HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.Benedict Building.A8-93Benedict Bldg SPA Designation/
Development Plan & GMQS Exempt.
2737-181-32-020 A8-93
A
ASPENTITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 L -7 3--7-
(303) 920-5090 Q
�O
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
CITY:
-63250-134
GMP/Conceptual
-63270-136
GMP/Final
-63280-137
SUB/Conceptual
-63300-139
SUB/Final
-63310-140
All-2 Step Applicationsif 44
-63320-141
All 1 Step Applications
-63330-150
Staff Approval
-63432-157
Zoning Plan Check
-63432-157
Sign Permit
-00100-00000-31070
Use Tax for Sign Permits
1 V - i<Vi'
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
-63335-151
Exemption
-63336-152
Minor
-63337-153
Major Devel.
-63338-154
Signif. Devel.
-63339-155
Demolition
COUNTY:
-63160-126
GMP/General
-63170-127
GMP/Detailed
-63180-128
GMP/Final
-63190-129
SUB/General
-63200-130
SUB/Detailed
-63210-131
SUB/Final
-63220-132
All 2 Step Applications — - --
-63230-133
All 1 Step Applications
-63240-149
Staff Approval
-63450-146
Board of Adjustment
-63235-148
Zoning Plan Check
REFERRAL FEES:
-63360-143
Engineering - County
00115-63340-163
Engineering - City
00123-63340-190
Housing
00125-63340-205
Environmental Health
PLANNING OFFICE SALES:
-63080-122
County Code
-69000-145
Other (Copy Fees)
TOTAL
Name:
Phone:
Address:
Project:
Check #: Date: No of Copies:
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 02/16/93 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 2737-181-32-020 A8-93
STAFF MEMBER: KJ
PROJECT NAME: Benedict Building SPA Designation/Development Plan
and GMOS Exemption
Project Address: 1280 Ute Ave.
Legal Address: Lot 16, Callahan Subdivision
APPLICANT: Fritz & Fabienne Benedict
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny
Vann, Vann Associates
Representative Address/Phone:
230 E.
Hopkins
Aspen,
CO 81611 925-6958
FEES: PLANNING
$2041.00
#
APPS RECEIVED 5
ENGINEER
$ 93.00
#
PLATS RECEIVED 5
HOUSING
$
ENV. HEALTH
$
TOTAL
$2134.00
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: X
P&Z Meeting Date % PUBLIC HEARING: YES i NO
VESTED RIGHTS: S NO
CC Meeting Date Y/—Z (0 PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
M/�; VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
DRC Meeting Date
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
Parks Dept.
Bldg Inspector
Fire Marshal
Holy Cross
Mtn. Bell
ACSD
Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
CDOT
Clean Air Board
Open Space Board
Other
Other
DATE REFERRED:1' INITIALS : `� DUE: �' Z
FINAL ROUTING: \� 1 V DATE ROUTED • INITIAL: ,�
City Atty City Engineer
Housing Open Space
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
Zoning Env. Health
Other:
#0504 12/14/93 09:52 Rec $*)(? BK 735 PG 40
Silvia Davis, Fitk:in Cnty Clerk:. Doc.?!
RESIDENT OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION
UNIT 25, POWDER HOUSE CONDOMINIUMS
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
1993, by and between FREDRIC A. BENEDICT, FABIENNE
BENEDICT, and BENEDICT LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, a Colorado
corporation (collectively "Owner"), and THE ASPEN/PITRIN COUNTY
HOUSING AUTHORITY, a multi -jurisdictional housing authority
established pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated
Intergovernmental Agreement recorded in Book 605 at page 751 of the
real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado (the "APCHA"),
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Owner is the record owner of a one -bedroom
residential unit which contains approximately 690 square feet of
net livable area and which is shown and designated as Unit 25 on
the Condominium Map of Powder House Condominiums recorded in Plat
Book _ at page I_L of the Pitkin County records (the "Unit");
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 13,
Series of 1992, recorded in Book 1. at page (. LL of the Pitkin
County records, Owner is required to deed restrict the Unit
pursuant to the APCHA's guidelines for Resident Occupied Units.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the adoption of
Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1992, by the Aspen City Council, and
for other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Owner covenants and
agrees as follows:
1. The Unit is hereby designated as a "Resident Occupied
Unit", as defined by the APCHA.
2. The occupant of the Unit must be a resident of Pitkin
County and/or employed in Pitkin County for a minimum of thirty
(30) hours per week at least nine (9) months of the year.
3. Prior to the initial occupancy of the Unit, and again
prior to each change of occupancy of the Unit, written verification
of the Pitkin County residency and/or employment of the proposed
occupant shall be filed by the Unit Owner with the APCHA, and such
verification must be acceptable to the APCHA.
4. Subject always to the foregoing occupancy requirements,
the Unit may be freely rented or sold, without restriction as to
rent or sales price. Provided, that if the Unit is rented, the
minimum lease period shall be six (6) months, with no more than two
(2) shorter tenancies per calendar year.
#3640 12/14/93 09:52 Rec $15.00K': 735 FG 41
Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk, Doi- $.()(
5. Owner and APCHA mutually acknowledge that Owner has the
right at any time to terminate this Deed Restriction by paying the
"Affordable Housing Impact Fee" then in effect under the Aspen Land
Use Regulations. If at the time Owner elects to terminate this Deed
Restriction the Aspen Land Use Regulations do not contain an
"Affordable Housing Impact Fee", Owner shall have the right to
accomplish the termination by paying the "Affordable Housing Impact
Fee" that was last in effect under such Regulations. APCHA agrees
to cooperate with Owner if Owner elects to terminate the Deed
Restriction, and to execute whatever documents may be appropriate
to accomplish such termination as a matter of public record.
6. Should this Deed Restriction ever be terminated as above
provided, the Unit shall revert back to free-market status, and the
provisions set forth in Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the Subdivision
Exemption Agreement recorded in Book -23 ; at page _} 4r�- of the
Pitkin County records shall automatically go into effect upon and
apply to the Unit.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Deed
Restriction as of the day and year first above written.
Owner:
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN
Fredric A. Benedict
C'e_cpcl� C
Fabienne Benedict
Benedict Land and Cattle Company,
a Colorado corporation
By:
Fredric A. Benedict, President
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before
day of ��.� "�efZ� , 1993 by Fredric A. Benedict
Benedict, individually, and by Fredric A. Benedict as
9132.1 — 2 —
me this
and Fabienne
President of
#364504 07/14/913 09 : 52' Rec $1 `, . 00 Bt 065 PG 42
Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk, Disc $.f>._)
Benedict Land and Cattle Company, a Colorado corporation.
Witness my hand and official seal.
,Vcommission expires:
-�Iotao Public
ACCEPTANCE BY APCHA
The foregoing Deed Restriction and its terms are hereby
accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority this 10'4_
day of �i PrPw� b�,� , 1993.
Aspen/Pitki, 96unty Hosing �Ni} hority
MIVA� Iitii
a.v,& YIA3(-e� Chairman
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this l0'}
day of �Cp�,"G'- , 1993 by ��u; S m,, �K as
Chairman of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Auth rity.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: -��-
S
Notary Pubvic
9132.1 - 3 -
•
•
X,�, t/ ' ~
�(,-
CITY vLF
#3640 1'-/ 14/93 (-_)9: 50 Rec 735 Pf-i 36
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Sni_., C:i=rE Doc $.00
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT
FOR
POWDER HOUSE CONDOMINIUMS
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ` day of
1993, by and between FREDRIC A. BENEDICT, FABIENNE
BENEDICT, and BENEDICT LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, a Colorado
corporation (collectively "Owner"), and the CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, a Colorado municipal corporation ("City"),
W I T N E S S E T H•
WHEREAS, Owner is the record owner of Lot 16, Callahan
Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded May 19, 1976 in
Plat Book 5 at page 7 as Reception No. 183889, City of Aspen,
Pitkin County, Colorado, together with the existing Benedict Office
Building thereon (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 13, Series of
1992, as recorded in Book 716 at page 610 of the Pitkin County real
property records, the City has granted subdivision exemption
approval for the condominiumization of the Property, to be known as
Powder House Condominiums; and
WHEREAS, as a condition to such approval, Owner has agreed to
enter into certain covenants and agreements with the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the granting of
condominiumization approval by the City and for other good and
valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, Owner hereby covenants with the City to
restrict the Property, and does hereby restrict the Property, as
follows:
1. Residential Unit. The Powder House Condominiums contain
an existing one -bedroom residential unit, which is shown and
designated as Unit 25 on the Condominium Map of. the Powder House
Condominiums recorded in Plat Book 3 at page of the Pitkin
County records (the "Residential Unit"). By Resident Occupancy
Deed Restriction recorded in Book at page of the Pitkin
County records, Owner has deed restricted the Residential Unit
pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's guidelines
for Resident Occupied Units. Owner hereby agrees that in the event
the Residential Unit is ever converted back to free-market status
by the termination of the Deed Restriction, the following
provisions shall automatically go into effect upon and apply to the
Residential Unit, to wit:
(a) If and when the Residential Unit is rented, the
minimum lease period shall be six (6) months, with no
more than two (2) shorter tenancies per calendar year, as
cF;ec ^i . i_�i.� BV, 70
��
#364503 12/ 14/93 1.19.., _
3i.lvia. Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc
provided in Section 7-1007 (A) (1) (b) of the City of Aspen
Land Use Regulations; and
(b) If and when the Residential Unit is to be offered
for sale, the existing tenant (if any) shall be given
written notice thereof, including the proposed sale
price. Said existing tenant shall have a 90-day
nonassignable option to purchase the Residential Unit at
this preliminary market value. In addition, said
existing tenant shall have a 90-day exclusive
nonassignable right of first refusal to purchase the
Residential Unit, which shall commence when a bona fide
purchase offer is made by a third person and accepted by
Owner. If such offer is made while the initial 90-day
option period is still in effect, the tenant may purchase
the Residential Unit for the amount of the initial sale
price or the amount of the bona fide offer, whichever is
less.
2. Dedication of Fisherman's Easement. Owner hereby
dedicates to the use of the general public, for fishing purposes
only and not as a public trail, a perpetual, non-exclusive easement
and right-of-way along that portion of the Property lying between
the centerline of the Roaring Fork River and a line which is 5 feet
(measured horizontally) above the high water line of the Roaring
Fork River. Owner reserves to itself and its successors and
assigns forever the right to use and enjoy the easement area for
all purposes which do not interfere with the public fishing rights
dedicated hereby, and shall have no responsibility or liability in
connection with the use of the easement by the fishing public.
3. Amendment. The provisions of this Agreement may be
changed, modified or amended only by the recording of a written
instrument signed by an authorized officer of The Powder House
Condominium Association, Inc. and by the Mayor of the City of Aspen
pursuant to a vote taken by the City Council.
4. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall run with the title
to the Property and shall be binding upon all parties having any
right, title or interest in the Property or any part thereof, and
their heirs, representatives, successors and assigns, for the
period of the life of the longest -lived member of the presently -
constituted Aspen City Council plus twenty-one (21) years, or for
a period of fifty (50) years from the date this Agreement is
recorded, whichever is less.
5. Release
herein shall be released
they are binding without
reflected by resolution
or Waiver. None
or waived in
the prior
of the City
-2-
of the covenants contained
any respect during the period
consent of the City of Aspen
Council of the City of Aspen.
#364503 12P4/93 09:5(_) Fec $20.00 ELF::: PG 38
Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk:, Doc
6. Attorney's Fees. In any legal proceeding to enforce the
provisions of this Agreement, restrictions and conditions, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and fees
therein, including its reasonable attorney fees and expert witness
fees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
as of the day and year first above written.
Owner
City:
ATTEST:
City Cle
Fredric A. Benedict
Fabienne Benedict
Benedict Land and Cattle Company,
a Colorado corporation
By
Fredric A. Benedict, President
The City of Aspen, Colorado
By.
Mayor
9109.1 -3-
#36450-*/ 14/93 09: 50 kec $20. oC) 6735 PG 39
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of /��=�ca� g c��- 1993 by Fredric A. Benedict and
Fabienne Benedict, individually, and by Fredric A. Benedict as
President of Benedict Land and Cattle Company, a Colorado
corporation.
\5 41ij:ness my hand and official seal.
., fy "O-Runission expireso
P U 5 / s
�, ` Notaitj Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of 1993 byiJ-
as Mayor and (Goc-t - as City Clerk of The
City of Aspen, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My, commission expires: vI A16
otaF Public
9109.1 - 4 -
CITY v�,
#366301 01 /28/94 16:03 f�ec $30. 00 AK
740 IDS 150
Silvia Davis., Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc C 00
SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
LOT 16, CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
(BENEDICT OFFICE BUILDING TO BE KNOWN AS
POWDER HOUSE CONDOMINIUMS)
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this / day of
January, 1994, by and between FREDRIC A. BENEDICT, FABIENNE
BENEDICT, and BENEDICT LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, a Colorado
corporation (collectively "Benedict"), and THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, a municipal corporation and home rule city (the "City"),
W I T N E S S E T H•
WHEREAS, Benedict was the record owner of `,Lot 16, Callahan
Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded May 19, 71-9-76 in
Plat Book 5 at Page 7 in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of
Pitkin County, Colorado, together with the improvements thereon
known as the Benedict Office Building (collectively the "Subject
Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Benedict Office Building was legally constructed
in 1974 pursuant to a valid building permit, and was subsequently
rezoned to RR (Rural Residential) PUD, thus becoming a
grandfathered non -conforming use; and
WHEREAS, the Benedict Office Building has historically been
used for business and professional offices; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of removing such non -conformity,
Benedict applied to the City to designate the Subject Property as
a Specially Planned Area and to vary the uses permitted in the RR
Zone District to allow business and professional offices as a use
by right on the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, under and pursuant to Aspen City Council Ordinance
No. 25, recorded in Book 716 at Page 615 of the Pitkin County
records, the City designated the Subject Property as a Specially
Planned Area, granted Final SPA Development Plan approval for the
Subject Property, and granted a variation to the uses permitted in
the RR Zone District to allow business and professional offices on
the Subject Property, subject to the conditions set forth in the
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, under and pursuant to Aspen City Council Resolution
No. 89, Series of 1993, the City granted an extension of the
recordation requirements contained in Section 7-804.D.4. of Chapter
24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen to and until
January 31, 1999; and
#366301 01/28/74 16:03 Rec $30.00 BK 740 F6 151
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk:, Doc COO
WHEREAS, under and pursuant to Aspen City Council Ordinance
No. 13, recorded in Book 716 at Page 610 of the Pitkin County
records, the City granted subdivision exemption approval for the
condominiumization of the Benedict Office Building, to be known as
Powder House Condominiums, subject to the conditions set forth in
the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Benedict and City desire to memorialize the
conditions to SPA approval by entering into the following SPA
Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Benedict acknowledges and agrees that the following
matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public
health, safety and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the granting of an
SPA designation and Final SPA Development Plan Approval by the City
and for other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Benedict hereby
covenants with the City as follows with respect to the Subject
Property:
1. Future Improvement District. Benedict agrees to join any
future improvement districts which may be formed for purposes of
constructing improvements in the public right-of-way that serves
the Subject Property.
2. Zoning Classification. The City confirms that the
Subject Property is zoned RR (PUD) (SPA), Rural Residential,
Planned Unit Development, Specially Planned Area.
3. Applicable Zoning Regulations. The applicable
regulations that govern the permitted and conditional uses,
dimensional requirements, and off-street parking requirements with
respect to the Subject Property, are those of the RR, Rural
Residential zone district, as such regulations may be amended from
time to time. Under and pursuant to Aspen City Council Ordinance
No. 93-25, business and professional offices are permitted uses
within the Benedict Office Building.
4. Open Space Designation. Benedict hereby designates as
open space those portions of the Subject Property which are not
presently occupied by the Benedict Office Building, any other
improvements, or parking areas, all as more particularly shown on
the Final SPA Development Plan recorded in Plat Book at Page
of the Pitkin County records. Provided, that the area
designated "Area Reserved for Affordable Housing" on the Final SPA
Development Plan (as said Plan may be amended from time to time)
may in the future be developed and used for affordable housing
purposes, if all applicable City land use approvals are obtained
2
therefor. Nothing herein shall obligate the City to grant such
approvals.
5. Perpetual Non -Profit Space. Benedict is donating Powder
House Office Condominium Units 21 and 22, and Storage Condominium
Unit 35, comprising approximately 882 square feet of the
improvements on the Subject Property, to the loth Mountain Division
Hut Association. Benedict covenants and agrees that said
Condominium Units shall be and hereby are forever restricted to
occupancy by a non-profit organization or organizations. If said
Condominium Units or any of them are ever reconfigured, the
resulting Condominium Units which are subject to this occupancy
restriction shall not contain less than 1,259 square feet.
6. Condominiumization Permitted. Pursuant to Ordinance No.
13, the Aspen City Council granted subdivision exemption approval
for the condominiumization of the Benedict Office Building, to be
known as Powder House Condominiums, subject to the conditions set
forth in the Ordinance.
7. Vested Rights. Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the
Municipal Code, a Vested Property Right is hereby established for
all development activities permitted, approved or confirmed by this
Agreement and, accordingly, for the three-year period next
succeeding May 24, 1993, no zoning or land use action by the City,
legislative or otherwise and no citizen initiated zoning or land
use action shall in any manner alter, impair, prevent, diminish or
otherwise delay any development activities or use of the Subject
Property permitted, approved or confirmed by this Agreement,
except:
(i) With the consent of the owner of the Subject
Property affected by such action;
(ii) Upon the discovery of natural or man-made
hazards on or in the immediate vicinity of the Subject
Property affected by such action, which hazards could not
reasonably heretofore have been discovered and which hazards,
if uncorrected, would propose a serious threat to the public
health, safety and welfare; or
(iii) Nothing by the establishment of this Vested
Property Right shall exempt the development activities or use
of the Subject Property contemplated in or by this Agreement
from subsequent reviews and approvals which may be required by
other provisions of this Agreement or the general rules,
regulations and ordinances of the City, provided that such
reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with the
development activities or uses of the Subject Property
contemplated in or by this Agreement. Moreover, the
3
1366301 01/29/94 16:03 Rec $30.00 BK 740 P� 15
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc f.00
establishment of this Vested Property Right shall not preclude
the application of ordinances or regulations which are general
in nature and are applicable to all properties subject to land
use regulation by the City, including but not limited to,
building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and
in connection with any such development activities or use of
the Subject Property, the owner(s) of the Subject Property
involved shall abide by any and all such building, fire,
plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless such
owner(s) shall have been granted an exemption therefrom in
writing. Nothing by the establishment of this Vested Property
Right shall preclude judicial determination, based upon common
law principles, that a vested property right exists with
respect to any development activity or use of the Subject
Property approved or not approved by this Agreement, or that
any subsequently enacted or citizen initiated zoning or land
use action has resulted in a compensable taking of all or some
portion of the Subject Property. In the event of a final
determination by the City Council of a non-compliance with the
terms of this Agreement by Benedict, then so much of the
Vested Property Right hereby established as relates to the
condition of this Agreement not complied with, shall from,
then and thereafter no longer exist; provided that if such
determination is ever judicially invalidated, the Vested
Property Right formally extinguished shall, ipso facto,
thereupon be revived nunc pro tunc to the time of the
Council's determination of noncompliance.
8. Severability. If any of the provisions of this Agreement
or any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section of the
application thereof in any circumstance is invalidated, such
provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section
shall be severed from the Agreement and the remainder of the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
9. Release of Waiver. None of the covenants contained
herein shall be released or waived in any respect without the prior
consent of the City reflected by resolution of the City Council of
the City of Aspen.
10. Attorneys' Fees. In any legal proceeding to enforce the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover its costs and fees therein, including its
reasonable attorneys' fees and expert witness fees.
11. Amendment. The provisions of this Agreement may be
changed, modified or amended only by the recording of a written
instrument signed by an authorized officer of Powder House
Condominium Association, Inc., and by the Mayor of the City of
Aspen pursuant to a vote taken by the City Council.
4
#366301 01/28/74 16:03 Rec $30.00 BK 740 PS 153
Silvia Davis, Fitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 5.00
•
12. Binding Effect.
to the Subject Property
having any right, title or
part thereof, and their
assigns.
This Agreement shall run with the title
and shall be binding upon all parties
interest in the Subject Property or any
heirs, representatives, successors and
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
as of the day and year first above written.
BENEDICT:
Fredric A. Benedict
Fabienne Benedict
BENEDICT LAND AND CATTLE
COMPANY, a Colorado corporation
By:
Fredric A. Benedict, President
CITY: THE CITY,OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By: iz /-3:
Mayor
STATE OF .••..
COUNTY OF PITRIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �/ >-X1
day of January, 1994, by Fredric A. Benedict and Fabienne Benedict,
individually, and by Fredric A. Benedict as President of Benedict
Land and Cattle Company, a Colorado corporation.
�\s A:/WITNESS my hand and official seal.
'•V�- commission expires:
Pu13i-� ',•'
o)•cc
11839.1
011
No y Public
5
#366301 01/28/94 16:03 Rec $30.00 8K 740 P6 154
Silvia Davis. Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc #.00
Cj-FY CI_F Rri
ASPEN, GO 81611
s
STATE OF COLORADO
SS.
COUNTY OF PITRIN )
The foregoing instrument wpts rleOged,ibefore me this
day of gip, 1994, by, l ', as Mayor and by
7;4T4` dl- - -- a City' erk of The City of Aspen,
Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal. MY Comm6wn 9*ms 9/27/96
My commission expires:
(SEAL)
C,��1 Notary Publi
OTA
r #36b301 01/28/94 16:03 Fec $30.00 BK 740 Ps 155
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk:, Doc 3.00
11839.1
P
CITY CLERK R#366301
130 S GALENA ST
TO:
THRU:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
9
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager
Diane Moore, City Planning Direc,J'�
Kim Johnson, Planner
May 24, 1993
RE: Benedict Building - SPA Designation (map amendment), SPA
Development Plan - Second Reading of Ordinance 25, 1993
v e�5 -�A '1z,�. /�,}}�j'S
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval
of the following as proposed:
1) the map amendment to designate the Benedict Office Building
parcel as a Specially Planned Area (SPA); and
2) the SPA development plan as submitted in the application;
and
3) an ,SPA use variation for professional and business offices.
The Comma sion also recommended approval of GMQS Exemption for a
proposed deed restricted cabin to be moved onto the site. However,
the Applicants have withdrawn this element from the SPA proposal
for the time being in order to explore another option to provide
a housing unit on the property. The Applicant will submit an
amendment to any SPA approval at such time that the avalanche and
construction issues have been resolved.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Council approved condominiumization
of the office building in March of 1992. The condominium plat has
not yet been recorded.
First reading of Ordinance 25, 1993 was approved by a 5-0 vote on
April 26, 1993.
BACKGROUND: The 2 acre parcel is located at 1280 Ute Avenue (Lot
16, Callahan Subdivision). Fritz and Fabi Benedict (the
Applicants) seek to amend the Official Zone District map to add SPA
designation to the underlying RR-PUD zoning of the Benedict Office
Building parcel. This will allow the non -conforming office
building use to be legalized pursuant to an SPA use variation
approval. As an SPA, a Final Development Plan must be approved.
The Applicants propose to establish as the Final Development Plan
the existing buildings' footprints, parking, and open spaces.
The application originally called for a Benedict -designed cabin to
0 .
be relocated onto the parcel and be deed restricted for use by the
loth Mountain as housing for their personnel or other qualified
residents. Recent consultation with avalanche specialist Art Mears
has indicated that relocation of the log structure will not meet
recommendations for structural safety in the identified avalanche
zone. Therefore, the applicant has withdrawn the affordable
housing/GMQS Exemption element from this SPA Plan review. The loth
Mountain organization will continue to explore other construction
options for a housing unit on this property and may return with an
amendment proposal.
Please refer to Exhibits "A" and "B" for the original application
information and the letter regarding the withdrawal of the cabin
from the application.
STAFF DISCUSSION: At first reading, Councilman Peters expressed
concern that the proposed SPA designation and use variation is a
mechanism to increase the property's value for resale purposes.
The applicant will address this issue at second reading. Attached
for Council's consideration is the applicable non -conformity
section from the land use regulations, Exhibit "F". Staff was
asked to present at second reading a detailed history of the
structure. This information was contained in the original
application and has since been added to Exhibit "A".
The Benedict Office Building is a grandfathered non -conforming use
in RR (Rural Residential) zone district. Please refer to Exhibit
"F" for code regulations affecting non -conforming uses,
specifically paragraphs B and C regarding normal maintenance and
extensions. As the MAA and loth Mountain Division Hut Association
are being gifted portions of the building, the non -conforming
status apparently affects financial aspects of their occupancy or
future sale of space. The property received City Council approval
to condominiumize the building in 1992, in anticipation of the new
non-profit ownerships.
Staff considered the situation of the non -conformity and any
alternatives to an SPA overlay. The only apparent option would be
to try to rezone the parcel O-Office. This was a less desirable
option for one principal reason: by changing the zoning, any
changes to the site could be made without P&Z or Council review as
long as the use or dimensional requirements were permitted by the
Office zone. The SPA overlay ties the parcel to an approved site
plan. Any changes, major or minor, must be processed as an SPA
amendment. This is somewhat of a burden to the owner (s), but
assures the neighborhood that changes will receive appropriate
review.
The referral memo from Engineering is attached as Exhibit "C".
Map Amendment to designate the Benedict parcel as an SPA (Specially
Planned Area: Per Section 24-7-801 of the Municipal Code, the
01
purpose of an SPA is to:
"A. Provide design flexibility for land which requires
innovative consideration in those circumstances where
traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address its
historic significance, natural features, unique physical
character, or location, and where potential exists for
community benefit from comprehensive development.
B. Allow the development of mixed land uses through the
encouragement of innovative design practices which permit
variations from standard zone district land uses and
dimensional requirements.
C. Establish a procedure by which land upon which multiple
uses exist, or are considered appropriate, can be planned and
redeveloped in a way that provides for the greatest public
benefit."
The Applicant proposes to legitimize the business/professional
office use through an SPA overlay and variance approval. Any
changes to an SPA property can only occur via established amendment
procedures. A similar SPA variance for offices was approved in
1992 at the old Aspen Savings and Loan structure.
Section 24-7-1102 establishes the criteria which must be addressed
when considering a Map Amendment (rezoning). Please refer to
Exhibit "D" for these criteria and staff response. In summary, the
Planning Commission and staff believes that the proposed map
amendment to overlay the Benedict parcel as an SPA meets the
applicable criteria.
Consolidated SPA Review: The Benedict application was accompanied
by a request to amend the Land Use Code to allow consolidated SPA
review if the Planning Director determines that "a full four step
review would be redundant and serve no public purpose". The text
amendment is presented to Council under a separate memo and
ordinance. The Planning Director and the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend consolidated review for this application.
SPA Final Development Plan: The review criteria for consideration
of a Final SPA Plan are attached as Exhibit "F". Staff and the
Commission recommend approval of the proposed SPA Plan as it is
simply a recordation of the existing development on the site.
Use Variations permitted within an SPA: Section 24-7-804 D.2.
allows variation the uses permitted by the underlying zoning
based on the standards of Section 24-7-804 B (the review standards
addressed above). Any variations allowed shall be specified on the
SPA agreement and shown on the final development plan. If the SPA
overlay is approved, and the office use is deemed appropriate via
variation to the underlying RR zone, the SPA Agreement shall state
3
• 0
the variation. As mentioned in this memo and Exhibits, the
business and professional offices on the parcel need this use
variation to insure their existence. The Commission and staff
recommend approval of the use variation to allow business and
professional offices in the Benedict Office Building.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning Commission voted 6-0 at
their regular meeting on April 6, 1993 for approval of:
1) the zoning map amendment to overlay the Benedict Office Building
parcel as a Specially Planned Area (SPA); and
2) an SPA use variance for business/professional office use; and
3) approval of the Benedict Office Building Final SPA Plan.
ALTERNATIVES: The property could remain a non -conforming -use in
the RR (Rural Residential) zone. The non -conformity could be
eliminated by rezoning to O-Office.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to have second reading of Ordinance 25,
Series 1993, approving the zoning map amendment to overlay the
Benedict Office Building parcel as a Specially Planned Area (SPA),
an SPA use variance for business/professional office use at the
Benedict Office Building, and approval of the Benedict Office
Building Final SPA Plan." <
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachments: 0, - a-o-
z op- Ordinance 25, 1993 (`d.� ___ 1V IOi�`Y�
Exhibit "A" - Application Information
"B" - Letter Regarding Withdrawal of Cabin from Application
"C" - Referral Memo
"D" - Rezoning Criteria and Responses
"E" - SPA Plan Review Criteria and Responses
"F" - Non -Conformity Use Regulations from Land Use Code
4
• 46y Council Exhibit
Approved 19 _
sy Ordinance
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
February 12, 1993
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Benedict Office Building SPA Designation/Development Plan and GMQS
Exemption Application
Dear Kim:
Please consider this letter an application for specially planned area (SPA) designa-
tion and SPA development plan approval for the Benedict office building property
which is located at 1280 Ute Avenue in the City of Aspen (see Exhibit 1, Pre -
Application Conference Summary, attached hereto). A growth management quota
system exemption is also requested for a single-family dwelling unit which is pro-
posed to be relocated to the property. Vested property rights status is requested for
all approvals granted pursuant to this application.
The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 6-207, 7-803.B., 7-804, 7-1103 and
8-104.C.1.c. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations by Fredric A. and Fabienne
Benedict and the Benedict Land and Cattle Company, the owners of the property
(see Exhibit 2, Title Commitment). Permission for Vann Associates to represent the
Applicants is attached as Exhibit 3. An executed application fee agreement and a
list of owners located within three hundred (300) feet of the property are attached as
Exhibits 4 and 5, respectively.
Background
A building permit was issued for the Benedict office building on March 12, 1973 (see
Exhibit 6, Building Permit No. 71-73). Construction apparently commenced later
that spring, and the building was completed and ready for occupancy, with the
exception of the south wing, in April of 1974 (see Exhibit 7, Inspection Record).
The building permit indicates that the building was to be used for office purposes,
and that a one (1) bedroom dwelling unit was to be included in the structure.
As the accompanying improvement survey illustrates, the property on which the
Benedict building is located is legally described as Lot 16 of the Callahan Subdivi-
230 Eas! Hopkins Avenue • A�soen. Coioraoo 8161 1 - 03;925-6958 -pax 303/920-9310
0 0
Ms. Kim Johnson
February 12, 1993
Page 2
sion. It should be noted, however, that Lot 16 was created in connection with the
approval of the Callahan PUD/subdivision, and the recordation of the subdivision's
final plat on May 19, 1976. At the time the original building permit was issued, the
southern portion of the lot was located in the County. This area was annexed to the
City on October 27, 1975, in connection with the so-called Callahan Annexation (see
Exhibit 8, Ordinance No. 64-75).
While the property's early zoning history is difficult to trace, the zoning map adopted
by the City on April 28, 1975, depicts the portion of the property on which the
building was constructed (i.e., the northern portion) as being zoned R-15, Residen-
tial, mandatory Planned Unit Development. This area, and the previously annexed
southern portion of the property, were rezoned to RR, Rural Residential, mandatory
PUD, on January 12, 1976, in connection with the approval of the Callahan PUD/s-
ubdivision (see Exhibit 9, Ordinance No. 96-75). Both of these rezonings are
depicted on an amended zoning map which was adopted on March 23, 1976.
A review of the Planning Office's caseload files indicates that the RR zone district
category was specifically chosen to permit the development of the Aspen Club on
what is now Lot 15 of the Callahan PUD/subdivision. While recreational clubs are a
conditional use in the RR zone district, office uses are prohibited. Apparently, little
if any consideration was given to the fact that the initial rezoning of the Applicants'
parcel to R-15, and its subsequent rezoning to RR, resulted in the Benedict building
becoming a non -conforming use. The subsequent Callahan Subdivision and PUD
Agreement simply acknowledged that Lot 16 was to accommodate an "existing office
building for such uses as have heretofore been approved by the City."
On March 9, 1992, the City Council granted subdivision exemption approval for the
condominiumization of the Benedict building (see Exhibit 10, Ordinance No. 13-92).
The approval was conditioned upon the recordation of a condominium map and
subdivision exemption agreement, and the deed restriction of the building's one (1)
bedroom unit to the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority's resident occupancy
guidelines and six (6) month minimum lease limitation. While these documents have
been prepared in draft form, they have yet to be recorded. The annexation, rezon-
ing and subdivision history of the Applicants' property is summarized in Table 1,
below.
Table 1
Annexation/Rezoning/Subdivision History
Benedict Office Building Property
March 12, 1973 Building permit issued for Benedict office building.
0 0
Ms. Kim Johnson
February 12, 1993
Page 4
bicycle trail has been constructed within the trail easement. The survey also depicts
a twenty-four (24) foot access and utility easement which was conveyed to the City
by the Applicants, and which provides access to the property from Ute Avenue. The
building is served by all major utilities.
It should be noted that the property is located within a historic avalanche path. As
the attached report prepared by Arthur I. Mears, P.E., indicates (see Exhibit 11,
Snow -Avalanche Hazard Analysis), portions of the Applicants' property lie within the
mapped "Blue Zone" of the so-called Ute Trail avalanche path. According to Mr.
Mears, the Blue Zone is an avalanche area of both low frequency and moderate
energy. He also notes that development is traditionally permitted within the' Blue
Zone, provided that construction will withstand avalanche forces. In the alternative,
avalanche defenses can be installed to prevent interaction of the avalanche with the
structure.
Proposed Development
The Applicant's primary purpose for condominium izing the Benedict office building
was to permit the conveyance of a significant portion of the building to the Music
Associates of Aspen and the loth Mountain Division Hut Association as charitable
gifts. The remainder of the building will either be marketed to prospective pur-
chasers or retained by the Applicants for rental purposes. While the City Council's
March 9, 1992, subdivision exemption approval permits these conveyances, the
building's status as a non -conforming use imposes significant difficulties on the future
owners of the office condominium units.
The Aspen Land Use Regulations define a non -conforming use as "... any use of
land, building or structure which was established pursuant to the zoning and building
laws in effect at the time of its development, but which use is not a permitted or
conditional use under the regulations imposed by this Code for the zone district in which
it is located". As the Benedict building was legally constructed pursuant to a valid
building permit for office purposes, and office uses are prohibited in the underlying
RR zone district, the building meets the definition of a non -conforming use.
Pursuant to Section 9-102 of the Regulations, non -conforming uses are allowed to
continue subject to certain restrictions.
More specifically, non -conforming uses cannot be expanded, and normal mainte-
nance is limited to ten (10) percent of the building's current replacement cost in any
given twelve (12) month period. In addition, such uses must be terminated if
abandoned or discontinued for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months. While
buildings containing such uses may be reconstructed following their demolition or
destruction, the non -conforming uses may only be restored if less than seventy-five
(75) percent of the building is demolished or destroyed. An exception to this rule,
9 •
Ms. Kim Johnson
February 12, 1993
Page 5
however, exists for uses which are demolished or destroyed by an act of God. In
such cases, the use and building may be restored regardless of the extent demolished,
provided that a building permit is issued within one (1) year of the demolition.
As the Music Associates intend to sell the office condominium units which are being
given to them by the Applicants' to raise money for improvements to their Meadows
and Castle Creek facilities, the above restrictions may significantly impact the units'
marketability. In addition, such restrictions may affect the ability of potential
purchasers to obtain mortgage financing, as lenders typically view non -conforming
uses as risky investments. The ability to remodel, repair and maintain their respec-
tive units is also constrained given the building's non -conforming use status. -
To resolve these problems, the Applicants propose to designate the property as a
specially planned area, and to obtain approval of an SPA development plan for the
existing improvements and office uses located thereon. No expansion of the building
is anticipated at this time. It is possible, however, that portions of the building's
interior may be remodeled by individual tenants and/or owners. Appropriate permits
for such activities will be obtained by these individuals as may be required.
In addition, the Applicants wish to relocate the so-called "Ball" residence from its
present location at 332 West Smuggler Street to the Benedict property, and to deed
restrict the residence as an affordable housing unit for the use and benefit of the
loth Mountain Division Hut Association. The two (2) bedroom, two (2) bath
residence contains approximately twelve hundred and thirty (1,230) square feet of
net livable area, and is proposed to be deed restricted to APCHA's Category 4
income and occupancy guidelines. Photographs of the existing Ball residence are
attached hereto as Exhibit 12.
The residence, which is the former home of Ralph "Gus" Ball, was designed by Mr.
Benedict in the late 1940's. Although the residence is not listed on the City's
inventory of historic structures, it is considered to be an excellent example of
Aspen's early "mountain chalet" style of architecture and, as such, is considered by
the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee to be worthy of preservation. The pres-
ent owner of the residence, Gene Siegel (d.b.a., Maven Real Estate Company), has
received a permit to demolish the structure. Mr. Siegel, however, has agreed to
allow the Applicants to relocate the residence to the Benedict office building
property (see Exhibit 13, Agreement for Donation and Removal of Ball House).
As the attached site development plan illustrates (see Exhibit 14), the Applicants
propose to locate the unit adjacent to Ute Avenue in the southeast corner of the
property. The unit will be placed above a new basement/garage which will be
accessed from the existing parking lot. The garage area will be used to store the
loth Mountain Division Hut Association's maintenance vehicle, snow mobiles and
0
Ms. Kim Johnson
February 12, 1993
Page 6
equipment. One (1) off-street parking space per bedroom will be provided for the
residence in the existing pullout located adjacent to Ute Avenue. The use of this
area for parking purposes will provide more convenient pedestrian access to the
residence, and will eliminate the need for a new curb cut. Existing utilities will be
extended to serve the residence as may be required.
The residence has been located so as to comply with the setback requirements of the
RR zone district, and to avoid the existing ten (10) foot gas line easement which
traverses the parking lot. As the property will contain only one (1) dwelling unit for
density purposes, sufficient land area is available to meet the RR zone district's two
(2) acre, minimum lot area requirement. The existing dwelling unit located within
the Benedict office building will be deed restricted to APCHA's resident occupancy
guidelines. As a result, this unit can be considered to be an "accessory dwelling unit"
which is exempt from the calculation of density.
Review Requirements
To accomplish the Applicants' objectives, the property must first be designated as a
specially planned area. SPA development plan approval is also required, as is a
GMQS exemption for the proposed relocation of the Ball residence to the property,
and its deed restriction to APCHA's affordable housing guidelines. Each of these
review requirements is discussed in detail below.
1. Specially Planned Area Designation
Pursuant to Section 7-803.A. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, the City
Council may designate any parcel as a specially planned area if, "because of its unique
historic, natural, physical, or locational characteristics, it would be of great public benefit
to the City for that land to be planned and developed comprehensively as a multiple use
development". As Section 7-801 of the Regulations indicates, one of the purposes of
the SPA regulations is to "establish a procedure by which land upon which multiple
uses exist, or are considered appropriate, can be planned and redeveloped in a way that
provides for the greatest public benefit".
As I believe a significant public benefit would accrue from removing the
limitations which presently encumber the Benedict office building, the designation of
the property as a Specially Planned Area, and the legalization of its office use, are
consistent with the purposes of the City's SPA regulations. Most importantly, the
removal of the building's non -conforming use status would allow the unencumbered
sale of the office condominium units, thereby permitting the Music Associates to
fully realize the value of the Applicants' gift. Similarly, the 10th Mountain Division
Hut Association would benefit from the additional flexibility which would result from
being a conforming use.
Ms. Kim Johnson
February 12, 1993
Page 7
The Benedict building was legally approved in its current location, and has
historically provided office space for a variety of local business and professional
office uses. As it is highly unlikely that these uses will be abated through attrition or
demolition of the building, no public purpose would appear to be served by continu-
ing to treat the building as a non -conforming use. To the contrary, the removal of
the building's non -conforming use status would ensure its continued existence as a
valuable source of office space, and facilitate the intent of the Applicants' charitable
contributions to both the Music Associates and the loth Mountain Division Hut
Association.
2. SPA Development Plan
A parcel of land designated specially planned area must also be designated on
the City's zoning map with_an appropriate underlying zone district. As the immedi-
ate site area is zoned primarily for residential use, the Applicants propose to retain
the property's existing Rural Residential zone district classification. To resolve the
building's non -conforming use status, the Applicants wish to vary the use require-
ments of the RR zone district pursuant to Section 7-804.D.2. of the Regulations to
allow business and professional offices as a use permitted by right. No other
variations in the use or dimensional requirements of the RR zone district are either
requested or required.
Pursuant to Section 7-804.A., development within a specially planned area
requires the review and approval of both a conceptual and final development plan by
the P&Z and the City Council. This process typically involves four (4) distinct steps.
The Applicants, however, propose to consolidate their conceptual and final develop-
ment plan submissions so that SPA development plan approval can be obtained in
two (2) steps. This approach is appropriate given the limited nature of the Applica-
nts' proposed development, and will permit the relocation of the Ball residence and
the conveyance of the condominium unit gifts to the MAA and loth Mountain
Division Hut Association in a timely manner. Public hearings can be held at both
P&Z and City Council to meet applicable regulatory requirements.
Pursuant to Section 7-804.D.2. of the Regulations, the use requirements of
the property's underlying zone district may be varied provided, however, that the
variation complies with the standards of Section 7-804.B. The specific standards for
conceptual and final development plan review, and the proposed development's
compliance therewith, are summarized as follows.
a) "Whether the proposed development is compatible with or
enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcels in terms of
land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space."
Ms. Kim Johnson
February 12, 1993
Page 8
The Benedict office building was legally constructed in an area which
contained existing single-family residential uses. The diversity of uses in the immedi-
ate site area was increased with the approval of the Callahan PUD/subdivision and
the development of the Aspen Club townhouses and recreational facilities. All of
these uses have coexisted with few if any problems for at least fifteen (15) years.
The building's architecture, landscaping and open space are compatible with sur-
rounding development. The relocation of the Ball residence to the Applicants'
property is also compatible with existing development in the immediate site area.
The structure is relatively small and has been located to minimize its impact on
neighboring development.
b) "Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service
the proposed development."
All utilities and the public road system are believed to be adequate to
serve the existing Benedict office building and the relocated Ball residence.
c) "Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally
suitable for the development, considering the slope, ground instability and the
possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards."
No development of the Applicants' property is proposed other than
the relocation of the Ball residence. As noted previously, the property is located
within the so-called 'Blue Zone" of the Ute Trail avalanche path. The Blue Zone is
characterized as an avalanche area of low frequency and moderate energy in which
construction is typically allowed subject to the incorporation of appropriate ava-
lanche mitigation techniques.
To mitigate potential avalanche hazards, the Applicants propose to
retain Arthur Mears to provide site specific mitigation recommendations for the
proposed building envelope. As an existing structure will be relocated, avalanche
mitigation will most likely take the form of an earthen berm as opposed to direct
protection via reinforced construction. Mr. Mears recommendations will be incorpo-
rated in the building permit application to be submitted in connection with the
relocation of the residence.
d) "Whether the proposed development creatively employs land
planning techniques to preserve significant viewplanes, avoid adverse environmental
impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the
project and the public at large."
As discussed under the preceding criteria, the relocation of the Ball
residence is the only development presently proposed for the property. The resi-
Ms. Kim Johnson
February 12, 1993
Page 9
deuce has been located to take advantage of the property's existing topography and
in compliance with the dimensional requirements of the RR zone district. Appropri-
ate mitigation will be incorporated in the relocation of the residence to minimize
potential avalanche hazards. No adverse visual impacts are anticipated as a result of
the relocation. Open space, trails access and similar amenities are presently provid-
ed on the property.
e) "Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan."
The July 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan depicts the property, and the
immediate site area, as being within the "Single -Family Residential" land use
category. The construction of the Benedict building, however, predates the adoption
of the this plan. While the property's early zoning history is difficult to trace, the
property was most likely rezoned to R-15 following the adoption of the 1973 Aspen
Land Use Plan. This assumption is supported by the depiction of the property as
zoned R-15 on the City's April 28, 1975, zoning map. To the best of my knowledge,
the recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan contains no recommendations
which specifically impact the Applicants' property or the proposed relocation of the
Ball residence.
f) "Whether the proposed development will require the expendi-
ture of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the
surrounding area."
No public expenditure will be required as a result of the proposed
elimination of the Benedict building's non -conforming status or the relocation of the
Ball residence.
g) "Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty
percent (20%) meets the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 7-
903 (B) (2) (b)."
This criteria is not applicable, as no expansion of the existing building
is proposed. The proposed relocation of the Ball residence does not trigger the
City's slope reduction requirements.
f) "Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the
proposed development."
As no expansion of the Benedict office building is proposed, no
growth management quota system allocation is required to accommodate the
building's existing office use. The relocated Ball residence will be deed restricted to
Ms. Kim Johnson
February 12, 1993
Page 10
APCHA's affordable housing guidelines and, therefore, is exempt from growth
management.
Based on the above, I believe that the proposed elimination of the Benedict
building's non -conforming status via SPA designation and the adoption of an SPA
development plan will have no adverse impact upon surrounding land uses or the
intent or purpose of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Similarly, the relocation of
the Ball residence to the property, and its deed restriction to affordable housing
guidelines, will result in the preservation of a valuable historic resource and increase
the community's supply of affordable housing units.
Upon the receipt of final SPA development plan approval, the Applicant will
prepare a SPA plat which meets the requirements of Section 7-804.D.g. of the
Regulations for review and approval of the City Engineer. An SPA agreement will
also be prepared to memorialize any conditions placed upon the proposed business
and professional office use, and the relocation of the Ball residence.
3. GMQS Exemption
Pursuant to Section 8-104.C.1.c., deed restricted affordable housing units are
exempt fr growth management subject to the approval of the City Council. The
applicable r iew criteria with respect to the proposed relocation of the Ball resi-
dence include e City's need for such housing, the unit's location, its size, and the
proposed income ategory to which the unit will be restricted.
y
l
As discussed pr iously, the unit is to utiliied by the loth Mountain Division
Hut Association. The tw 2) bedroom, twq-�2) bath unit contains approximately
twelve hundred and thirty (, 30) square Ket of livable area, and is proposed to be
deed restricted to APCHA's egory,A income and occupancy guidelines (see
Exhibit 15, original Floor Plans a elevations). The unit will provide much needed
housing for the employees of th Association, and its proposed relocation is
consistent with the Council's policy to ncourage the dispersal of such units through-
out the City's neighborhogc�s.
Please note that APCHA's minimum et livable square footage requirement
for Category 3 and'4 single-family detached u ' s is fourteen hundred (1,400) square
feet. This requ' ement, however, may be reduce by APCHA upon the demonstra-
tion that the it "satisfies, or is required to adjust t other physical factors or consider-
ations at
ing, but not limited to, design for livability, her
storage, other ameni-
ties, local on or site design". A Category 4 deed restriction is requested to permit
maxirr)jJm flexibility in the use of the unit, which may be occupied from time to time
by either the Association's director or various staff employ es. Given the Ball
residence's historic status, a minor reduction in minimum uSt size appears justified.
• 0
Ms. Kim Johnson
February 12, 1993
Page 11
4. Vested Property Rights
In order to preserve the land use approval which may be obtained as a result
of this application, the Applicants hereby request vested property rights status
pursuant to the provisions of Section 6-207 of the Land Use Regulations. It is
understood by the Applicants that, to establish such status, final approval of the
proposed SPA development plan must be granted by ordinance of the City Council.
It is also the Applicants' understanding that no specific submission requirements, or
review criteria other than a public hearing, are required to confer such status.
Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please do not
hesitate to call. As the Applicants must relocate the Ball residence by June 1, 1993,
any assistance which you can provide in the timely review of their application would
be sincerely appreciated.
Yours truly,
SV:cwv
Attachments
c:\bus\city.app\app20192.spa
• eity Council Exhibit
Approved , 19 _
By Ordinance
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
April 21, 1993
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
APR ,L � 1.993
Re: Benedict SPA Designation, SPA Development Plan and GMQS Exemption
Application
Dear Kim:
As required by the Planning and Zoning Commission (Condition #4, P&Z's recommend-
ed conditions of approval), Art Mears has reviewed the Applicant's proposal to relocate
the Ball residence to the Benedict office building property. Art has recommended that
the structure not be relocated as proposed, due to the inability to adequately protect it
from avalanche forces. If affordable housing is to be provided in the proposed location,
Art recommends that a new structure be specifically designed to address avalanche
concerns.
Based on Art's recommendations, we wish to amend our application to eliminate the
proposed relocation and the related request for a GMQS exemption. A separate
application will be submitted in the event the Applicant decides to pursue the construc-
tion of affordable housing on the property in the future.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Yours truly,
VANN ASSRICIATES
Sunny Va4*45dCP
SV:cwv
cAb us\c i ty.l t rV t r2019 2. k j 3
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925-6958 • Fax 303/920-9310
• city ncil Exhibit_
APpP� , 19 _
By Ordinance
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer e
Date: March 25, 1993
Re: Benedict Building SPA Designation, Development Plan, and GMQS Exemption
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
engineering department has the following comments:
1. Upper Ute Avenue Improvement District - The applicants are commended for
improvements in the public right-of-way to the roadway, drainage, and streetscape which
were approximately one third funded by their participation.
2. SPA Designation
a. Perhaps in conjunction with rezoning, the City could obtain an upgrade of Ute
Avenue from an access and utility easement to a fully dedicated public right-of-
way.
3. Development Plan
a. Any excavation for construction shall be protected such that no storm runoff from
exposed soils reaches the Roaring Fork River or public rights -of -way.
b. Trails - Current trail specifications are for a 10' paved trail with 2' drainage
shoulders on each side. This fully utilizes the 14' easement without allowing any
construction activity beyond the 14'. This may be impractical and the City should
consider seeking a wider easement for construction purposes with a final 14'
constructed trail easement. The trail is in place at this time, but if it were
reconstructed in the future, a construction easement may be useful.
C. Indicate the use of the one story firebrick building.
d. Street light - Given the high traffic volume of commercial building driveways, it may
be advisable to require the installation of a street light to illuminate the driveway.
1
0 •
e. Utilities - Any new utility pedestals must be installed on utility easements on private
property, not in the public right of way. Any utility work requiring the cutting of
newly paved Ute Avenue should be designed to minimize cutting of new pavement.
This may be more fully addressed at excavation permit time.
f. Indicate the dimension of the full right-of-way width for Ute Avenue along the
frontage of the property.
g. "Sidewalks" Although there is a trail on this property, and although concrete
sidewalks would be inappropriate to require in this instance, the City still should
consider requiring provision of a pedestrian walking space in a usable location
between the edge of pavement and the property line. In this reviewer's opinion,
the City is experiencing pedestrian problems at the New Meadows Road where
pedestrians are walking on the road surface even though there were trails installed
in the development to provide for pedestrian needs. Actual uses at the Meadows
suggests that wherever there is a road, there should also be an adjacent pedestrian
walking surface on at least one side of the road.
h. Trash area - Indicate a designated trash storage area on the applicants' property.
Indicate the high water line, the 100-year floodplain line, and the fisherman's
easement.
j. Off-street parking - The existing off-street parking is proposed to be used for the
relocated "Ball' residence. The curb cut width is non -conforming and may not be
enlarged.
5. GMQS Exemption - No comment.
6. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -
of -way, we would advise the applicants as follows:
The applicants shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department
(920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city
streets department (920-5130).
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. The applicants shall provide a storm drainage plan prepared by an engineer registered
2
•
•
to practice in the State of Colorado. The plan shall meet the requirements of Section 24-
7-1004.C.4.f.
2. If possible, the applicants shall upgrade the access easement by dedicating a public
right-of-way for Ute Avenue.
3. The applicants shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be
formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall provide a final development
plan for approval by the Engineering Department.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
Jack Reid, Street Superintendent (item 3.e)
M93.T7
3
0
• City Council Exhibit
Approved
By Ordinance
Benedict Office Building
Map Amendment for SPA (Specially Planned Area) Overlay:
Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of review for an amendment
to the Official Zone District Map are as follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: There are no conflicts with the zoning code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan has set forth goals to
maintain and enhance the balance between resort functions and
community oriented functions. While this site was not specifically
identified in the Plan, this proposal will allow the established
office uses to remain into the future.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: Currently the zoning on the parcel is RR (PUD), as is
the Aspen Club, located directly to the east of the subject
property. The Ute Park Subdivision (10 units) was approved for the
parcel across Ute Avenue in 1992. To the west is parkland. The
subject property has been used for offices since its construction
in the mid 1970's. The surrounding uses have developed around it,
in full knowledge of its impacts. The proposed SPA Plan and use
variation will not change the impacts to the vicinity, except for
limited activity associated with the one additional deed restricted
residential unit.
If the non -conforming status of the property continues, the
possibility exists that the structure will not be maintained as it
should. Yet the demand for office space proximal to downtown will
likely remain high.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: The only increase in trip generation will result from
the relocated cabin being proposed concurrent with the SPA overlay.
As Ute Avenue has recently been overhauled, this increase will have
minimal traffic impacts.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: It will be necessary for the relocated cabin up to
connect to the water and Sanitation District service lines which
1
19
are already on the property. However the map amendment is not
expected to substantially increase the demand for public services
beyond the current uses or services capabilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
,RESPONSE: The only- new_ development -is the placement of the cabin
on the site. Any applicable vegetation being removed shall obtain
tree removal permits. Stream margin review is not necessary for
this proposal.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: The proposed application of the SPA overlay is
consistent with the existing uses of the site and will not
negatively impact the surrounding area. Any changes to an approved
SPA Plan must receive approval through appropriate land use
reviews.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: As mentioned in the application, the building was
constructed pursuant to legal building permits in 1973/4. The
property was rezoned R-15 PUD and RR PUD during 1975/6 as an
accommodation to the developing Callahan Subdivision and the Aspen
Club facilities. According to the application, no mention of the
non -conformity was found in the record when the Benedict property
was rezoned to R-15 and RR. The existing office use predates
nearly all residential uses in the neighborhood, including the
intensely used Aspen Club.
The most important change to the subject property is that Fritz and
Fabi Benedict have condominiumized the building and conveyed a
substantial portion of it to the Music Associates of Aspen and the
loth Mountain Division Hut Association. The Land Use Code tightly
restricts what maintenance and improvements can be made to a non-
conforming structure (see page 4 of the application). This creates
a difficult situation to current and prospective owners of the
building for both maintenance, remodeling, and mortgage financing
aspects.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The Benedict Office Building is a valuable asset to the
community by providing much needed office space relatively close
to the commercial core. Maintaining this use via SPA Plan approval
and SPA use variation does not conflict with the community's
interest.
2
•City Council Exhibit_
Approved , 19 _
By Ordinance
Benedict Office Building
Review standards for development in a specially planned area (SPA).
The following review standards are set forth in Section 24-7-804
B. of the Aspen Municipal Code:
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or
enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of
the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk,
architecture, landscaping and open space.
Response: The current office uses, along with the one residential
unit, has co -existed with the Aspen Club, park, and residential
uses along Ute Avenue since the mid 1970's. Since the site will
remain virtually the same, compatibility is maintained.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to
service the proposed development.
Response: Ute Avenue has recently been improved by an improvement
district, and can service the existing office building and proposed
residential unit.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally
suitable for development, considering the slope, ground
instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls,
avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Response: The cabin has been withdrawn from the application, so
little hazard exists for the existing office building. The recent
snowslide across Ute Avenue from the Benedict building is an
example of a wet, slab type slide indicated as line #1 on the
sketch provided in your packet.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land
planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid
adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails
and similar amenities for the users of the project and the
public at large.
Response: Open space and trails are already provided on the
property. No other impacts will result from approving this SPA
Plan.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The Benedict Building predates the 1973 Land Use Map
which established this area as single family residential. The
current Aspen Area Community Plan does not make site specific
recommendations, but does recognize the loss of local -oriented
business locations, and loss of funky character in Aspen.
1
0 •
Providing for the continued viability of this office building
supports the objectives of the AACP.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure
of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the
parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
Response: No public expenditures are needed for this project.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty
percent (20%) meet the slope reduction and density
requirements of Sec. 7-903(B)(2)(b).
Response: This standard does not apply.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed
development.
Response: No allocations or exemptions are needed for the amended
application.
2
City CAMMU RZKMt—L—
Sec. 5-101. rurposo ApPrO'V" if _
By Ordinance
Within the zone listricts establishel by this charter, there exist uses of land, buil ings
and structures that were lawfully established before this chapter was adopted or amended
which would be in violation of the terms and requirements of this chapter. The purpose of this
article is to regulate and limit the continued existence of those uses, buildings, and structures
that do not conform to the provisions of this chapter or any amendments thereto.
It is the intent of this article to permit these nonconformities to continue, but not to allow
nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded. The provisions of this article are designed to
curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in order to preserve the integrity of the
zone districts and the other provisions of this chapter but should not be construed as an
abatement provision.
Sec. 5-102. Nonconforming uses.
A. Authority to continue. Nonconforming uses of land or structures may continue in
accordance with the provisions of this article and this section.
1R. ormal maintenance. Normal maintenance to permit continuation of nonconforming
D.
\\
be rformed in an period of twelve 12 consecutive months, extent t
y pe y pe ( ) mo , to an exte no
exceeding ten (10) percent of the current replacement cost of the structure.
,
C. xtensions. Nonconforming uses shall not be extended. This prohibition shall be
co ed so as to prevent:
1. Enlargement of nonconforming uses by additions to the area of the structure in which
such nonconforming uses are located; or
2. Occupancy of allitional lams.
J
N. Relocation. A structure housing a nonconforming use may not Le movel to another
location on or off the parcel of land on which it is located, unless the use thereafter shall
conform to the limitations of the zone district into which it is moved.
E. Change in use. A nonconforming use shall not loe chancel to any other use unless the
new use conforms to the provisions of the zone district in which it is located.
F. Aiandonment or discontinuance. The intent of the owner notwithstanding, where a
nonconforming use of land or nonconforming use of structure is discontinued or abandoned for
twelve (12) consecutive months, then such use may not be reestablished or resumed, and any
subsequent use must conform to the provisions of this chapter.
G. Demolition or destruction.
1. Ability to restore Any nonconforming use which is demolished or destroyed to the
extent of less than seventy-five (75) percent of the floor area or exterior wall area of
the entire structure may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction
shall be issued within twelve (12) months of the date of demolition. Any nonconform-
ing use which is demolished or destroyed to the extent of seventy-five (75) percent or
more of the floor area or exterior wall area of the entire structure shall only be
restored in conformance with the provisions of this chapter.
2. Non -willful destruction. Any nonconforming use which is demolished or destroyed by
an act of God or through any manner not willfully accomplished by the owner may be
restored as of right, regardless of the extent of demolition or *destruction, if a building
permit for reconstruction shall be issued within twelve (12) months of the date of
demolition or destruction.
TO:
THRU:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager
Diane Moore, City Planning Directo
Kim Johnson, Planner
May 24, 1993
U''CC4Z,1-7 fF
a" I,
RE: Text Amendment for to Allow Consolidated (two-step) SPA
Review - Second Reading of Ordinance 24, Series 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval
of the proposed code amendment which allows certain SPA (Specially
Planned Area) reviews to be streamlined from the current four -step
mandatory reviews to two-step reviews. This proposed amendment is
being made concurrently with the Benedict Office Building's request
to designate that parcel -as an SPA.
First reading of Ordinance 24 was approved on April 26, 1993.
BACKGROUND: When Fritz and Fabi Benedict submitted the application
for SPA designation and SPA Plan approval, staff indicated that the
code only allows for four -step SPA review. Since the proposed SPA
Plan only calls for approval of the existing structures and
improvements, four steps seemed a lengthy and cumbersome process.
Staff suggested that the Benedict application be amended to include
a text amendment to allow consolidated two-step review as currently
allowed through PUD (Planned Unit Development) reviews.
CURRENT ISSUES: The Land Use Code currently requires that SPA
developments be reviewed through a four step process - Conceptual
Plan (P&Z and Council) and Final Plan (P&Z and Council). However,
under the PUD (Planned Unit Development) review requirements, the
Planning Director can determine that a 'consolidated" PUD review
can occur if it is determined that "a full four step review would
be redundant and serve no public purpose".
SPA and PUD overlays have a similar purpose in reviewing various
functional aspects of a development, ie. neighborhood
compatibility, parking, open space, natural hazards, public
facilities impacts, and slope density reductions. The main
difference between PUD and SPA review is that within an SPA, a
project can receive a variation to the uses allowed in the
underlying zone district. Both SPA and PUD approvals require
recordation of a development agreement outlining the future
responsibilities of the developer and the City.
1
0 •
Staff and the Planning Commission believe that adopting the PUD
consolidation language for review of SPA projects makes sense
because of its limited applicability and that there is always the
option for P&Z or City Council to require full four step review if
either body deems it more appropriate for the project. The
proposed language for SPA consolidated review is:
"An applicant may request and the Planning Director may
determine that because of the limited extent of the issues
involved in a proposed Specially Planned Area in relation to
these review procedures and standards, or because of a
significant community interest which the project would serve,
it is appropriate to consolidate conceptual and final
development plan review. The Planning Director shall consider
whether the full four step review would be redundant and serve
the public purpose and inform the applicant during the pre -
application stage of whether consolidation will be permitted."
"An application which is determined to be eligible for
consolidation shall be processed pursuant to the terms and
procedures if Final Development Plan review. The Commission
or the City Council may, during review, determine that the
application should be subject to both conceptual and final
plan review, in which case consolidated review shall not
occur."
The review standards for text amendments and staff responses are
contained in Exhibit "A".
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No impacts are anticipated because of this
text amendment.
RECOMMENDATION: On April 6, 1993, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of this text amendment.
ALTERNATIVES: The Council could elect to deny the requested text
amendment.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve second reading of Ordinance
24, Series 1993 for an amendment to Section 24-7-804.A. of the
Aspen Municipal Code to allow consolidated two-step reviews for SPA
Developments at the discretion of the Planning Director."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance 24, Series 1993
Exhibit "A" - Text Amendment Review Criteria and Responses
2
• aty Council Exhibit A
Approved , 19 _
By Ordinance
Text Amendment to Allow Consolidated SPA Review
Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code establishes the review
standards for amendments to the code:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: No land use code conflicts are evident for this proposed
text amendment.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The adopted Aspen Area Community Plan does not address
text amendments. Individual SPA projects are subject to
consideration of community impacts.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: Compatibility issues will be addressed pursuant to the
Final SPA Review standards.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety.
Response: Per se, this proposed amendment has no effect.
Individual applications would be considered via Final SPA review.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether
and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
Response: These items will be addressed via Final SPA criteria.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: Final SPA review would still be required. Impacts will
be evaluated on a site -by -site basis.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen.
Response: This amendment is not site specific, so this criteria
does not directly apply.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which
support the proposed amendment.
1
Response: This amendment affects all parcels with an SPA overlay,
thus is not specific to any particular location.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
Response: This amendment allows for streamlined review in
appropriate situations, which is in the public interest. A
complete review under the Final SPA Review standards is still
required to evaluate a project's impacts.
2
•
•
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Benedict Building - SPA Designation (map amendment), SPA
Development Plan, Text Amendment for Consolidated SPA
Review, and Growth Management Exemption for Affordable
Housing
DATE: April 6, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the following as proposed:
1) the map amendment to designate the Benedict Office Building
parcel as a Specially Planned.Area (SPA); and
//
I2) the SPA development plan as submitted in the application;
and
3) the proposed text amendment which will allow a SPA project
Or to be consolidated to two steps (P&Z and City Council) from
the required four steps when the Planning Director deems that
a two step review is appropriate; and
4) GMQS Exemption for the proposed deed restricted cabin to
be moved onto the site.
APPLICANT: Fritz and Fabi Benedict and the Benedict Land and
Cattle Company, represented by Sunny Vann
LOCATION: 1280 Ute Avenue (Lot 16, Callahan Subdivision). The
parcel is 2 acres (87,120 s.f.)
ZONING: RR (Rural Residential) PUD
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicants seek to amend the Official
Zone District map to add SPA designation to the underlying RR-PUD
zoning. This will allow the non -conforming office building use to
be legalized pursuant to an SPA use variation approval. As an SPA,
a Final Development Plan must be approved. The Applicants propose
to establish as the Final Development Plan the existing buildings'
footprints, parking, open spaces and the relocated cabin.
The approximately 1,200 s.f. cabin, designed by Fritz Benedict in
the late 1940s, is currently located on a parcel in the west end.
The new owners have a demolition permit for the cabin, but will
allow the structure to be moved to the Benedict Office Building
site.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1
Engineering:
1. Any excavation for construction shall be protected such that
no storm runoff from exposed soils reaches the Roaring Fork
River or public rights -of -way.
2. The City should consider seeking a wider trail easement for
construction purposes. The trail is in place at this time
with a 14' wide easement, but if it were reconstructed in the
future, a wider construction easement may be useful.
3. Indicate the use of the one story firebrick building.
4, Street light - Given the high traffic volumle of commercial
building driveways, it may be advisable to require the
installation of a street light to illuminate the driveway.
5. Utilities - Any new utility pedestals must be installed on
utility easements on private property, not in the public right
of way.
6. Indicate the dimension of the full right-of-way width for Ute
Avenue along the frontage of the property.
7. The City should consider requiring provision of a pedestrian
walking space in a usable location between the edge of
pavement and the property line.
8. Trash area - Indicate a designated trash storage area on the
applicants' property.
9. Indicate the high water line, the 100-year floodplain line,
and the fisherman's easement.
10. The existing off-street parking is proposed to be used for the
relocated "Ball" residence. The curb cut width is non-
conforming and may not be enlarged.
Housing Office: Tom Baker responded that the proposed Category 4
deed restriction is acceptable, and that the minimum 1,400 s.f.
requirement will be waived for the 1,230 s.f. cabin because of the
voluntary nature of the proposal.
STAFF COMMENTS: The Benedict Office Building is a grandfathered
non -conforming use in RR (Rural Residential) zone district. This
non -conforming status restricts maintenance or upgrades for current
and future owners. As the MAA and loth Mountain Division Hut
Association are being gifted portions of the building, the non-
conforming status also affects financial aspects of their occupancy
or future sale of space. The property received City Council
approval to condominiumize the building in 1992, in anticipation
of the new non-profit ownerships.
Staff considered the situation of the non -conformity and any
alternatives to an SPA overlay. The only apparent option would be
to try to rezone the parcel O Office. This was a less desirable
option for one principal reason: by changing the zoning, any
changes to the site could be made without P&Z or Council review as
long as the use or dimensional requirements were permitted by the
Office zone. The SPA overlay ties the parcel to an approved site
FO
plan. Any changes, major or minor, must be processed as an SPA
amendment. This is somewhat of a burden to the owner(s), but
assures the neighborhood and the community that. changes will
receive appropriate review.
Text Amendment for SPA Consolidated Review: The id Use Code
currently requires that SPA developments be reviewed through a four �r
step process - Conceptual Plan (P&Z and Council) and Final Plan
(P&Z and Council). However, under the PUD (Planned Unit
Development) review requirements, the Planning Director can
determine that a 'consolidated" PUD review can occur if it is
determined that "a full four step review would be redundant and
serve no public purpose". Consolidated PUD reviews typically take
place about once every year or two.
SPA and PUD overlays have a similar purpose in reviewing various
functional aspects of a development, - ie. neighborhood
compatibility, parking, open space, natural hazards, public
facilities impacts, and slope density reductions. The main
difference between PUD and SPA review is that within an SPA, a
project can receive a variation to the uses allowed in the
underlying zone district. Both SPA and PUD approvals require
recordation of a development agreement outlining the future
responsibilities of the developer and the City.
Staff believes that adopting the PUD consolidation language for
review of SPA projects makes sense because of its limited
applicability and that there is always the option for P&Z or City
Council to require full four step review if either body deems it
more appropriate for the project. The proposed language for SPA
consolidated review is:
"An applicant may request and the Planning Director may
determine that because of the limited extent of the issues
involved in a proposed Specially Planned Area in relation to
these review procedures and standards, or because of a
significant community interest which the project would serve,
it is appropriate to consolidate conceptual and final
development plan review. The Planning Director shall consider
whether the full four step review would be redundant and serve
to public purpose and inform the applicant during the pre -
application stage of whether consolidation will be permitted."
"An application which is determined to be eligible for
consolidation shall be processed pursuant to the terms and
procedures if Final Development Plan review. The Commission
or the City Council may, during review, determine that the
application should be subject to both conceptual and final
plan review, in which case consolidated review shall not
occur."
Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code establishes the review
3
standards for amendments to the code:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: No land use code conflicts are evident for this proposed
text amendment.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The adopted Aspen Area Community Plan does not address
text amendments. Individual SPA projects are subject to
consideration of community impacts.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood.characteristics.
Response: Compatibility issues will be addressed pursuant to the
Final SPA Review standards.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety.
Response: Per se, this proposed amendment has no effect.
Individual applications would be considered via Final SPA review.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether
and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
Response: These items will be addressed via Final SPA criteria.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: Final SPA review would still be -required. Impacts will
be evaluated on a site -by -site basis.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen.
Response: This amendment is not site specific, so this criteria
does not directly apply.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which
support the proposed amendment.
Response: This amendment affects all parcels with an SPA overlay,
thus is not specific to any particular location.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
4
0 •
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
Response: This amendment allows for streamlined review in
appropriate situations, which is in the public interest. A
complete review under the Final SPA Review standards is still
required to evaluate a project's impacts.
Map Amendment for SPA (Specially Planned Area) Overlay: Per
Section 24-7-801 of the Municipal Code, the purpose of an SPA is
to:
"A. Provide design 'flexibility for land which requires
innovative consideration in those circumstances where
traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address its
historic significance, natural features, unique physical
character, or location, and where potential exists for
community benefit from comprehensive development..
B. Allow the development of mixed land uses through the
encouragement of innovative design practices which permit
variations from standard zone district land uses and
dimensional requirements.
C. Establish a procedure by which land upon which multiple
uses exist, or are considered appropriate, can be planned and
redeveloped in a way that provides for the greatest public
benefit."
As mentioned earlier in this memo, the non -conforming status of the
existing uses on this parcel jeopardizes the useful future of the
building to its current and future occupants, and the community.
The best way to legitimize the business/professional office use,
as staff sees it, is through an SPA overlay and variance approval.
Any changes to an SPA property can only occur via established
amendment procedures. A similar SPA variance for offices was
approved in 1992 at the old Aspen Savings and Loan structure.
Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of review for an amendment
to the Official Zone District Map are as follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: There are no conflicts with the zoning code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan has set forth goals to
maintain and enhance the balance between resort functions and
'� 5
0
0
community oriented functions. While this site was not specifically
identified in the Plan, this proposal will allow the established
office uses to remain into the future.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: Currently the zoning on the parcel is RR (PUD), as.is
the Aspen Club, located directly to the east of the subject
property. The Ute Park Subdivision (10 units) was approved for the
parcel across Ute Avenue in 1992. To the west is parkland. The
subject property has been used for offices since its construction
in the mid 1970's. The surrounding uses have developed around it,
in full knowledge of its impacts. The proposed SPA Plan and use
variation will not change the impacts to the vicinity, except for
limited activity associated with the one additional deed restricted
residential unit.
If the non -conforming status of the property continues, the
possibility exists that the structure will not be maintained as it
should. Yet the demand for office space proximal to downtown will
likely remain high.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: The only increase in trip generation will result from
the relocated cabin being proposed concurrent with the SPA overlay.
As Ute Avenue has recently been overhauled, this increase will have
minimal traffic impacts.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: It will be necessary for the relocated cabin up to
connect to the water and Sanitation District service lines which
are already on the property. However the map amendment is not
expected to substantially increase the demand for public services
beyond the current uses or services capabilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
RESPONSE: The only new development is the placement of the cabin
on the site. Any applicable vegetation being removed shall obtain
tree removal permits. Stream margin review is not necessary for
C0
this proposal.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: The proposed application of the SPA overlay is
consistent with the existing uses of the site and will not
negatively impact the surrounding area. Any changes to an approved
SPA Plan must receive approval through appropriate land use
reviews.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: As mentioned in the application, the building was
constructed pursuant to legal building permits in 1973/4. The
property was rezoned R-15 PUD and RR PUD during 1975/6 as an
accommodation to the developing Callahan Subdivision and the Aspen
Club facilities. According to the application, no mention of the
non -conformity was found in the record when the Benedict property
was rezoned to R-15 and RR. The existing office use predates
nearly all residential uses in the neighborhood, including the
intensely used Aspen Club.
The most important change to the subject property is that Fritz and
Fabi Benedict have condominiumized the building and conveyed a
substantial portion of it to the Music Associates of Aspen and the
loth Mountain Division Hut Association. The Land Use Code tightly
restricts what maintenance and improvements can be made to a non-
conforming structure (see page 4 of the application). This creates
a difficult situation to current and prospective owners of the
building for both maintenance, remodeling, and mortgage financing
aspects.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The Benedict office Building is a valuable asset to the
community by providing much needed office space relatively close
to the commercial core. Maintaining this use via SPA Plan approval
and SPA use variation does not conflict with the community's
interest.
Review standards for development in a specially planned area (SPA).
The following review standards are set forth in Section 24-7-804
B. of the Aspen Municipal Code:
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or
VA
•
enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of
the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk,
architecture, landscaping and open space.
Response: The current office uses, along with the one residential
unit, has co -existed with the Aspen Club, -park, and residential
uses along Ute Avenue since the mid 19701s. Since the site will
remain virtually the same, except for the proposed relocated cabin,
compatibility is maintained.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to
service the proposed development.
Response: Ute Avenue has recently been improved by an improvement
district, and can service the existing office building and proposed
residential unit.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally
suitable for development, considering the slope, ground
instability and the possibility of mud flow, roc': falls,
avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
Response: The only new development will be the cabin on the south
side of the property. As indicated in the application, this
location is within a "blue zone" rating for avalanches. According
to Art Mears, avalanche specialist, a blue zone indicates that
structures are subject to low frequency, moderate energy slides,
typified as loose powder -type slides. Construction is not
prohibited in blue zones, but certain construction methods must be
employed to relieve avalanche impacts to the structure and its
surroundings. Art Mears is expected to make an inspection soon at
the cabin site to prepare his recommendations for construction.
A suggested condition of approval is that his recommendations shall
be followed when siting and constructing the cabin/foundation, and
must be attached to any building permits for the cabin. Prior to
consideration by City Council, the Applicant shall provide Mr.
Mears' finding for this site
The recent snowslide across Ute Avenue from the Benedict building
is an example of a wet, slab type slide indicated as line #1 on the
sketch provided in your packet.
9. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land
planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid
adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails
and similar amenities for the users of the project and the
public at large.
Response: The cabin is proposed to be located in a sensitive manner
on the property, taking advantage of the slope in order to excavate
the storage garage. The setbacks required of structures in the
underlying RR zone are being honored. Open space and trails are
0
already provided on the property.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The Benedict Building predates the 1973 Land Use Map
which established this area as single family residential. The
current Aspen Area Community Plan does not make site specific
recommendations, but does recognize the loss of local -oriented
business locations, and loss of funky character in Asper.
Providing for the continued viability of this office building, and
the relocation of a classic log cabin supports the objectives of
the AACP.
6. Whether the"proposed development will require the expenditure
of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the
parcel, or the surrounding neighborhocd.
Response: No public expenditures are needed -for this project.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty
percent (20%) meet the slope reduction and density
requirements of Sec. 7-903(B)(2)(b).
Response: This standard does not apply.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed
development.
Response: The applicant is seeking GMQS exemption for the deed
restricted cabin, so a growth management allocation is not
necessary.
Use Variations permitted within an SPA: Section 24-7-804 D.2.
allows variation the uses permitted by the underlying zoning
based on the standards of Section 24-7-804 B (the review standards
addressed above). Any variations allowed shall be specified on the
SPA agreement and shown on the final development plan. If the SPA
overlay is approved, and the office use is deemed appropriate via
variation to the underlying RR zone, the SPA Agreement shall state
the variation.
GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing: Pursuant to Section 8-104
C.1(c) the Council shall exempt deed restricted housing that is
provided in accordance with the housing guidelines. The Commission
shall review and make a recommendation to Council regarding the
housing package. According to the Code, the review of any request
for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a
A
•
determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the
proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the
number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of
dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of
bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the
rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price
categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted.
Response: The- Housing Office and Planning staff recommends
approval_ of growth management exemption for the Category 4 deed
restricted single family home to be relocated to this parcel.
Please refer to the Housing Office referral, Exhibit "B".
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the SPA Designation
of the Benedict Office Building, SPA Development Plan, text,
amendment allowing consolidated SPA review, and GMQS Exemption for
the Category 4 deed restricted cabin, with the following
conditions: � C�'"
1. Prior to issuance of any building permits,nthe applicants shall \,
provide a storm drainage plan repared by an engineer registered \
to practice in the State of CoQrado. The plan shall meet the
requirements of Section 24-7-1004. 4.€.
2. The applicants shall agree to join any future improvement dis-
tricts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall
provide a final development plan for approval by the Engineering
Department.
4. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall determine
which avalanche mitigation techniques will be employed to protect
the relocated cabin, as recommended by Art Mears or suitable
avalanche expert. Such mitigation techniques shall also be
attached to the relocation and/or building permit for the cabin.
5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall record the Category 4 deed restriction for the relocated
cabin. The restriction shall be approved by the Housing Office
prior to recordation. Copies of the recorded document shall be
forwarded to the Planning Office.
6. The Final SPA Development Plan and SPA Agreement (including use
variation for professional and business offices) shall be recorded
in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on
the part of the applicant to record the documents within a period
of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City
Council shall render the approvals invalid, unless reconsideration
and approval of both the Commission and City Council is obtained
10
_fin vor� PIS ckma- c 6� iaV,wU
before their acceptance and recording, or an extension or waiver
is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause.
7. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
EXHIBITS
A - Proposed Site Plan and Application Information
B - Referral Memos
11
'ARK
1� e
t
0
Amb,- PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ZIP EXHIBITAPPROVED
I ------------
. _,
v WIC /// FT W/OE TQ�� - -- 19 BY RESOLUTION
,/-------------mac_
•
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
Rog—� OEM.,
"'g — ON
z opoo� mkm"---
" •
Wlot
D fT
-
� �
ENT �
•� ,, ' l •' �
- �PN�VNP� U6
LOT 15
\ l S 7E
25°E BETWEEN A
S
RED SANDSTONE fir/
:FL'tJ.
Pr
i
I
EXHIBIT 15
Ld
v J v
J U.1 "
L11 i i �
J
L� LJ 2 i Q v O h
Li. vl
_u;Jsc4 �pry
C i-
W -i
0
u►
co
O
IPO IA
Lli
a r L J o
CA
r- LA !
j
(L
viN
is r t..; -+-
v6�M�ly
{�--Vi
la
CA
CA
• PLANNIIM& ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBI �, APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer e
Date: March 25, 1993
Re: Benedict Building SPA Designation, Development Plan, and GMQS Exemption
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
engineering department has the following comments:
1. Upper Ute Avenue Improvement District - The applicants are commended for
improvements in the public right-of-way to the roadway, drainage, and streetscape which
were approximately one third funded by their participation.
2. SPA Designation
a. Perhaps in conjunction with rezoning, the City could obtain an upgrade of Ute
Avenue from an access and utility. easement to a fully dedicated public right-of-
way.
3. Development Plan
a. Any excavation for construction shall be protected such that no storm runoff from
exposed soils reaches the Roaring Fork River or public rights -of -way.
b. Trails - Current trail specifications are for a 10' paved trail with 2' drainage
shoulders on each side. This fully utilizes the 14' easement without allowing any
construction activity beyond the 14'. This may be impractical and the City should
consider seeking a wider easement for construction purposes with a final 14'
constructed trail easement. The trail is in place at this time, but if it were
reconstructed in the future, a construction easement may be useful.
C. Indicate the use of the one story firebrick building.
d. Street light - Given the high traffic volume of commercial building driveways, it may
be advisable to require the installation of a street light to illuminate the driveway.
1
e. Utilities - Any new utility pedestals must be installed on utility easements on private
property, not in the public right of way. Any utility work requiring the cutting of
newly paved Ute Avenue should be designed to minimize cutting of new pavement.
This may be more fully addressed at excavation permit time.
f. Indicate the dimension of the full right-of-way width for Ute Avenue along the
frontage of the property.
.g. "Sidewalks" -. Although there is a trail on this property, and although concrete
sidewalks would be inappropriate to require in this instance, the City still should
consider requiring provision of a pedestrian walking space in a usable location
between the edge of pavement and the property line. In this reviewer's opinion,
the City is experiencing pedestrian problems at the New Meadows Road where
pedestrians are walking on the road surface even though there were trails installed
in the development to provide for pedestrian needs. Actual uses at the Meadows
suggests that wherever th.-re is a road, there should also be an adjacent pedestrian
walking surface on at least one side of the road.
h. Trash area - Indicate a designated trash storage area on the applicants' property.
i. Indicate the high water line, the 100-year floodplain line, and the fisherman's
easement.
j. Off-street parking - The existing off-street parking is proposed to be used for the
relocated "Ball" residence. The curb cut width is non -conforming and may not be
enlarged.
5. GMQS Exemption -No comment.
6. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -
of -way, we would advise the applicants as follows:
The applicants shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department
(920-5120) for vegetation species; and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city
streets department (920-5130).
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. The applicants shall provide a storm drainage plan prepared by an engineer registered
to practice in the State of Colorado. The plan shall meet the requirements of Section 24-
7-1004.C.4.f.
2. If possible, the applicants shall upgrade the access easement by dedicating a public
right-of-way for Ute Avenue.
3. The applicants shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be
formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall provide a final development
plan for approval by the Engineering Department.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
Jack Reid, Street Superintendent (item 3.e)
M93.77
9-1
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: BENEDICT BUILDING SPA DESIGNATION/DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TEXT
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A TWO-STEP (CONSOLIDATED) SPA REVIEW
PROCESS AND GMQS EXEMPTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, April 6, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City
Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted
by Fredric and Fabienne Benedict and the Benedict Land and Cattle
Company, 1280 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO requesting SPA designation and
SPA development plan approval, and a GMQS Exemption for a single
family dwelling unit proposed to be relocated to the property.
Also requested is an amendment to Section 24-7-804.A of the Aspen
Municipal Code to allow a two-step (consolidated) SPA review
processed pursuant to the terms and procedures of Final Development
Plan review criteria. The property is located at 1280 Ute Avenue,
I,ot 16, Callahan Subdivision. For further information, contact Kim
Johnson at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen,
CO 920-5100
s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on March 19, 1993
City of Aspen Account
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: BENEDICT BUILDING SPA DESIGNATION/DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TEXT
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A TWO-STEP (CONSOLIDATED) SPA REVIEW
PROCESS AND GMQS EXEMPTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Monday, May 24, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the
Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena,
Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted by Fredric and
Fabienne Benedict and the Benedict Land and Cattle Company, 1280
Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO requesting SPA designation, SPA development
plan approval, and an SPA use variation to allow business and
professional offices. Also requested is an amendment to Section
24-7-804.A of the Aspen Municipal Code to allow a two-step
(consolidated) SPA review processed pursuant to the terms and
procedures of Final Development Plan review criteria. The property
is located at 1280 Ute Avenue, Lot 16, Callahan Subdivision. For
further information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/Pitkin
Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 920-5100
s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 7, 1993
City of Aspen Account
•
CJ
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Plannin O fice
FROM: Tom Baker, Housi c L 4
DATE: March 24, 1993
RE: Housing Office Referral: Benedict Building SPA
Designation/Development Plan and GMQS Exemption
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Housing Office supports the use of the Ball
Residence restricted to Category #4. Further, the Housing Office
waives the minimum 1,400 s.f. requirement an will allow the Ball
Residence (1,230 s.f.) to qualify as a Category #4 unit, due to the
voluntary nature of this proposal.
1
•
•
W 15MM
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
March 15, 1993
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Benedict Office Building? SPA Procedural Text Amendment
Dear Kim:
Please consider this letter an addendum to the Benedict Office Building SPA
designation, SPA development plan and GMQS exemption application. To facilitate
the application's timely review, the Applicants wish to include a request for a text
amendment which would permit a two (2) step, SPA review process.
Background
On February 16, 1993, the Applicants submitted an application for SPA designation
and development plan approval for the Benedict office building. Pursuant to Section
7-804.A. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, development within a specially
planned area requires the review and approval of both a conceptual and final
development plan by the P&Z and the City Council. This process involves four (4)
distinct steps. The Applicants, however, proposed to consolidate their conceptual
and final development plan submissions so that SPA development plan approval
could be obtained in two (2) steps.
The Planning Office has concluded that no ability presently exists within the Regula-
tions to consolidate the various steps of the SPA development plan review process.
To resolve this problem, the staff has recommended that the Applicants pursue a
text amendment. The proposed amendment is described in detail below.
Proposed Amendment
The Applicants propose to amend the requirements of Section 7-804.A. of the
Regulations to provide for a discretionary, two (2) step, SPA development plan
review process. The following language is proposed to be added to the existing text
of paragraph A.
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925-6958 • Fax 303/920-9310
Ms. Kim Johnson
March 15, 1993
Page 2
'An applicant may request and the Planning Director may determine that because
of the limited extent of the issues involved in a proposed Specially Planned Area
in relation to these review procedures and standards, or because of a significant
community interest which the project would serve, it is appropriate to consolidate
conceptual and final development plan review. The Planning Director shall
consider whether the full four step review would be redundant and serve no
public purpose and inform the applicant during the pre -application stage of
whether consolidation will be permitted."
'An application which is determined to be eligible for consolidation shall be
processed pursuant to the terms and procedures of Final Development Plan
review. The Commission or the City Council may, during review, determine that
the application should be subject to both conceptual and final plan review, in
which case consolidated review shall not occur."
Please note that the above language is identical to the language of Section 7-903.C.3.
of the Regulations, i.e., the two (2) step, consolidated PUD review process.
Review Requirements
Pursuant to Section 7-1103, a private application for an amendment to the text of
the Aspen Land Use Regulations may be submitted at any time during the year.
The review criteria for such applications, and the proposed amendment's compliance
therewith, are discussed below.
1. "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this chapter."
The proposed text amendment complies with all applicable provisions of
Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, aka, The Aspen Land Use Regulations.
2. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan."
As discussed in the 1991 Phase One Report which was prepared by the
Planning Office in connection with the current Aspen area community planning
effort, there is no single document which constitutes the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan. Instead, the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan consists of a variety of individual
elements and neighborhood plans which have been adopted since the preparation of
the original Aspen Area General Plan in 1966. The proposed amendment does not
conflict with any such element or plan.
Ms. Kim Johnson
March 15, 1993
Page 3
3. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics."
This review criteria would appear to apply primarily to an application for
rezoning, and is therefore not applicable to the proposed amendment.
4. "The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety."
The proposed amendment will have no adverse impact on traffic generation
or road safety.
5. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks,
drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities."
The proposed amendment will have no adverse impact on the City's public
facilities.
6. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment."
The proposed amendment will have no adverse impact on the natural
environment.
7. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen."
This review criteria would appear to apply primarily to an application for
rezoning, and is therefore not applicable to the proposed amendment.
8. "Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment."
This review criteria would appear to apply primarily to an application for
rezoning, and is therefore not applicable to the proposed amendment.
9. "Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter."
Ms. Kim Johnson
March 15, 1993
Page 4
The public interest would be served in that the proposed amendment would
provide additional flexibility in the review and approval of SPA development plan
applications which are limited in extent and/or impact. This flexibility is consistent
with, and would significantly further, the intent of the Land Use Regulations. As
any consolidation of the review SPA process approved pursuant to the amendment
would be discretionary, no adverse impact would occur merely from the amend-
ment's adoption. As noted previously, the ability to consolidate review steps
presently exists within the PUD regulations. Where appropriate, such consolidations
significantly reduce the time required for staff, P&Z and City Council review.
As we have discussed, the Applicants' request for a text amendment should track
concurrently with their SPA application. Should either the P&Z or Council deter-
mine that a consolidated review process is inappropriate, the full four (4) step SPA
process can be resumed.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Yours truly,
S V :cwv
cAbus\city.app\app20192.ca
HIBIT 1
I
'ARK
iz
CV
------------
7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
e/vr rocv,< 303, 'e'ACIF 452
LOT 16
tA'LLAHANSUBDIVISION
0
r 3::.'
Z.:2j
TO rrorrr -r ew 12
T
goo
7:7
sv� 0.0
00
0
--7
K"HO
co
0
MANHOLE,' CAI,-z4y6,-
0
T
hi
Cb/
Cb
Lr) Ize
LOT 15
0
DI -'Y2VZY Hooe
00
,9
%
C)
U-)
.7 CIE ClAVA&I N E A rz4/1
IAI
25'E BETWEEN
\ KffD SANDSTONE)
T-a-4.
T
0 •
EXHIBIT 3
February 12, 1993
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates to
represent us in the processing of our application for SPA designation/development
plan approval for the Benedict office building which is located at 1280 Ute Avenue
in the City of Aspen. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with re-
spect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application.
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do
not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
BENEDICT LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY
Fredric Benedict
Fabienne Benedict
SV:cwv
c:\bus\city,1trTr20192.kj 1
i EXHIBIT 4
ASPENTITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and�,��G
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 44 (Series of 1991) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications
and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination
of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT
to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to
be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be
benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments
upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full
costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission
and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless
current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's
waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application/
completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $�
which is for �_ hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to
CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned
above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made
within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay
such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
CITY OF ASPEN
By:
Di a Moore
City Planning Director
For Planning Office Use
Case Number
Case Name
Deposit or Flat Fee Amount:
APPLICANT
BY: -
Date: G y
Referral Fees: Engineer: Housing: Environmental Health:
2
•
•
SCHEDULE A
ORDER NUMBER: 00018715C2
1. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 02, 1991 AT 8:00 A.M.
2. POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED: AMOUNT OF INSURANCE
A. ALTA OWNER'S POLICY $ TBD
PROPOSED INSURED: TO BE DETERMINED
B. ALTA LOAN POLICY $ TBD
PROPOSED INSURED: TO BE DETERMINED
C. ALTA LOAN POLICY $
PROPOSED INSURED:
D. $
3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO IN
THIS COMMITMENT AND COVERED HEREIN IS FEE SIMPLE AND TITLE THERETO
IS AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF VESTED IN:
FREDRIC A. BENEDICT, FABIENNE BENEDICT AND BENEDICT LAND AND
CATTLE COMPANY
4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Lot 16, CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, according to the recorded Plat
thereof.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
OWNERS: TBD
MORTGAGEE: TBD
TAX CERT. $ 10.00
AUT ORIZED SIGNAT E
STEWART TITLE OF
ASPEN, INC.
602 E. HYMAN
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303 925-3577
FAX 303WT5E]WART TITEE
GUARANTY COMPANY
99C
c���utr�� trn�rtt:z turn vt:'i,fn n�E►rT
n CITY W .SPEN - COUNTY OF PITKINi7,- OP,ADO
EXHIBIT 6`
ADDRESS
GENERAL
Professional Bldg.)
OF JOB ) 7- G' `) . C_ � -, g •
I CONSTRUCTION
� .�
E
WHEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED by BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES THE WORK OESCkIBE:.• BELOW.
A?R -2-73
Z8085f
*** 1502
CLASS OF WORK: NEW EX ADDITION J ALTERATION REPAIR —
MOVE ❑
WRECK
i OWNER
Benedict Assoc. Incorp.,DDRESS
2
PO 40 Um 10-7 HONE 13gy �- t
NAME
LICENSE
LICENSE
0
I NAME (AS LICENSED) Joe Zanin
CLASS
NUMBER
4096 i
V
INSJk ANZ.
�
Bx 1408 Aspen
PHONE
ADDRESS
O
SUPERVISOR
u
FOR THIS JOB NAME
DATE CEP.TIFIED
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION LOT NO. BLOCK NO.
ADDITION
SURVEY Stewart Title ATTACHED) DESIGN
A LIC
BY 1 BY Benedict
Assoc
PE Nl:-
AREA (S.F.)
HEIGHT from ing,-gaae I TOTAL
1V• I OCCUPANCY
AT GRADC 5760
(FEET) 31' (STORIES 2 UNITS 2
offices GROUP
F Div.
F T FIN ❑
6AStM_N Iige-5,NFIN
SINGLE r.1 ATTACHEC j TOTAL
GARAGno
- F TYPE �•
FIRE
ZONE
I �
DOUBLE DETACHED Lf; ROOMS 2
apt. CONSTR. �_
DEPTF
I :! J SPACING
FIRST
1VAV IF—
I AG-NCY
A— U i HOR!7ED I
B DATE
Z
BELoW 3 1
GRAOE
I FLOOR 2x12 12
IH
16 F
BUILDING
,
0
H
I RVIEW
EXTERIOR
FOOTING
SIZE lOxl6 to Oxlo;
IN CEILING
Beams & deck
'
II ZONING
I
Q
I-1
I
EXTERIOR CCNC.
CON WALL n T r-^
Z
f I ROO;
II PARE:!NG
O
THICKNESS (j 1I
MAS'Y
I
THICK r—i CAISSON,
SLAB d GR. REAMS 0!
ROOFING
MATERIAL COR- ten
I: PUBLIC HEALTH
.
I 1 MASONRY
ABOVE
A23VE
ABOVE
t THICKNESS
I_XTERIO�
IST FLR
2ND FLF
:R^ FLR
NVALL STUD SIZE
ABOVE
ABOVE
AEOV:
3 SPACE
IST FLF.
2NC FLP
"RD FL°
REMARKSOffice Bldg. w/ lbed, apt.
new construction
I NOTES TO APPLICANT:
FOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL 915 - 7::E
FOR ALL WORK DONE UNDER. THIS PEP.Mi' THE PERMITTEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OR CITY
I ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR C!T`' ORDINANCES WHICHEVEF
APPLIES.
SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HEATING, SIGNS,
SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES.
IPERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS STARTEC,
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE.
ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SH E MADE ON ALL ITEMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED.
THIS BUILDING SHALL'fv0T BE OCCUP D UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED.
PERMIT SUBJEC' - REVOCATION OR USPENSION FOR, VIOLATION OF ANY LAWS GOVERNING SAME.
SIGNATUR \
OF
APPLICANT:
T
1 DATE PERMIT NO
THIS FORM IS PERMIT_ NLY
WHEN VALIDATED HERE 3-12_73 71-73
is
� 1
I
� .vAL'u'h.TION
OF WORK 175,000.
I
PLAN TOTAL ic : -
P v 301.50
�I DCUFtLE CHECK _
II FEE I CASE I $ 150.75plck
BUILDING DEPARTMEN
APPROVAL BY �J ' DATE
LICENSE RECEIPTS CLASS AMOUNT
INSFECTOP.'S COPY
CI I'Y OF ASPEN BUILDING INSPECTIO1�EPARTMENT EXHIBIT 7
CITY HALL, PHONE 925-2020
INSPECTION RECORD
1280
Ute Ave -
ADDRESS
Benedict Assoc.
OWNER
GENERAL CONTRACTOR Joe Zanin
71-73 DATE ISSUED 5-9-73
BUILDING PERMIT NO.
POST THIS CARD AT OR NEAR FRONT OF BUILDING
INSPECTIONS
WILL NOT BE MADE UNLESS THIS CAP.D IS POSTED ON THE SITE
DATE OF
TYPE OF
SUB -CONTRACTOR
INSPECTION
INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE
INSPECTION
(MO DAY, YR )
i�,4_��-��
G_ -� Z 3
SPREAD FOOTINGS
Q
z
CASSIONS OR OTHER
O
~
DO NOT POUR CONCRETE UNTIL INSPECTED AND APPROVED
GROUNDWORK
c �'1 `.; ; � r, c �� Y i
Q
j
ROUGH
v
TEMP SERV.
W
"'
/L i Y �� I • �L
4
FINAL
"EWER
�;�c.� •ti z' i�. �I�
WATER
e
I j
`
GROUNDWORK
L
ROUGH (stack)
%
I �\-v-, F 1 CI �. ,� -? `- •�-: w
FINAL
GAS PIPING
O
ROUGH
z
TEMP. SEP.V
I -
LLI
= I
FINAL
--.r.. — p.- 1'�r`- .,,._;. a _ -_
'`. _ -- ^mac ..c�_ -__'� ._�_. __ �,'�; •-
c
FRAME-
<
i
W
N'
�
ROOFING 1�cc T oc-��''
L
Lath or Wallboard
oe
C:
E
J
I
m
FINAL — Euiidinc Ready ror Occupancy
J ,, —1� 1 S
THIS CARD MUST BE COMPLETELY FILLED OUT WITH NAMES OF CONTRACTORS AND ALL INSPECTIONS SIGNED BY Ir
BEFORE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CAN BE ISSUED OCCUPANCY OF THIS BUILDING PRIOR TO FINAL INSPEC
ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS NOT PERMITTED.
SEE BACK SIDE FOR COMMENTS AND CORRE
i
._._.r..._:_-. :_.._...._ .
A TKf��T ot= LaNrJ 51r�TE0 0-1 7HG NW 'A aE L%4 OP OEG,]ON 10, T109,
? 5d vV 1ioL*t PM , PITK1n1 CrJUNT1,, Gc�OaAA , `yalD 'IFZFCT l� N102E Fi)LLY
pg.X<J(2 ,O A-, FOLLOI^/5
EEGINNIr�G AT CORNS ND• OF Tl1E RJVC:t�`�DE f'L.4GEK 3D>>
iNEJ♦L' E 5 8-3' ob' Z4' E 5-�5 '14 FEET AWNC> LJr-4E
RJVE,R�!DE PLAC.EK (E; 17T�nIG UT{-UJUNtr uNE) ,.1.;: •;;'
'[HENCE 5 07'29' ZI" W 417. 22 FEET; J
'TNENGt N D4 'C0' GCS" V�/ 200-� FkETi
. - -": -.Zl-IE.rlctr N 4°j"OJ'cX�" V�! 3�0.«� Ff£.7; '.: • :. •' =:.
:y 'MEPIGE u (cf5"�'�" W iLC� 00 FEET;
N' 1I' 2 �" t= Imo. n. �s FEE.j To THE f�7W T OI ESEG�rNNIrJc�
GON7AlN1NC� 4.I13 AULE.'S ►�OFE OK
r
A IK4r-T or LAND 5tTUA1^-.0 L"I TPE tE 1/4 NE '4 AND IN llIE hlGf
hE y4 OF >c'Gt IC>J IF:,, T1O5,• F' B4 W & Td F'. M. f1rrKj . COUNT'(, coLOMAJ0.-Y
.IO-T1��GT IS M02E FULLY GC5�113� Ate FOLLOWS %
BE�jINNINC� AT GO;ZN. P r 10. I OF THE 21VaA5 c,E FLAGElZ C►'� 5. 3 �,
"HENCE N 00, 1�' CO" E 5`--o. 47 AL0iJC� LINE 1 -2 OF AID
UT-r-Ct'VNT uNE� Tn A POINT ON T> {E x.LTTIa%t^/F_6Tl Y
fLrJE Of' TPE COL D L'.0.7 71r°jr_ H(C.14 vvA1r NU. S2 f�GNT- OF h��( ;
TS IENG� 309.O�S FEI=' AI.Ot �G THE' r�P.G Or A GUF=VE -To 7NG LEFT
NAVINF� A 1;P DIU4 OF &Cr5.o0 FEET AND vt ,40O :,l_' CHOP P�,rZ. 544'�,S S7" E
�05.71 PEZT' • ��JD nnG eaN!� THE SwTHwE•�TeRLY EA'�E OF 1D CIE -tT
" OF- WH.Y'
lCl- � `, 59'Z7 L E 104. l0 FEET ALONG TF IE 50JTN WE:! T t_Y
�•,E or- 5-No P�HT-0= - wAy/ FEET ' q: r:: .• ,�,
j[1ElJGE N '4�' ool, W 25G.03 _ .�f... '.
W :7 51. 75 FEET `
'TNENGE 5 (07' 31.04 " !✓ 237. 70 FEET; ~
'MENGt 9 00 I4 00' W 140.00 FEET;
0g' 4&' Q7' %V Z70. 00 FEET i • Y
• -n 1ENGE N GYJ' 00 E Z .GL7 FEET -D THE POINT OF' BEGINNINE�
(,04 TA1w W_, Z.2 Z 3 AC,�.E_5 MD?J= O(; LL1, 6 . - —
A.
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED -IN THE NW 1/4 SE 1/4 AND
�'IN THE . SW 1./4 NE 1/4 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, 4
RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, -
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. t
j SAID PARCEL IS PART OF THE RIVERSIDE PLACER,
M.S. 3905 A.M., AND IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
'-BEGINNING AT CORNER NO. 9 OF SAID RIVERSIDE PLACER,.
A RED SANDSTONE IN PLF,CE;
THENCE NORTH 242.86 FEET ALONG LINE-8-9 OF SAID "
'RIVERSIDE PLACER;.'
*THENCE N 89953' 46" E. 149.71 FEET;
THENCE FAST 2.54 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY
BANK OF TKE ROARIiNG FORK RIVER;
TIIENCE N 15013'00" E 137.22 FEET;
THENCE N 28030'00" 1.7 132.58 FEET;*_ R
! .THENCE WEST 44.82 FEET;; •_��?'
THENCE N 25045'00" E 27.46 FEET;
THENCE•177.04 FEET ALONG THE ARC OY A CURVE TO THE
RIGHT HAVING A.RADIUS OF 1G2.00 FEET; =
TIIENCE 35.58 FEET. ALONG THE ARC OF A REVERSE CURVE
TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 68.00 FEET;
THENCE 191.08 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A REVERSE CURVE
i.TO THE RIGHT IIAVI14G A RADIUS OF 112.00 FEET; y
THENCE 47.19 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A REVERSE CURVE ,
f TO TfIE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 63.00 FEET;
THENCE 129.74 FEET ALONG' TLLE ARC OF A COI.IP0UND
CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 213.00 FEET
THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 77024'59" E 127.75 FEET;
THENCE S 04•°52'00" E 200.00 FEET;
THE14CE S 46°00' 00" V7 105.52 FEET TO TILE CENTERLINE
OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER;
THENCE S 59012'00" E 104.03 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE;
THENCE S 52005129" E 183.36 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINL•'
.PTO TILE INTERSECTION WITH LINE 9-1 OF SAID RIVERSIDE
PLACER;
THENCE N 89000'24" W 692.87 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 9-1
TO THE POII4T OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 6.3G3 ACrZE-S
MORE OR LESS. -
= ``���-�,
UV)
VFM
ccme,rckle.
EXHIBIT 11
SNOW —AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS
BENEDICT PROPERTY, ASPEN, COLORADO
Prepared For
Mr. Fritz Benedict
Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc.
Gunnison, Colorado
May, 1988
ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC.
Natural Hazards Consultants
222 Fast Gothic Ave.
Gusnison. Colorado 81230
303 - 641.3236
May 19, 1988
Mr. Fritz Benedict
1280 Ute Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Benedict:
The enclosed study of potential avalanche hazard on your property
near Aspen was completed in accordance with our discussions a few
weeks ago. Although the avalanche areas are fairly continuous,
structural avalanche protection is feasible at many locations
within the Blue Zone, as discussed in the text.
I very much enjoyed working with you on this project. Please
contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
f�Qa�4
Arthur I. Mears. P.E.
Encl.
Man Wasting • Avalanches • Avalanche Control Engineering
i
I OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS
This study of snow -avalanche hazard analysis and mapping has been
requested by Mr. Fritz Benedict of Aspen, Colorado and has the
following specific objectives:
a. Mapping of potential snow -avalanche runout zones
from design -magnitude ("100-year") avalanches;
b. Subdivision of the avalanche runout zones into Red
and Blue zones of hazard intensity;
C. Discussion of the avalanche hazard with respect to
various land uses; and
d. General discussion of avalanche mitigation
(defense) possibilities.
The hazard analysis presented here is site specific. Therefore
the results and recommendations cannot necessarily be applied to
other locations. Snowpack and terrain conditions vary greatly
from one location to another strongly affecting avalanche
behavior and possibly changing acceptable land uses.
2 DESIGN -AVALANCHE MAPPING
The analysis presented in this report maps runout distances
associated with 'design -magnitude" or "design" avalanches.
1 Design avalanches, when applied to land -use purposes in the
United States traditionally have return periods of approximately
100 years, although return periods of 300 years are considered in
Switzerland and Norway. The 100 year return period is used to
define the design avalanche here with the understanding that
a. The 100-year avalanche has a constant 1%
probability of occurring in any given year; this
probability does not change after the design avalanche
occurs; and
b. The 100-year return period is an order -of magnitude
estimate; the "true" return period may actually lie
between 50 and 200 years, approximately, but data are
not available by which the return period can be
specified more precisely.
There exist few direct observations of 100-year design avalanches
because these are, by definition, rare events. For example,
there exists only a 39% chance that a 100-year avalanche will
occur during any 50-year observation period. Therefore, this
study has followed the traditional approach of using indirect
t procedures to calculate the stopping positions and avalanche -
hazard intensity of design avalanches.
H
The procedures followed to compute design avalanches here are as
follows:
a. The runout distances or final stopping positions of
design avalanches were computed by applying a
statistical model of runout distance which was derived
from a sample of 130 "100-year" avalanches in Colorado;
b. Given the runout distance defined in "a," a
dynamics model was applied to the avalanche -path
profile to compute the velocities at various points
along the profile; and
C. Dynamic pressures were then computed from the
velocities to determine the Red Zone/Blue Zone
boundaries.
The methodology outlined above determines the downslope positions
of hazard zones and runout distances; the lateral boundaries were
determined by evaluating the effect of terrain irregularities
through study of air photos and topographic maps, and by
considering the importance of various features in the field.
Avalanche frequency was estimated by extracting cores and dating
Douglas fir trees within the avalanche boundaries. Each of the
trees thus sampled had suffered at least one avalanche impact,
(some had received several impacts), and none exceeded 80 years
old. The fact that all of the trees sampled were located below
8,200 feet elevation (within 200 feet vertical of the main access
road), provided convincing evidence that avalanches will reach
the road at frequencies of approximately 20-to-50 years. This
implies that 100-year avalanches will reach well beyond the road,
as consistent with the results of the statistical analysis
outlined above. In addition, air photographs taken in 1951 and
1957 were studied to determine old avalanche boundaries prior to
disturbance of the area by recent construction. The air photos
indicate that avalanches had run into the area of the "Aspen
Club" during the first half of this century, and had approached
the location of the "Benedict Building."
3 THE AVALANCHE TERRAIN
Six distinct avalanche areas or avalanche paths were identified
for this study. The general terrain setting with respect to
major topographic features is shown in Figure 1; details of the
avalanche runout and hazard zones are shown in Figure 2 (the
Avalanche Hazard Map). Each of the avalanche paths have distinct
characteristics that govern behavior of the design avalanche.
These characteristics are discussed below.
2
UTE TRAIL AVALANCHE. This avalanche path is located across the
access road from the Benedict Building and has been observed to
reach approximately to the road during the past decade. During
the 1987/88 winter a small avalanche reached to within
approximately 300 feet south of the road. During extreme snow
conditions, avalanches will release from open areas in the forest
and from within the forest itself at elevations between 8,600 and
9,000 feet. Clear evidence of avalanching within the forest is
visible at the 9,000-foot elevation level, near the upper end of
the Ute Trail. As with all of the avalanche terrain identified
in this study, the fastest and longest -running avalanches will
consist of dry flowing snow. The Ute Trail Avalanche will impact
the access road at over 30 mph and will spread laterally into the
upper and lower parking lots. Light flowing snow and powder
blast will reach the Benedict Building (intervals of 50-to-100
years) , but damage to the building will be minor and should not
endanger persons within the building. The parking lots will be
reached at intervals of 20-50 years, consequently the greatest
hazard from this avalanche is in the parking lot, an area that
tends to concentrate activity, particularly during the mornings
and afternoons on working days.
ASPEN CLUB AVALANCHE. This path is similar to the "Ute Trail
Avalanche" discussed above. Unstable snow can release as a
widespread slab at elevations of approximately 8,600-to-9,200
feet elevation. The released slabs will combine to flow across
the colluvial fan which is populated with aspen trees up to
approximately 30 years old, flow across the access road, and will
reach the Aspen Club. As noted above, inspection of 1951 and
1957 air photos indicates that avalanches probably reached the
building location during the first part of this century. As
indicated on Figure 2, a narrow hazard -free area exists between
the Ute Trail Avalanche and the Aspen Club Avalanche. However,
during periods of widespread snow instability, access to this
area will be dangerous.
NORDIC TRAIL AVALANCHE. This path consists of a broad, open face
immediately east of the Aspen Club Avalanche. This face is
actually fed by 4 small topographic depressions (bowls), that
tend to collect snow at 8,700-to-9,000 feet elevation.
Avalanches releasing from these small bowls will spread laterally
on the unconfined colluvial fans above the road, but during
optimum snowpack conditions will flow across the road.
OLD SWITCHBACK AVALANCHE. This is the largest and potentially
most powerful avalanche evaluated in this project. The starting
zone is a steep, east -facing slope beginning at 9,700 feet
elevation. During optimum snowpack conditions avalanches
releasing from this upper starting zone will dislodge additional
snow from the steep gully and cross the alluvial fan and access
road. Douglas fir trees immediately above the road show evidence
Of avalanche impact.
3
a
0 0
THE EAST FACE. This short, steep triangular face will release
avalanches from 8,600-to-8,800 feet elevation. Avalanches from
the East Face can release independently of the "Old Switchback
Avalanche" or can be triggered by it. Avalanche behavior will be
similar to that produced by the "Nordic Trail Avalanche."
THE EAST GULLY. Avalanches here will result primarily from
unstable snow in the steep gully, although inspection of air
photographs indicates that open slopes immediately west of the
gully may also produce avalanches. During design -avalanche
conditions, avalanches from the East Gully will cover the entire
alluvial fan and may combine with slides from the East Face.
4 AVALANCHE MAPS AND HAZARD -ZONE DEFINITIONS
The avalanche map included with this report is provided on a
1"=100' scale base map with 5-foot contour intervals. For land -
use and engineering purposes, avalanches have been subdivided
into 2 zones of hazard intensity: (a) Red Zones, and (b) Blue
Zones. These two zones were defined in terms of expected
frequency and avalanche energy. Experience with avalanche zoning
and engineering problems also suggest certain land uses that are
appropriate (of inappropriate) within each zone, as defined
below.
4.1 RED -ZONE DEFINITION AND LAND USES
The Red Zone is defined as an area of either (a) high -frequency
avalanches, (b) high-energy avalanches, or (c) both "a" and "b"
and is subject to the following conditions:
Frequency - Avalanches occur once, on the average, in
every 10-year period (a 10% annual probability). Due
to the "order -of -magnitude" nature of the return -period
estimate, the actual return period lies between 3 and
30 years. Avalanche areas of high frequency are
particularly hazardous because the probability of
encounter with avalanches is high.
Energy - Avalanches within the Red Zone may produce a
dynamic pressure on a large, flat, rigid surface normal
to the flow of 600 lbs/ft2 or more. The actual
pressure on an exposed object may be more or less than
600 lbs/ft2 depending on object shape and orientation.
The pressure on a flat surface is given as a reference
pressure for standard, simple impact conditions. These
areas are considered high hazard because of the
difficulties associated with practical design for
loads.
The Red Zone has an "either/or" definition. Either high
frequency (10-year or less), or high energy (600 lbs/ft2 or more)
In
1 � �
define the Red Zone. Therefore, large, destructive avalanche
zones qualify as Red even though they may occur only every 100
years. Furthermore, small, high -frequency avalanches zones also
qualify even though they do not produce large pressures.
Traditionally, residential construction, public buildings, and
other activities that concentrate human activities are excluded
from Red Zones. Areas of intermittent exposure, such as roads or
ski trails, or facilities that are not used during the avalanche
season may be permitted in the Red Zone. The tolerance to risk
must be carefully considered in the design of an avalanche "risk
management" policy.
4.2 BLUE -ZONE DEFINITION AND LAND USES
The Blue Zone is an avalanche area of both (a) low frequency and
(b) moderate energy. The Blue Zone is located at the lower end
of the design -avalanche runout zone and is defined as follows:
Frequency - Avalanches reach the Blue Zone with return
periods of 10-to-100 years. As with the Red Zone, the
return periods are order -of -magnitude estimates.
Energy - within the Blue Zone, avalanches produce
dynamic pressures of less than 600 lbs/ft2 on large,
flat surfaces normal to the flow direction. Actual
pressures at a given location are strongly dependent on
object shape and orientation, and must be determined on
a site -specific basis.
As noted above, the Blue Zone is always defined in terms of both
frequency and energy. The avalanche conditions must satisfy both
criteria at a given location or it will automatically satisfy one
of the Red -Zone criterion and be disqualified as a Blue Zone.
Traditionally, residential construction has been permitted in
Blue Zones provided construction will resist design -avalanche
forces. Alternately, avalanche defenses may be built to prevent
interaction of the design avalanche with the residential
construction.
As shown on the Avalanche -Hazard Map (Figure 2), avalanche hazard
is nearly continuous below the slopes studied. There is a small
area free from avalanche hazard between the "Ute Trail" and
"Aspen Club" avalanches. The Red Zone is generally confined to
the steeper portions of alluvial fans and to the slope above
(south of) the access road below the "Nordic Face."
The presence of the nearly continuous avalanche hazard zones does
not imply that all construction within this area must be avoided.
As discussed in Section 5, avalanche risk can be substantially
reduced through application of various avalanche mitigation
procedures.
61
5 AVALANCHE MITIGATION
As discussed in Section 4, construction within the Blue Zone is
generally acceptable when appropriate mitigation procedures are
used. Although a detailed discussion of avalanche mitigation is
beyond the scope of this report, the following steps are
recommended when avalanche protection is required.
5.1 HAZARD ASSESSMENT. If the building site is in the Blue
Zone, structural mitigation is generally feasible because the
probability of avalanches is small and the avalanche forces can
be accommodated in design. The avalanche velocity and energy
(impact -pressure potential) must be determined at the proposed
construction site in order for engineered design to proceed.
5.2 AVALANCHE -MITIGATION OPTIONS. Many engineered avalanche -
mitigation "avalanche -control" options are generally available,
however, only those forms most likely to be useful on this
property are discussed here.
a. Direct Protection. This involved reinforcing
buildings for avalanche impact and deposition loads.
Specially -shaped buildings that tend to deflect snow
laterally or vertically are most practical and can be
used when several closely -spaced buildings must be
protected. Large, flat surfaces directly exposed to
the avalanche flow are undesirable because avalanche
interaction generates large forces on such surfaces.
Building shapes commonly used include splitting wedges
and ramp roofs, both designs making use of the fact
that avalanches generate reduced forces when deflected
through small angles. Direct protection is generally
considered to be the most reliable avalanche -protection
measure (with the exception of avoidance) because it
provides complete protection inside the buildings.
This is probably the most common form of structural
protection used in the United States.
b. Earthen deflectors and energy dissipators. Earthen
structures are useful when sufficient room is available
to deflect snow. Design must ensure structures are
sufficiently high to prevent avalanche overtopping, are
stable against avalanche forces, and do not deflect
snow such that a hazard is created elsewhere. Large
earthen structures are very useful in locations where
avalanches can be deflected laterally and a large area
can be made hazard free. They are particularly useful
on alluvial fans.
Regardless of the avalanche -mitigation procedures used, current
design requires careful site -specific study that defines
avalanche velocity, energy, flow dimensions, and depositional
effects.
0
CIO
Ltj LS
LU
<
CD
CL
0 -j
A
FJ V)
O
LJ
OL-
z
A
. r >
d)
D
0
vi
0
•
•
TO Kim Johnson
MESSAGE DISPLAY
From: Leslie Lamont
Postmark: Nov 24,92 9:36 AM
Subject: Benedict SPA
cc Leslie Lamont
Message:
GMQS Exemption for fully deed restricted unit, the unit will comply
with R-15 dimensional requirements SPA will spell out multi -use
aspect of property and parental lot will still be required to comply
with Ord. 1 regs. potential for the 1 story log cabin as deed
restricted housing. parking may be an issue and access to the
dwelling units may be an issue.
-------========X
ASPEN CLUB INTERPTIONAL
ATTN: DIANE
1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD
ASPEN CO
81611
ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL
C/O MARK OVERSTREET
1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD
ASPEN CO
81611
BARBARA 0. FLECK 1/2
LISA BETH FLECK 1/2
1525 SOUTH LODGE DRIVE
SARASOTA FL
34239
CHARLES MADDALONE
MARLENE MADDALONE
TRUSTEES
P.O. BOX 635
ASPEN CO
81612
CITY OF ASPEN
130 SOUTH GALENA
ASPEN CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN
130 SOUTH GALENA
ASPEN CO 81611
FREDERICO LONGORIA
DENNIS E. NIXON
BOX 1359
1200 SAN BERNARDO
LAREDO TX 78042
PHYLLIS S. HOJEL
C/O ELECTRO COM AUTOMATION
2910 AVENUE F
ARLINGTON TX 76011
POWDERHOUSE ENTERPRISES
1280 UTE AVENUE
ASPEN CO 81611
T. RICHARD BUTERA
JULIE ANTHONY BUTERA
520 E. DURANT AVENUE
ASPEN CO 81611
0T 14A, CALLAHAN SUB
LOT 15, CALLAHAN SUB
LOT 7, CALLAHAN SUB
SOUTHERN MOST LOT, GORDON/
CALLAHAN SUB
UTE CEMETERY
UTE CHILDREN'S PARK
LOT 8, GORDON/CALLAHAN SUB
LOT 15, UTE PLACE SUB
LOT 16, CALLAHAN SUB
SUBJECT PROPERTY
LOT 14E, CALLAHAN SUB
a
THE ASPEN RIVER FRIENDS
C/O H.M. INTERNATIONAL
5810 EAST SKELLY DRIVE
SUITE 1000
TULSA OK
74135
THE ASPEN RIVER FRIENDS
C/O H.M. INTERNATIONAL
5810 EAST SKELLY DRIVE
SUITE 1000
TULSA OK
74135
THE ASPEN RIVER FRIENDS
C/O H.M. INTERNATIONAL
5810 EAST SKELLY DRIVE
SUITE 1000
TULSA OK
74135
THE ASPEN RIVER FRIENDS
C/O H.M. INTERNATIONAL
5810 EAST SKELLY DRIVE
SUITE 1000
TULSA OK
74135
UTE PARK PARTNERSHIP
215 SOUTH MONARCH
ASPEN CO
81611
0
LOT 2A, GORDON/CALLAHAN SUB
LOT 2B, GORDON/CALLAHAN SUB
LOT 2C, GORDON/CALLAHAN SUB
LOT 9, GORDON/CALLAHAN SUB
METES AND BOUNDS
NOTICE According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based
ipon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect.
n no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced
nore than ten venrc hnm rho 1— ni
CP
S �2 .ZLfJ IIA/
Alpine Surveys, Inc.
Surveved I 119 /9 91
N
O to —=20 40 60 80 too
SCALE 1 " = 20'
6A5I5 OF BEARII`IG,/ FOUND M0NUMENT5 A5 51-10WN.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TH15 MAP ACCURATELY DEPIGT5 A SURVEY
MADE UNDER MY 5UPERVISION ON NOVF-MBER 20TM , 1991 OF LOT
16 , GALLAHAN 5UBDIVI5101-1, CITY OF A5PEN, COLORADO. THE TWO
5T'ORY BUILDING WA5 FOUFID TO BE LOCATED EIYfIRELY WITHIN
THE BOUNDARY LIINF5 OF THE ABOVE DESGRIBED PROPERTY.
THE LOCf\T10N AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL 13UILDING5, IMPROVEMENTS
EA5EMENT5, R16HT5-OF-WAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME AND
ENGROACHMENT5 BY OR ON THE5E PREI"115E5 ARE ACCURATELY
5HOVVN .
STEWAKF TITLE. ORDER NO. 00018715 WAS U5ED IN PREPARING
"IH15 5URVEY.
ALPINE 5UPVF_Y5, ING-
DECENBER _,1111.
RMAQVYIC I") ")7 /I I I N.ITC CA- ACt ITi
Post Office Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303 925 2688
Drafted 12 9 I y 9/
�.�. �.,�.� LOT 16
EK CALLAHAiy 5UBPIV1510N PLA I
P
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
Job No 9 I - 81
Client PC)WPER HOU SE"
ENTERPRISES