To significantly increase global factory of safety retaining methods other than that proposed would be required. Installation of driven piles with wood lagging or a mechanical stabilized earth (MSE) toe buttress might be appropriate methods to allow construction of a vertical wall adjacent to Maroon Creek and allow regrading of the natural slope to a flatter inclination. Erosional Slump Mitigation A rock buttress constructed as described above would greatly mitigate the possibility of additional erosional slumps at lower parts of the existing slopes. The following guidelines should be followed for a rock buttress wall. 1. The base -to -height ratio should not be less than 0.6; 2. Maximum height of a dry stacked rock walls should not exceed 10 feet; 3. The first course of rocks must be embedded underthe ground surface. The depth of embedment should, be at least 2 feet; 4. The allowable steepness of rock wall face depends largely on the rock size and shape. Rocks with weight greater than 500 lb and angular in shape can be used to create a wall face of steepness up to 4 (vertical) to 1 (horizontal) slope. Smaller or rounded rocks should be limited to the construction of dry stacked rock walls not steeper than 3 (vertical) to 1 (horizontal) slope; 5. Rocks should be placed in fairly uniform lifts, and infilled with a granular material such as a aggregate base course. The infilling should be completed prior to placing the next lift of rocks. Figure B-4 show a'rock wall sections we believe appropriate. The rock sizes shown are what we consider as the minimum size acceptable. The rocks have a minimum length of 3 feet. Generally, the larger the rock, the better. Drainage System Improper drainage systems are one of the major causes of retaining wall failures. Drainage systems are required to eliminate excess hydrostatic pressures. The drain can also mitigate damage from frost action. Drain discharge locations should be identified to allow inspection at later dates. A layer of natural clays should be placed on top of wall backfill to reduce infiltration of surface water from rainfall or snow melt. Provisions of a drain should reduce hydrostatic pressures. At least 12-inches of backfill directly behind the lower one-third of the retaining wall should consist of free draining gravel. The gravel should be washed 314 inch to No. 4 screen material with less than 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. A CDOT Class 6 aggregate base course should be used behind the upper two- thirds of the wall. Additional protection against hydrostatic pressure build up could be accomplished via weep holes. Weep holes, should be a pipe, at least 3 inches in diameter, extending through the stem of the wall. They should be protected against clogging by pockets of gravel in the soil backfill or by the use of filterfabric adjacent to the wall directly behind the weepholes. The weepholes are commonly spaced not more than 10 feet apart vertically and horizontally. Limitations Our analyses was to assist the owner in enhancing the stability of the existing slope adjacent to Maroon Creek Road. The lots above will be developed and we do not known the future development plans. Development above could increase or decrease the slope stability. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please call if you have questions. Very Truly Y (3 copies sent) m APPENDIX A �i FIGURE FROM PREVIOUS REPORT