HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Gordon.031A-84CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
CASE NO. 3
STAFF:
PROJECT NAME:
APPLICANT: _ hikiY LAt 4766 Phone:
REPRESENTATIVE: Phone:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (FEE)
I. GMP/SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
1. Conceptual Submission ($2,730.00)
2. Preliminary Plat ($i,640.00)
3. Final Plat ($ 820.00)
i
II. SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step),
1. Conceptual Submission ($11900.00) 4
2. Preliminary Plat ($1,220.00)
3. Final Plat '($. 820.00)
III. EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step), ($1,490.00)
IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) '($ 1680.00)
f
1. Special Review
2. Use Determination
3. Conditional Use i
4. Other:
P&Z MEETING DATE: 110,j CC MEETING DATE: DATE REFERRED:!'
REFE LS:
7City Attorney Aspen Consol.. S.D.
School District
City Engineer Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn, Natural Gas.
HousingDirector .
r Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept. (Glenwood)
Aspen Water Dept. Holy Cross Electric Mate Hwy Dept. (Grd. Jctn)
City Electric. Fire Marshall. V Building Dept.- ZC,�A
Environmental Hlth. ire Chief
Other:
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: CX__5 °--"
i
City Attorney City Engineer Building Dept.
Other: Other:
FILE .STATUS AND LOCATION: (����PY �� l�,..r� ��✓)
DISPOSITION: DecA �� p a
CITY P&Z REVIEW: D• i �c� Z �i D):' l ! 11�ty.�
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: 5, 2 q Cp, ,'2
114
e
6 �
Ordinance No.
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
Ordinance No.
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
f
Ordinance No
_(.0 liNDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
onccptua1 PUD with the flowing conditions:
1. The applicant shall verity with the City Attorney, prior to
Preliminary Plat Submission, that the Grant of Easement
recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book
316 at Page .961, allows for the usage of the access associated
with the three duplexes proposed to the Gordon Property from
Crystal Lake Drive and through Lot 2 of the Callahan Subdivi-
sion.
2. Location and dimensions of utilities and the fire hydrant
shall be submitted as part of the preliminary plat.
3. All roads in the subdivision shall be designed in the
preliminary plat at a width satisfactory to the Aspen
Volunteer Fire Department for adequate fire protection.
4. More detailed representation of cuts and fills shall be
shown in the Preliminary Plat submission.
5. A Stream Margin Review shall be initiated and conducted in
conjunction with Preliminary Plat review.
6. The applicant shall provide at Preliminary Plat Submission,
the documents necessary to convey to the City of Aspen,
water rights to -the Riverside Irrigation Ditch in an amount
corresponding to the additional use of the proposed three
duplexes a s far Ay'1g3 ,Ili poss',61,
7.
Trail and bridge easements shall be shown on the Preliminary
Plat.
8.
The applicant shall state in the preliminary plat submission
whether the low,income deed restricted units are rental or
sales properties, and follow Housing Authority Guidelines
accordingly.
As eat; dup{exCornes a,z E;�e,
9.
The deed restrictions agreement for the three low income
.units on site and the three low income units at Hunter Creek
shall be submitted to the Housing Authority for its review
and approval, and filed with the City of Aspen prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
10.
Open space shall be clearly denoted on the Preliminary Plat.
11.
Park dedication fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
12.
The Preliminary Plat submission shall include all the
contents required in Section 20-12.
sb. nec. cc.
gordon
0
Aspen/Pl
130
aspe
Mr. Stan Mathis
Mathis Architecture
720 E. Hyman
Aspen; CO 81611
May 23, 1986
& Planning
ing Off ice
treet
81611
RE: Gordon Property Residential GMP - 1983 Allocation
Dear Stan: -
This letter is written to inform you that pursuant to Section 24-
11 7 (a), of the Municipal Code, as amended, your Gordon Property
Residential GMP - 1983 Allocation will expire on September 1,
1986. Section 24-11.7 (a) requires that the Planning Office
notify you of the expiration date and, the requirements which you
must meet in order to avoid loss of your allocation.
The code requires that you submit plans to the Building Department
sufficient for the issuance of a building permit for the project
by June 1. If you are unable to meet thi- deadline, but wish to
retain your allocation, please submit a letter to, me, within
which you request that City Council grant an extension. of the
dea,dlines of up to 180 days. To justify the extension, please
�r dqnstrate your diligence in, pursuing this project and why the
extension is in the best interests of' the community. It would;
certainly seers to me that in• order to obtain said extension, you
will need; to take this project, f orward to the grel i m i nary and;
fiat subd�siorr stages of` review at this time.;,
P1eaE41elert`me know if I can be of further assistance in this regfar&
Sincerely,
Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
AR: ne c
cc: Steve Burstein
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manage
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office INK
SUBJECT: Gordon Conceptual PUD
DATE: July 8, 1985
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Conceptual
PUD plan with the twelve conditions stated below.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant proposes to build three duplex
units on a 2.187 acre site. The project would contain three three -
bedroom free-market units and three one -bedroom deed -restricted
employee units. Each employee unit would be attached to one free-
market unit. Three two -bedroom deed -restricted employee units would
also be provided off site at Hunter Creek as part of this project.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On August 15, 1983
City Council granted to Sheldon W. Gordon an exemption from the full
subdivision process and Growth Management Quota System to split his
property into two lots. In the Council resolution, the applicant
conveyed to the City water rights to the Riverside Ditch (2 EQR),
agreed to construct a water line extension at his own cost according
to City policies and standards, and agreed to join any special districts
in the area of the property.
In December, 1983 the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a
Residential G MP application for the Gordon PUD plan. The application
was scored above the threshold by the Planning and Zoning Commission
for an allotment of three free-market units. The project was then
forwarded to City Council in February, 1984 for review and confirmation
of the number of housing units allotted. Council granted this allotment
by approving Resolution 84-7, but did not accomplish a conceptual
PUD review at that time.
The applicant submitted a second residential growth management app-
lication on December 1, 1984 for the Gordon Property merged with six
lots of the Callahan. Subdivision. The allotment sought on behalf of
the Gordon Property was also for three free-market units, and, when
combined with the units permitted on the other six lots, the total
number was nine free-market units. This allotment was also approved.
However, for purposes of this review, the latter proposal is defunct
because the applicant is pursuing the earlier PUD plan.
BACKGROUND: Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision is zoned R-15 (PUD) . The
property borders the Roaring Fork River to the south and east; and
across the river is Ute Children's Park. Surrounding the property to
the north and west are lots zoned R-15, several of which contain
single family residences. The Aspen Club facilities are located
within 600 feet of the proposed entry road. Access to the Gordon
property is proposed to be off Crystal Lake Road through the Aspen
Club parking lot.
The site consists of four physical sub -areas: (1) a plateau on the
same approximate level as the Aspen Club parking lot, on the western
edge of which runs the Riverside Irrigation Ditch, (2) hillside area
with slopes up to 40% sloping toward the river, (3) plateau area
directly adjacent to the river, and (4) steep river bank in the
southwest corner of the land. There are presently several areas of
thick brush and aspen groves.
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: Section 24-11.3 (f) states
that a project with a development allotment has in effect met conceptual
review requirements:
"Any project
needing subdivision
or planned unit development
(PUD) approval
which has received
a
development allotment may be
deemed by the
Planning Office
to have satisfied the conceptual
presentation
requirements of
the
City's subdivision and PUD
regulations,
and the office
may
authorize the applicant to
proceed directly
to preliminary
plat
review."
It must be -emphasized that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed
the substance of the project at the time of the Residential GMP
competition, while City Council has only reviewed the number of
units for allotment. The development allotment received by the
applicant may be deemed to -constitute conceptual plan approval, as
stated in the above cited section, however, then Council would not
have the opportunity to review the project at the conceptual stage.
This situation is neither of benefit to the applicant nor the Community,
since it would mean that Council's first opportunity to see the
project would be at final plat. Were you to have problems at that
time, the applicant would have spent considerable time and money
without knowing how you will react to the project.
As you recall, one section of Ordinance 85-20 requires conceptual
review to be done at the same time as GMP scoring and allocation.
Therefore, the problem identified for this proj ect's review should not
again occur for any projects submitted after the date of approval of
that ordinance.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS The following comments were received
in conjunction with the Residential GMP Competition.
Ea
1. Engineering Office: Major concerns from the Engineering
Office's GMP review checklist dated 12-28-83 are listed
below:
a. The Engineering Office needs to see the agreement with
the Aspen Club for access easement from the Aspen Club
parking lot to the subdivision..
b. The proposed looped water system with fire hydrant will
need to be located more exactly before a proper evaluation
can be made.
c. More than the required number of parking spaces would
be provided.
d. The fishing and trail easements and the proposed
pedestrian bridge were rated as an excellent design
feature. The bridge must meet flood clearance.
e. Public buses run along Highway 82 within 1200 feet from
the site, providing good access to public transportation.
2. Aspen Volunteer Fire Department: The following items were
noted in the AV FD checklist:
a. The proposed 12 foot road width for the upper loop is
adequate f or anticipated one-way circulation. The 16
foot wide feeders serving two duplexes with two-way
circulation are not adequate.
b. The "k" turns proposed at the end of the feeder roads
meet AV FD approval.
c. The new fire hydrant has not been located, and AVFD
would like to see where it would be placed.
3. Building Department: The Zoning Inspector noted in a
memorandum dated 12-28-83 that recorded easements through
the Callahan Subdivision will be needed.
4. Water Department: The Manager of the Water Department stated
in a memorandum dated 12-13-85 that the looping of the
water main will improve reliability of service and upgrade
the existing neighborhood distribution system.
5. Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation System: The AMSD Manager
noted that depending on the location of the duplexes, one or
more lift stations may be necessary.
6. Housing Authority: The Housing Director made the following
recommendations:
3
a. The standard-50 year deed restrictions should be placed
on the low income units; and this agreement should be
signed by the Housing Authority and filed with the City
of Aspen prior to the issuance of a building permit.
b. The applicant should state whether the -low income deed
restricted units are rental or sales properties. If
the low income properties are sales units then they
must meet the current Housing Authority Guidelines and
a financial plan for the sales units be developed.
7. Director of Parks: In a memorandum dated 12-16-83 the
Director of Parks noted that the acceptability of design and
construction of the trails bridge will be of concern to both
the City and County, and should compliment the trails system.
8. City Attorney: In a memorandum dated 1-4-84 it was pointed
out that a number of legal documents associated with this
project will apparently be needed, including:
a. Employee housing deed restrictions.
b. Open space deed restrictions.
C. Trail easement (with bridge).
d. Water main extension agreement.
e. Water rights deed and leaseback.
f. Park dedication fee determination.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: The proposed PUD met with an overall positive
reception from the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the
referral agencies. Some of the most attractive features of the
project given high GMP competition scores were: the provision of
employee housing both on and off site, the looped water system, more
parking spaces than required, abundance of open space, and the trail
easement and pedestrian bridge.
In addition to the numerous comments from referral agencies and
Planning Commission members, the Planning Office has the following
concerns:
1. The siting of the duplex units in the two flat areas of the
property appears to work well in terms of minimal grading of
the building sites and providing some privacy to occupants.
2. The proposed drive going to the lowest duplex would appear
to require some cuts and fills in order to obtain an 8% maximum
grade. More detailed representation of the cuts and fills
is necessary to evaluate the environmental effects.
4
3. It should be noted that the site presently has significant
stands of trees and heavy shrub and grass covering. The
landscape plan portion of the preliminary plat submission
should show the existing vegetation and indicate the extent
of disturbance proposed.
4. Moreover, a Stream Margin Review should be required, pursuant
to Section 24-6.3; to allow the City to review in greater
detail how this plan would meet the guidelines and standards
regarding land use in proximity to the river.
5. One of the key components of the 1983 Gordon Lot Split was
the conveyence of water rights held on the Riverside Ditch
to the City with lease -back provisions for the property
owner. The amount of the water conveyed was determined by
estimating the water used by the anticipated additional
single family residence facilitated by the lot split. Now
that the proposed density has increased to three duplexes,
the water rights conveyence should correspond to this
additional useage.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
Conceptual PUD with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall verify with the City Attorney, prior to
Preliminary Plat Submission, that the Grant of Easement
recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book
316 at Page 1961, allows for the usage of the access associated
with the three duplexes proposed to the Gordon Property from
Crystal Lake Drive and through Lot 2 of the Callahan Subdivi-
sion.
2. Location and dimensions of utilities and the fire hydrant
shall be submitted as part of the preliminary plat.
3. All roads in the subdivision shall be designed in the
preliminary plat at a width satisfactory to the Aspen
Volunteer Fire Department for adequate fire protection.
4. More detailed representation of cuts and fills shall be
shown in the Preliminary Plat submission.
5. A Stream Margin Review shall be initiated and conducted in
conjunction with Preliminary Plat review.
6. The applicant shall provide at Preliminary Plat Submission,
the documents necessary to convey to the City of Aspen,
water rights to the Riverside Irrigation Ditch in an amount
corresponding to the additional use of the proposed three
duplexes.
5
7. Trail and bridge easements shall be shown on the Preliminary
Plat.
8. The applicant shall state in the preliminary plat submission
whether the low income deed restricted units are rental or
sales properties, and follow Housing Authority Guidelines
accordingly.
9. The deed restrictions agreement for the three low income
units on site and the three low income units at Hunter Creek
shall be submitted to the Housing Authority for its review
and approval, and filed with the City of Aspen prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
10. Open space shall be clearly denoted on the Preliminary Plat.
11. Park dedication fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
12. The Preliminary Plat submission shall include all the
contents required in Section 20-12.
sb. nec. cc. gordon
2
8
CIT)
130so
aspen,
I -
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 4, 1984
TO: Richard Grice
PEN
street
81611
FROM: Gary Esary
RE: Gordon 1984 Residential GMP Submission
No substantive comments on this at this time.
Procedurally, it appears that there will be a great number of
legal documents in this development (employee -housing deed
restrictions, open space deed restriction (p. 2), trail easement
(with bridge), water main extension agreement, water rights deed
and leaseback.
Obviously, the earlier we see drafts of these documents, the
better.
We also should determine whether park dedication fee should be
paid at the time of subdivision action (20-18) or at the time of
building permit (7-143). As an aside, Mr.. Gordon still owes a
park dedication fee on Lot 1 of approximately $17,000.00. It
would be nice to get this amount paid.
GSE/mc
pitkin county
506 east main street
aspen, colorado 81611
TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office
FROM: James L. Adamski, Housing Direct
RE: Gordon Property - 1984 Residentia GMP Submission
DATE: December 30, 1983
Applicant: The Gordon Property
Lot 3, Gordon Subdivision
Aspen., Colorado
Tlature of the Project:
The proposed project is comprised of three. duplex
units, each having one, three bedroom free market
unit and one, one bedroom low-income housing unit.
In order for the developer to meet the code re-
quirements they will provide off site low income
employee housing by purchasing 900 S.F. two bed-
room free market units at Hunter Creek Properties
and deed restricting these units according to low
income guidelines.
Housing Office Recommendation:
The applicant has been reviewed subject to the
following code requirements (Sec. 24-11.4)
1) Employee Units - low income deed restricted
2) Displacement - none
3) 50% S.F. ratio - 9000 S.F. free market
4500 S.F. low income emn. units.
4) Number of bedrms -9 free market, 9 low income
emp. units
5) Square footage of Emp. Units - 600-S.F. per one
bedroom unit. -3 00 S.F. per two bedroom unit.
6) Comparable quality - yes
7) Availability of Financing - Applicant does not
state if the units will be rental or sale units.
8) Standard 50 year Deed Restriction - not stated
in the application.
Page 2
It is the recommendation of the Housing Office based on
the information provided_that the Gordon Property, Lot 2
Gordon Subdivision Application be approved based on the
following conditions:
1) That the standard 50 year deed restriction
be placed on the low income units, and that
this agreement be signed with the Housing
Authority and filed with the City of Aspen
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2) That the applicant state whether the low
income deed restricted units are rental or
sales properties. In the event that the
low income properties are sales units they
must.meet the current Housing Authority
Guidelines and a financial plan for the
sale units be developed.
ASPEN*PITKIN . GIONAL BUILDIN-"NOEPARITMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Grice, Planning Dept.
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning `N"
DATE: December 28, 1983
RE: Gordon Property
1984 Residential GMP Submission
1) Applicant indicates access to the site from the Aspen Club parking
lot:
as We will need a recorded easement through the property
south of the site.
b) If the access is from the Aspen Club parking lot, the
Building Department would consider this the "frontyard".
Therefore, the applicant's indications of setbacks would
need revision or variances set by P&Z for the P.U.D.
2) Section 24-6.3 indicates that a Stream Margin Review will be
required prior to any construction.
3) We should check the status of the original Gordon Subdivision
for anv restrictions or conditions.
cc: Patsy Newbury, Zoning
BD/ar
offices:
110 East Hallam Street
Aspen, Colorado B 1611
is
{AEI
riTKiN CO.
PLANNN G OFFICE
mail address:
506 East Main Street
303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering
'—Nks-
DATE:. December 28, 1983
RE: City Residential GMP Scoring
Attached are copies of suggested scores for the Gordon and
East Hopkins residential Growth Management applications.
The sheets include recommended scores for various
engineering related GMP criteria as well as notes regarding
the project. The notes are intended to explain the rationale
for the various scores, however if I may elaborate on these
items or participate in further scoring sessions, feel
free to contact me.
JH/co
Enclosures
� { f
r. [Residential
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST
CITY OF ASPEN -ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DECEMBER 1983
Project Name Lo (r�v,do-nbr1!„�,s�c•-,�
Address
Owner
^
A tent/Representative
Address Phone
Reviewed By � Date
(1) Public Facilities and Services
0 - Project recuires n-,,ision of new services at
public expense.
1 Project handled by- existing level of service or
i :�rovement by applicant benefits project only.
2 - Project improves duality of service in a given
area.
(aa) ! hater (2 pts.)
Capacity of system to service proposed development
without system extension, treatment plant or other
facility u grade at public."expense
let«
r
(bb) Sewage Disposal (2 pts.)
Capacity of sewer system to handle proposed
development without system.upgrade.
u.�_ Sews
(cc) Storm Drainage (2 pts..)
Adequate disposal of surface runoff.
/ -2-
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW C1IECKLIST - Residential
(ee) Parking (2 pts.).
ori- _fir �1-�.c needs
of the -project. Visual impact, amount of paving,
convenience, and safety.
(ff) Roads (2 pts.)
Capacity of Existing roads to handle increased.
traf f is WjiNout o}i e..;.ti� `}c- (*C;C
>•i'+'ZE%T �1\i'L(L:. C1 �bicli.A��.►�-,Dn�-C�.� . -
(,U CIA)
(2) Quality of Design
0 - Totally deficient design.
1 - Major design
2 - Acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Excellent design.
(bb) Site Design (3 pts.)
Quality and character of landscaping and open
space, extent of utility undergrounding,
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation, increased safety and privacy.
t
(dd) 3 Trails (3 pts.)
Provision of pedestrian trails, bikeways, and
links to existing parks and trail systems.
2 r Q- a{
-3-
j
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
REVIEW CHECKLIST - Residential
e
(3) Proximity to Support Services
(aa)
Public Transportation (3 pts.)
1 -
Project more than 6 blocksfrom an existing City
or County bus route.
2 -
Within 6 blocks of a City or County bus route.
3. -
Within 2 blocks of a City or County bus route.
(bb)
Community Commercial Facilities
1 -
Project more than 6 blocks from the commercial
facilities in town.
2 -
within.6 blocks of commercial facilities.
3 -
Within 2 blocks of come rcial facilities.
TVT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION
for
THE GORDON PROPERTY
December 1, 1983
I. Location
Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado
II. Proposal:
This proposal is being submitted on behalf of Sheldon
Gordon. We seek a growth management allotment of three, three
bedroom free-market units that includes three, one bedroom low
,�- income deed -restricted employee housing units on the subject
property and three, two bedroom low income deed restricted
employee housing units off site at the Hunter Creek Condominium
Project. Each on site employee unit will be attached to one
free-market unit. 'This will result in three duplex units on the
subject 2.187 acre property. The proposed development is further
described by the enclosed maps,, documents and the following
discussion.
III. Description of Development:
A. The site is 2.187 acres zoned R-15 P.U.D. located off
Crystal Lake Road and bordered by the Roaring Fork River on the
west and by private properties zoned R-15 on the north and east
y
y
(see Map 1). The site has some slopes in excess of 20% therefore
a slope area reduction calculation is required to determine
allowable area for development. This. calculation by Alpine
surveys, is shown graphically on Map 3. The resulting area
available is 62,117 square feet not including the 1ans�, under: the,
water of the Roaring.Fork River. The minimum lot area per duplex
unit in this zone is 20,000 s.f., therefore a density of three -
duplex units are allowed. The site is proposed to be subdivided
into 4 parcels one parcel for each duplexandthe remaining..
parcel to be common area for the three duplex parcels restricted
against further development (see Map 3). This project will have
three duplex units, each duplex having one, three bedroom
free-market unit and one, one bedroom low-income housing unit
(see Drawings 5 and 6).
A free-market unit to consists of: 3,000 square feet
in two stories. Living room, dining room, green house, kitchen,
breakfast room, family room, laundry room and powder room on the
first floor. Three bedrooms and 3 baths on the second floor.
There will be an outside deck off the living room and one off the
master bedroom.
The low-income on -site unit to consist of: 600 square
feet in one level. Living room, dining room, green house,
kitchen, laundry room, one bedroom, and bath. There will be an
outside patio off the living :room.
All of the on site units will have passive solar
heating and active solar domestic hot water devices.
2
The remaining employee housing units will be provided
by purchasing three 900 square foot two bedroom free market units
at the Hunter Creek Properties and deed restricting the units
according to the low income guidelines.
B. The project'. is served by 'the City of Aspen Water'
Department. A new cast iron water main will be depigned,and
constructed according to City of Aspen Engineering,_and Water
Department standards ( ( see Map 2 ) . ` r� .....
This water main will connect the 8" cast iron pipe
(C.I.P.) water main located in the Aspen Club park�pg,lot-w:ith
the 6" C.I.P. located at the upper end of Riverside, Avenue. The
result of this connection will be a loop water main.system, (see
Map). Each duplex will be provided with a 3/4" service line
connection. The estimated demand is 200 gallons per duplex per
day resulting in a total estimated demand of 400 gallons per
day per duplex.
In addition to providing a loop water system, the ap-
plicant's share of the Riverside Irrigation Ditch (approximately
1/7) will be transferred to the City of Aspen. The applicant
reserves the right'to alter the course of the ditch and the width
to form ponds in "the landscape of the project. S
C. The project is served by the Aspen Metropolitan
Sanitation District from an 8 inch sanitary sewer main located in
the right-of-way on the site (see Map 2). Each duplex will be
3
provided with a 4 inch service line connection. The total
estimated demand is 400 gallons per day per duplex.
D. Electricity is provided by Holy Cross Electrical
Association. Electrical service ,into ,the site will- be-. a.!.
,underground :to each Duplex.; Each free market .pnitPop
2DQ _amp s,er,%cA and each employee unit will have 194. ampa see vi r.
Heat in the duplexes will be electric forced air interconnected.
with ,passive solar collection. �✓ ,, t_' � . ,. r> , < :. _�
E. The project will provide on -site retainage for surface
and run-off water in excess of pre -development rates. Surface
and run-off in excess of pre -development rate will be ponded and
released at.the historical rate into the Riverside Irrigation
Ditch or the Roaring Fork River. At this time there is no
evidence of surface water to deal with (see Map 4).,
F. The project will provide a new fire hydrant on the
site. The nearest existing fire hydrants is in the Aspen Club
parking lot (see Map 2). The greatest distance from the proposed
fire hydrant to a proposed residence is`170 feet. The distance
to the fire station is 20 blocks; travel time from the station -to
the site is less than 8 minutes.
G. The total site area including the -area under the
Roaring Fork River is 2.187 acres. There is no requirement for,,,
4
open space in this zone, however the project, including paved
areas such as roads and parking, covers only .37 acres or 17
percent of the 2.187 acre site. This equates to 1.82 acres of
open space or 83 percent of the site.
ihf..4s:.tc A'h'tiC' 11 i r
i. e distance 'to tt'e tb ie , Elementary' Sc ` 661 is- { ; i ; 7 t
approximately 1. 5 "miles tb 'the ',Middle and High Sc;ootls3; nfiXes.
School buses run on Highway 82, within 600 feet from the 'site.
5
fihere'is easy pedestrian aceess-to Highway 82 via Crystal: Lake
{
Load'- or Riverside Drive.
I. Assuming one car per bedroom, a total of 12 cars will
be parked regularly on -site. Twelve spaces will be provided by 4
covered and 8 outside on -site parking spaces. Addt,.onally 3
outside on -site visitor spaces will be provided, providing a
total of 15 parking spaces Extensive landscaping -will minimize
the impact of outside parking spaces to the site and surrounds.
J. The developer will dedicate a public trail and fisher-
man's easement to the City of Aspen. The easement will be -below
the developed area of the site, adjacent to the Roaring Fork
River.` Furthertthe developer will provide a bridge across the
river, connecting directly with the Ute Children's pa'rk and
existing paths.
5 '
K. The Aspen Valley Hospital is approximately 3 miles
away and within 10 minutes driving time from the site. The
;...,
p p blocks away with tnse, t�.me ,less..,
police department is 20 bloc he respo
F
than 8 minutes. Retail and service activites are approximately:
16 blocks from the site. This development will creet1e.j.,noRs from the. s-
noticeable demands on any of the above mentioned services:
L. The effects of the proposed development on the vicini-
ty would be highly beneficial, and `far 'reaching. The cau"ses' of
such will be: new and upgraded utilities lines, space and energy
efficient housing units with quality aesthetics, passive solar
heating, active solar domestic hot water, extensive..landscaping,
sufficient parking and roads, new trail and fisherman's easement,
with a bridge link. The g project will -provide new low. -income
employee housing units both on site and closer to community
service centers. In addition the project will be developed at
the allowed density resulting in a great deal of open space,
allowing the project to be more compatible with existing
development.
M. If' approved, construction ofthe development will com-
mence in the spring of 1984 and be completed in the'spring of
1986.
6
Scoring System:
A. Availability of Public Facilities and Services:
1. Water: Two -points should be awarded since the wa+-p,
project, will 1) allow a branch line to become a citzt�;line# r' Y
`J'.�} is do-velop
thus improving service < to, the area, and 2) increase-,-h* e, p- Sty pf
Aspen's ownership of water rights within the City ,imIts,.
2. Sewer: One point should be awarded since the-.:
project may be handled by existing level of servicp,and;service,.
improvement by the applicant will benefit the proj�t�oxly►,,,� dal r, .
3. Storm Drainage: Two points should be awarded
_ t
since the project will provide on -site retainage for,surface and
run-off water in excess of pre -development rates. Also ponding
will allow desirable landscape aesthetics. and controlled release
of water.
4. Fire Protections Two points should be awarded
since the project will provide a new fire hydrant, improving
existing conditions for the project and the.neighbors
5. Parking Design: 'Two points should be awarded,
since the project will provide the 12 required park4.ng.spaces on
site. Additionally three extra guest,%spaces will be provided
on -site. All 15 spaces will be screened by landscaping-
b. Roads: Two points should be awarded since the
project will provide easy in and out access with the minimum
amount of road possible. Also, the road will be pgypO .to. avoid,
rutting and dust, minimizing impact on the residenps;nda,
neighbors.
7
B. Quality of Design:
1. Neighborhood Compatibility: The existing
neighborhood consists of one and two story single family
147 P residences of 2,'bbO--i, 0 sgtiare r-ed-i Pori'lots that "fa�nce"iff -si'ze
r _ .
frown 1Q"055 square feet to 17 "912 "square -feet (see,Ma 3.)., :The
jr
P
_
'? E rr F'r-1 c3. eh I' � � , ��
proposed developmnt ran t'he Gt� �0 P opertly consis, Qf y
3, 600 `s . f . duplexes `on ' 2 . I87 total 'acres or one duplex p.er,, . 729
acres or '31, 75 s f.� of land area,.'""' E
If. -the amount of `land under the water course of the
Roa�Yrig Fork 'Riv-dr were deducted, from the 2.187 acres, the
balance of land above water would amount to 25,070 s.,f. of, land
area per duplex.
Taking -the slope area reduction for density calcula-
tions into account there is 20,705.66 s.f. per duplex.
These numbers indicate that the proposed development
is in the same density range as the rest of the neighborhood.
This is not only compatible with the surrounding neighborhood,
but improves the quality of the neighborhood. Together with the
extensive site work and trail easements being given, three points
should be awarded for this section.
2. Site Design: Three points should be awarded
since the project will provide a high quality of landscaping,] to,
include ponding, and extensive open spaces, all benefiti.,ng the ,
surrounding sites, and public trail users as well as this project.
3. Energy: Three -points should be awarded since the
project will incorporate:' insulation values of R-24.in, thewalls
8
x ,
and R-45 at the roof, orientation within 15° of south, extensive
passive solar heating, and active solar domestic hot water
devices.
..:r
4. Trails: Three points should be provided sinc
e
the, project will" dedic to a trail and fishermen's. gIq -1)
provide abridge link, thus furthering "progress of,,the�Pity 5s
Trails Master Plan. y
5. Green Space: Three points should be provided
since: the project will provide 83 "percent of the: siteas# grreen,
space. The majority of the green space will be adjacent to;_the:,,
trail., benefiting residents and public alike.
C. Proximity to Support Services:
Awarding ofpoints in this section requires special..
attention. Three two bedroom employee housing units will be
located at the Hunter Creek Properties and therefore closer to
public transportation and community commercial facilities.
Therefore, the point distribution in this section should be
balanced between the site and the employee housing at the Hunter
Creek Properties.
1. Public Transportation (from the Gordon site):
Two points should be awarded since the project isthn__.si;x.
.blocks walking distance of a City bus.stop.
2. Community Commercial Facilities (from the Gordon
Property): One point should be awarded since the project is
9
r
w - 4`p[Vp,
farther than six blocks walking distance from the commercial
facilities in town.
ID. Provision for Low.Income Housing: `
should la+ aWeded s.nce the develgpn .,.
will be 50%'1ow4inoome'occupancy. „Ths project will -provide a ,-,I,,I.,,.,:,,
total of 9 employee bedrooms in a total of b separate employee.;,
housing units. These units will house a total of 12 people
according to'-th,�Pitkiti Oounty��Housing Office averages of; 1.75
people per one bedroom`.units and,.2-3 people per two bedroom
units.
E. Provision for Unique Financing.
Not applicable.
F. Bonus Points:
This project makes a substantial contribution to
Aspen's pedestrian,trail system by the construction of a foot
bridge across the Roaring Fork River and the dedication of land
for the continuation of the Ute Trail along the Roaring Fork
River.
CITY 7
130�
aIenW
asp n, Colorado8
3039252020'
WATER DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: RICHARD GRICE, PLANNER
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1983
RE: GORDON PROPERTY
OPEN
reet
1611
We have reviewed the application known as the Gordon Property and concur
with the statement that the looping of the water main from the end of
Riverside Drive to the Aspen Club interconnect will improve reliability
of service and upgrade the existing neighborhood distribution system by
providing for an alternate routing of water in the event of a main fail-
ure. However, it should be noted that availability of water to the site
would require a main extension but the looping does create an improvement
to the water system. Assuming that the applicant will install the looped
main extension, water would be available in sufficientquantitiesto the
subdivision.
JM:lf
�!i y
DEC 14 1993
ASHEN / PITKOT 1.
PLANNING OFF"..
�`i-4: .4I:N'.::"i��'ie. •: i�Y:" _ ....•..L.;Y>:XS •if!.:.i'ti41`ay'.1w,�rY.t
r
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
The Aspen Volunteer Fire Department welcomes the opportunity to participate within
the framework that is determining the future configuration of our town. Insofar
as our concern is the protection of life and property, we have prepared the following
guidelines to establish a sense of balance between our capabilities as a department
and the locations we might be called upon to defend.
To insure fairness and equality of application, the most recent edition of the
Uniform Fire Code will serve.as final authority in our evaluations.
This review of plans is intended to impact final approval of a given project. There-
fore we see most plans in a "conceptual" form. In many cases specific -items of inter-
est are simply not available for review as they don't exist in hardcopy.
It is recommended that this checklist be reviewed at some subsequent time to
insure that these items of concern have been addressed. We at the department
will gladly perform this check at the direction of the Planning Office or in
cooperation with the Building Department.
Each item of the checklist is preceeded by three possible indicators: (OK)y (ID), -
which stands for Insufficient.Data; and (NOT OK). General comments and clarifications
will appear at the end of the prepared list.
AVFD Plans checklist 1283
Page 1
s
-0.
CIT
13
as
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: RICHARD GRICE, Planning Office
FROM: JIM HOLLAND, Director of Parks
DATE: December 16, 1983
RE: GORDON PROPERTY - 1984 RESIDENTIAL GNP SUBMISSION
Acceptability of design and construction of the trails bridge over
the Roaring Fork River will be of concern to both the City and the County.
The County maintains all trails system assets as per our joint maintenance
agreement. Any considerations made involving trail extension proposals
and/or improvements which would become .part of our existing trails system
should include them.
.' 6M1 q
tt
PiTK
f�
PLANNING OFFICE ,�