Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19980707 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 4:30 p.m. TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1998 SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners and Planning Staff B. Public II. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST · III. MINUTES IV. ACTION ITEMS 4:45-5:00 Ao Lift lA Area, Top of Aspen Street, Aspen Skiing Company World Cup Regrading Improvements, 8040 Greenline Review (continued from June 30, 1998); Chris Bendon, Stan Clauson V. PUBLIC HEARINGS s:00-s:3o A. 920 W. Hallam Conditional Use Review; Mitch Haas VI. NEW BUSINESS s:3vT:00 A. Worksession: Burlingame Ranch IIousing Project; Bob Nevins, Jim Curtis VII. ADJOURN NOTE: These times are approximate, and applicants should plan to be present approximately 1/2 hour prior to their case time estimated° YAs en n • t`' B DAMES L roperty prices are so high ordinary ,orkers are moving out of Aspen. Y ANGTON COLORADO UMMER has finally come to the Rockies, and two- groups of builders are hard at work in the rarefied air of one of the world's most exclusive ski resorts. On one side of the road are multi -million -dollar holiday homes for America's super -rich, and on the other, public housing. Not just any council houses, because this is Aspen, the most expensive city in America. Even the police patrol in Saabs. At 2600 metres, Aspen reaches heights of extravagance rarely seen outside Park Avenue and Beverly Hills. The Aspen Youth Centre nffPrc n+;_ 0 U h ave 11 y V t D asly ou can afford it quette instruction for teenagers in school holidays. Petrol costs at least one-third more than anywhere else in Colorado. Now the town is planning another 500 homes for its less fortunate residents. But poverty is relative. Anyone with an income of $US100,000 ($A150,000) or less is invited to apply for council housing. The town's new poor are likely to include doctors, lawyers and bankers. Stratospheric real estate prices mean that the shabbiest house is likely to be worth more than $A1.5 million. But Aspen's fame as the glittering home of the winter jet set disguises a growing crisis as its permanent residents struggle to keep pace with the cost of living. "You can't nav nPn"in o,,,, -i- ._ ,._ here," says Dave Tolen, the director of housing for Aspen and surrounding Pitkin County. Labor shortages in winter meant that, at one point, senior managers from the Aspen Skiing Company were working the chairlifts. Many hotels, shops and res- taurants struggle to recruit employees. The city fathers fear that if nothing is done, as Mr Tolen puts it: "Aspen will become less of a community and increas- ingly a theme park." Once the fleet of private jets has returned to New York and Los Angeles after the skiing season, the population falls from 25,000 to about 7000. Even though Aspen is develonine a much of the year it is the world's most expensive ghost town, with up to 70 per cent of houses and flats empty. The average house price is $A3 million, 20 times the national average. "You really can't compare the market in Aspen with anywhere else in America," says Mr Brent Waldron, a partner with Coates, Reid and Waldron, an affiliate of Soth- eby's International Realty. Properties with Coates— , eid and Wald- ron begin in the low millions and end at Owl Creek Ranch, a mansion with a baronial main hall. on the road to Snowmass, Aspen's second skiing area. At $A38 million, the house is close to the most expensive on the market in the rrc increases in its sales tax and a 1 per cent real estate transfer tax. It also requires property developers to build cheap hous- ing in exchange for planning permission for hotels and expensive homes. The newest homes completed are on Silverlode Drive, north of town. The first Jew Grand Cherokees are parked in the driveways. ehind em, in the estate agent's deathless prose,. is Aspen's "finest new luxury home". It boasts antique pine floors and a $A4.5 million price tag. The council houses just below have garages for two cars rather than three, but will cost less than one -tenth of the price. The view, south to the ski slopes TO: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Christopher Bendon, Planner Aspen SkiCo. FIS Regrading -- 8040 Greenline Review July 7, 1998 SUMMARY: The Aspen Ski Company (SkiCo.) is proposing a series of improvements to Ajax Mountain is preparation for future early season race events including the FIS World Cup event. Community Development staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the SkiCo. 8040 Greenline Review, with conditions. MAIN ISSUES: The 8040 application is for three areas of improvement: Revegetation of the base of Little Nell. This project is mainly to improve the aesthetics of the ski mountain from the gondola plaza in the summer months. SkiCo proposes re -seeding the area after placing a layer of top soil from approximately the location of Summer Road to the base of the gondola structure. Important in this improvement is the soil stabilization and dust control measures used during the initial germination. After re -seeding, SkiCo the area should be mulched and irrigated. Also, SkiCO should either close hiker access or re- route the access around the affected area. to Trenching for snowmaking facilities on upper portions of Little Nell This project is mostly in the County with a portion within City jurisdiction. Here SkiCo proposes a series of trenches to accommodate snowmaking facilities with the affected areas re -seeded. Regrading of terrain near the bottom of the Shadow Mountain lift (Lift IA) Here SkiCo. is proposing a substantial regrading of the World Cup finish area. This area is partially in Pitkin County and mostly within the City. The applicant has prepared the necessary mitigation plans and the Community Development Department is proposing approval with conditions. The City. Engineer will be present to discuss specific concerns related to this project. APPLICANT: Aspen Ski Company. AbWWIALJ lift/for STAFF COMMENTS: Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." The application has been included as Exhibit "C." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the SkiCo 8040, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the Fugitive Dust Control Plan as submitted. The applicant shall water all disturbed soils as necessary during construction and as additionally requested by the City during the construction process. A construction manager shall be available during all hours of construction to address specific needs as necessary. 2. To minimize soil erosion after construction, the applicant shall tamp the disturbed soil, provide water bars to direct runoff away from the disturbed areas, seed and mulch the affected areas, place hay bales or silt fencing where runoff may accumulate, and any other mitigation measures provided in the land use application or as requested by the City Engineer or the Forest Service. 3 . All disturbed areas shall be re -seeded and mulched within ten (10) days of final grading and irrigated on an ongoing basis until proper germination. All areas which do not germinate in the 1998 growing season shall be re -seeded in the Spring of 1999. Seed mixes used shall be approved by the City Forester. The applicant shall not use White Dutch Clover or Alsike Clover in the seed mix. 4. The applicant shall replace the four Aspen trees removed in kind with double the total caliper. Placement of these new Aspens shall be proximate to the area of impact, or as otherwise approved by the City Forester, and shall be accomplished in the 1998 building season. The applicant shall guarantee the success of these replacement trees for one year by posting a bond with the City Parks Department for the replacement value of the removed trees. This requirement is specific to this land use approval, as requested by the City Parks Department, and should not be used as a precedent for overall management of Aspen Mountain. 5. The applicant shall provide a section of gravel at the end of Mill Street to minimize sediment loaded drainage from entering Mill Street and shall develop a sedimentation pond on the Savannah property with written approval from Savannah Limited Partnership. The applicant shall continue to work with the City Engineer in adopting the Aspen Mountain Drainage Area Master Plan. 6. Prior to construction of the improvements, the applicant shall gain final approval from the City Engineer for the improvement's drainage system, the stability of materials being relocated, and mitigation of underground water conveyance in pipe trenches. If soil conditions require importation of large amounts of fill material, the applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a traffic control plan and the dust control plan shall be expanded to address Mill Street. Approval to include these provisions may be approved by the Community Development Director as an insubstantial amendment. 2 7. The City Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends Pitkin County approve the portions of this development proposal within Pitkin County with the same set of conditions as provided herein, except condition #4 related to the City tree replacement Ordinance. 8. This City Planning and Zoning Resolution may be enforced by the Environmental Health Department or by either the City or County Zoning Enforcement Officer. 9. Prior to construction, the applicant shall pay the Community Development Department $1,505 land use application fees. This represents 6 hours of planning time at $180/hr. and flat fees for the City Engineer ($270) and the Environmental Health Department ($155). 10. The applicant shall gain approval from the City Water Department for potable water systems and any necessary improvements to the water meter and any additives to the snowmaking system. 11. All construction staging and contractor parking shall be accomplished on -site and not within public rights -of -way. The applicant shall keep the public rights -of -way clear of tracked mud and debris by washing the street when necessary. 12. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. 13. Any alterations to existing utilities shall be coordinated with the appropriate utility agency. 14. Before construction, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 15. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the SkiCo FIS regrading 8040 Greenline Review with the conditions outlined in the Community Development Department memo dated July 7, 1998." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments Exhibit C -- Development Application 3 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON ASPEN MOUNTAIN RELATED TO THE F.I.S. RACE COURSE, AJAX (ASPEN) MOUNTAIN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Resolution 498 - WHEREAS, the Aspen Skiing Company, applicant, submitted an application (development proposal) to the Community Development Department for improvements on Ajax Mountain, a.k.a. Aspen Mountain, related to the F.I.S. race course finish, snowmaking improvements on "Little Nell" ski run, and landscaping improvements near the base of the gondola; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is partially located in Pitkin County and the City of Aspen and within the 8040 Greenline Review area established by the elevation 8,040; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 26.68, may approve development applications within the Environmentally Sensitive Area delineated by elevation 8040 at a meeting; and, WHEREAS, the applicant requested approval of said reviews and the Planning Department, the City Parks Department, the City Engineer, the Fire Marshal, the City Water Department, and the Environmental Health Department, reviewed the development proposal in accordance with all applicable procedure and review criteria set forth in the afore mentioned Section and recommended approval, with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a meeting on July 7, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered this application and, by a to vote, approved the 8040 Greenline Review, with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department, as amended during the meeting. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That the Aspen Skiing Company F.I.S. 8040 Greenline Review, Ajax Mountain, is approved with the following conditions: APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 7, 1998. 1. The applicant shall comply with the Fugitive Dust Control Plan as submitted. The applicant shall water all disturbed soils as necessary during construction and as additionally requested by the City during the construction process. A construction manager shall be available during all hours of construction to address. specific needs as necessary. 2. To minimize soil erosion after construction, the applicant shall tamp the disturbed soil, provide water bars to direct runoff away from the disturbed areas, seed and mulch the affected areas, place hay bales or silt fencing where runoff may accumulate, and any other mitigation measures provided in the land use application or as requested by the City Engineer or the Forest Service. 3. All disturbed areas shall be re -seeded and mulched within ten (10) days of final grading and irrigated on an ongoing basis until proper germination. All areas which do not germinate in the 1998 growing season shall be re -seeded in the Spring of 1999. Seed mixes used shall be approved by the City Forester. The applicant shall not use White Dutch Clover or Alsike Clover in the seed mix. 4. The applicant shall replace the four Aspen trees removed in kind with double the total caliper. Placement of these new Aspens shall be proximate to the area of impact, or as otherwise approved by the City Forester, and shall be accomplished in the 1998 building season. The applicant shall guarantee the success of these replacement trees for one year by posting a bond with the City Parks Department for the replacement value of the removed trees. This requirement is specific to this land use approval, as requested by the City Parks Department, and should not be used as a precedent for overall management of Aspen Mountain. 5. The applicant shall provide a section of gravel at the end of Mill Street to minimize sediment loaded drainage from entering Mill Street and shall develop a sedimentation pond on the Savannah property with written approval from Savannah Limited Partnership. The applicant shall continue to work with the City Engineer in adopting the Aspen Mountain Drainage Area Master Plan. 6. Prior to construction of the improvements, the applicant shall gain final approval from the City Engineer for the improvement's drainage system, the stability of materials being relocated, and mitigation of underground water conveyance in pipe trenches. If soil conditions require importation of large amounts of fill material, the applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a traffic control plan and the dust control plan shall be expanded to address Mill Street. Approval to include these provisions may be approved by the Community Development Director as an insubstantial amendment. 7. The City Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends Pitkin County approve the portions of this development proposal within Pitkin County with the same set of conditions as provided herein, except condition #4 related to the City's tree replacement Ordinance. 8. This City Planning and Zoning Resolution may be enforced by the Environmental Health Department or by either the City or County Zoning Enforcement Officer. 9. Prior to construction, the applicant shall pay the Community Development Department $1,505 land use application fees. This represents 6 hours of planning time at $180/hr. and flat fees for the City Engineer ($270) and the Environmental Health Department ($155). 10. The applicant shall gain approval from the City Water Department for potable water systems and any necessary improvements to the water meter and any additives to the snowmaking system. 11. All construction staging and contractor parking shall be accomplished on -site and not within public rights -of -way. The applicant shall keep the public rights -of -way clear of tracked mud and debris by washing the street when necessary. 12. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. 13. Any alterations to existing utilities shall be coordinated with the appropriate utility agency. 14. Before construction, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 15. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Sara Garton, chair Exhibit A Review Criteria and Staff Findings: 26.68.030 8040 greenline review. A. Applicability. The provisions of 8040 greenline review shall apply to all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040 greenline) in the City of Aspen, and all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline, unless exempted pursuant to Section 26.68.030 (B)• Staff finding: The property is within this area and is not eligible for an exemption. C. 8040 greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. Staff finding: According to the Geotechnicai Report, and as confirmed by the City Engineer, the regrading are is not affected by mines or mine subsidence and there does not appear to be any toxic soils. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Staff finding: The applicant has designed the regrading to maintain the historical drainage patterns. A sedimentation pond may be constructed on the Savannah property as part of this development in order to allow sediment to separate from most of the runoff. This improvement is a recommended condition of approval. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. Staff finding: The regrading project has the capacity to significantly affect air quality in the immediate vicinity. The applicant has submitted a fugitive dust mitigation plan with this application to address these concerns. As proposed, chemical treatments and aggressive watering of the affected areas should be sufficient to keep dust to a minimum and within reasonable air quality levels. However, the applicant should have a full time construction manager on -site to make amendments to the watering schedule as needed, including as directed by the Community Development Department or the Environmental Health Department. Also, the applicant should provide a section of gravel (1 /2 to 1 inch) at the entrance to the Savannah property to prevent sediment loaded runoff from directly entering Mill Street. This is a relatively inexpensive solution that would provide a temporary fix before a more permanent improvement could be agreed upon with the City Engineer. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff finding: The improvements to the base of Little Nell are totally appropriate and much welcomed. The. snowmaking improvements may be subject to erosion. To mitigate this, the applicant should tamp the replaced soil, provide water bars to direct runoff away from the disturbed areas, seed and mulch the affected areas, place hay bales or silt fencing where runoff may accumulate, and any other direction given by the Forest Service. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff finding: The applicant will be removing a small stand of four Aspen trees. The applicant has offered to replace these in kind at double the caliper. The Commission should require a bond to ensure the success of these trees. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff finding: No structures or additional roads are proposed. The cutting and grading will be a significant project with obvious impacts on the scenic qualities of the mountain. These impacts, however, will be temporary and are proposed to be mitigated with a re -seeding program. The impacts should be nearly undetectable within a few years while the 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff finding: Does not apply. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff finding: Mill Street serves the project area. The applicant will use the Savannah property for staging construction equipment and will not be making.frequent trips along Mill Street except for watering trucks. The junction between the City street and the dirt road access to Ajax Mountain is currently a drainage problem. Heavy rains on this area of the mountain drain down the road and carry sediment onto Mill Street. To minimize this, the City Engineer has proposed a few improvements that should be included with the Aspen Mountain Master Plan. In the interim, however, the applicant should provide a section of crushed rock or gravel to trap sediment on the last portion of the dirt road before the intersection with Mill Street. This is a temporary, but relatively inexpensive, solution. The Commission should require the applicant to wash to street as mud and debris are deposited to reduce negative impacts to the air quality. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff finding: The property has adequate access. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Provide access to natural resources and areas of special interest to the community. Staff finding: The proposed rough grading for the Aspen Mountain trail has been reviewed by, and is acceptable to the City Trails Coordinator. JUN 1 5 }998 TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Stephen Ellsperman, Forester and Natural Resource Specialist RE: Aspen Skiing Company World Cup Improvements DATE: June 12, 1998 The following are comments on the above mentioned project. 1) The most major potential natural resources .impact of this project would be the potential significant increase in sedimentation loads into the watershed. The potential for significant increase in turbidity levels in the watershed would exist during a storm event. The use of straw bales and silt fences referenced in the erosion control plan do not seem adequate with a project of this magnitude. No figures or studies were referenced with regard to the amount of sedimentation which may be possible with this project. A more detailed erosion control plan should be submitted in order to fully address all potential erosion and sediment loading issues. A sedimentation pond and constructed wetland created at the terminus of water runoff from the project would be an example of a potential plan which would be adequate for this project. A constructed wetland within this sedimentation basin would also provide needed wildlife habitat and a means to reduce non -point source pollution. 2) The revegetation plan as submitted seems adequate for the scope of this project. The only change requested would be the removal of two species from the "native seed mix". - White Dutch Clover -Alsike Clover These two species of plants do provide an adequate cover crop, however, they are extremely invasive. 3) The City of Aspen is assuming that Aspen Skiing Company has acquired all necessary federal, state, and local permits for this construction activity. 4) The tree permit application submitted for this project is approved. Mitigation for the trees submitted for removal totals $8704.08. Mitigation must be met on site with tree plantings totaling the mitigation amount. Please submit a brief mitigation plan which provides for adequate tree growing areas. This mitigation plan may be included on the revised erosion control plan. 7spen COnsof 6(aled CSdnlfd%on 01sir-cf 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (970) 925-3601 FAX #(970) 925-2537 Sy Kelly - Chairman Michael Kelly Paul Smith - Treas. Frank Loushin Louis Popish • Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr. June 11, 1998 Stan Clauson Community Development 130 S . Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Ski Company World Cup Improvements Dear Stan: 9E8 CG, MIIMI-%Ui i `l DEV.=-: 'C`PMENT The District currently provides service to some of the improvements on Aspen Mountain. Service is provided through an out -of -district service agreement. All of the wastewater lines, manholes, etc, that are located on the mountain are the property and maintenance responsibility of the Aspen Skiing Company. Our only area of interest would be to insure that there are no clear water connections to the Skiing Company's wastewater collection system as a result of the waterline improvements. Any form of service from the District is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce-Matherly District Manager EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 • 1986 • 1990 Regional and National MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner RE: Aspen SkiCo. FIS Regrading -- 8040 Greenline Review DATE: June 30, 1998 SUMMARY: The Aspen Ski Company (SkiCo.) is proposing a series of improvements to Ajax Mountain is preparation for future early season race events including the FIS. World Cup event. Community Development staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the SkiCo. 8040 Greenline Review, with conditions. MAIN ISSUES: The 8040 application is for three areas of improvement: Revegetation of the base of Little Nell. This project is mainly to improve the aesthetics of the ski mountain from the gondola plaza in the summer months. SkiCo proposes re -seeding the area after placing a layer of top soil from approximately the location of Summer Road to the base of the gondola structure. Important in this improvement is the soil stabilization and dust control measures used during the initial germination. After re -seeding, SkiCo the area should be mulched and irrigated. Also, SkiCO should either close hiker access or re- route the access around the affected area. Trenching for snowmaking facilities on upper portions of Little Nell. This project is mostly in the County with a portion within City jurisdiction. Here SkiCo proposes a series of trenches to accommodate snowmaking facilities with the affected areas re -seeded. Regrading of terrain near the bottom of the Shadow llfountain lift (Lift IA) Here SkiCo. is proposing a substantial regrading of the World Cup finish area. This area is partially in Pitkin County and mostly within the City. The applicant has prepared the necessary mitigation plans and the Community Development Department is proposing approval with conditions. The City Engineer will be present to discuss specific concerns related to this project. APPLICANT: Aspen Ski Company. STAFF COMMENTS: Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." The application has been included as Exhibit "C." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the SkiCo 8040, with the following conditions: I. The applicant shall comply with the Fugitive Dust Control Plan as subrrUtted. The applicant shall water all disturbed soils as necessary during construction and as additionally requested by the City during the construction process. A construction manager shall be available during all hours of construction to address specific needs as necessary. 2. All disturbed areas shall be re -seeded and mulched within ten (10) days of final grading and irrigated on an ongoing basis until proper germination. All areas which do not germinate in the 1998 growing season shall be re -seeded in the Spring of 1999. Seed mixes uses shall be approved by the City Forester. The applicant shall not use White Dutch Clover or. Alsike Clover in the seed mix. 3. The applicant shall replace the four Aspen trees removed in kind with double the total caliper. Placement of these new Aspens shall be proximate to the area of impact, or as otherwise approved by the City Forester, and shall be accomplished in the 1998 building season. The applicant shall guarantee the success of these replacement trees for one year by posting a bond with the City Parks Department for the replacement value of the removed trees. 4. The applicant shall provide a section of gravel at the end of Mill Street minimize sediment loaded drainage from entering Mill Street. The applicant shall continue to work with the City Engineer in mitigating the erosion and drainage of Aspen Mountain. The applicant is encouraged to develop a sedimentation pond'on the Savannah property with written approval from Savannah Limited Partnership. 5. Prior to construction of the Lift IA improvements, the applicant shall gain final approval from the City Engineer after submitting soil compaction report. If soil conditions require importation of large amounts of fill material, the applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a traffic control plan and the dust control plan shall be expanded to address Mill Street. Approval to include these provisions may be approved by the Community Development Director as an insubstantial amendment. 6. The City Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends Pitkin County approve the portions of this development proposal within Pitkin County with the same set of conditions as provided herein. 7. This City Planning and Zoning Resolution may be enforced by the Environmental Health Department or by either the City or County Zoning Enforcement Officer. 8. Prior to construction, the applicant shall pay the Community Development Department $1,505 land use application fees. This represents 6 hours of planning time at $180/hr. 2 and flat fees for the City Engineer ($270) and the Environmental Health Department 9. The applicant shall gain approval from the City Water Department for potable water systems and any necessary improvements to the water meter. If the applicant proposes additives to the snowmaking system, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for monitoring and liability. 10. All construction staging and contractor parking shall be accomplished on -site and not within public rights -of -way. The applicant shall keep the public rights -of -way clear of tracked mud and debris by washing the street when necessary. 11. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. 12. Any alterations to existing utilities shall be coordinated which the appropriator utility agency 13. Before construction, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 14. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the SkiCo FIS regrading 8040 with the conditions outlined in the Community Development Department memo dated June 30, 1998." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments Exhibit C -- Development Application 3 Review Criteria and Staff Findings: 26.68.030 8040 greenline review. A. Applicability. The provisions of 8040 greenline review shall apply to all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040 greenline) in the City of Aspen, and all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline, unless exempted pursuant to Section 26.68.030 Staff finding: The property is within this area and is not eligible for an exemption. C. 8040 greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the* 8040 greenline unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. Staff finding: According to the Geotechnical Report, and as confirmed by the City Engineer, the regrading are is not affected by mines or mine subsidence and there does not appear to be any toxic soils. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Staff finding: The applicant has designed the regrading to maintain the historical drainage patterns. A sedimentation pond will be constructed on the Savannah property as part of this development in order to allow sediment to separate from most of the runoff. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. Staff finding: The regrading project has the capacity to significantly affect air quality in the immediate vicinity. The applicant has submitted a fugitive dust mitigation plan with this application to address these concerns. As proposed, chemical treatments and aggressive watering of the affected areas should be sufficient to keep dust to a minimum and within reasonable air quality levels. However, the applicant should have a full time construction manager on -site to make amendments to the watering schedule as needed, including as directed by the Community Development Department or the Environmental Health Department. Also, the applicant should provide a section of gravel (1/2 to 1 inch) at the entrance to the Savannah property to prevent sediment loaded runoff from directly entering Mill Street. This is a relatively inexpensive solution that would provide a temporary fix before a more permanent improvement could be agreed upon with the City Engineer. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is cbmpatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff finding The improvements to the base of Little Nell are totally appropriate and much welcomed. The snowmaking improvements may be subject to erosion. To mitigate this, the applicant should tamp the replaced soil, provide water bars to direct runoff away from the disturbed areas, seed and mulch the affected areas, place hay bales or silt fencing where runoff may accumulate, and any other direction given by the Forest Service. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff finding: The applicant will be removing a small stand of four Aspen trees. The applicant has offered to replace these in kind at double the caliper. The Commission should require a bond to ensure the success of these trees. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a. scenic resource. Staff finding: No structures or additional roads are proposed. The cutting and grading will be a significant project with obvious impacts on the scenic qualities of the mountain. These impacts, however, will be temporary and are proposed to be mitigated with a re -seeding program. The impacts should be nearly undetectable within a few years while the 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff finding: Does not apply. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff finding: Mill Street serves the project area. The applicant will use the Savannah property for staging construction equipment and will not be making frequent trips along Mill Street except for watering trucks. The junction between the City street and the dirt road access to Ajax Mountain is currently a drainage problem. Heavy, rains on this area of the mountain drain down the road and carry sediment onto Mill Street. To minimize this, the City Engineer has proposed a few improvements that should be included with the Aspen Mountain Master Plan. In the interim, however, the applicant should provide a section of crushed rock or gravel to trap sediment on the last portion of the dirt road before the intersection with Mill Street. This is a temporary, but relatively inexpensive, solution. The Commission should require the applicant to wash to street as mud and debris are deposited to reduce negative impacts to the air quality. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff finding: The property has adequate access. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Provide access to natural resources and areas of special interest to the community. Staff finding: The proposed rough grading for the Aspen Mountain trail has been reviewed by, and is acceptable to the City Trails Coordinator. NVEMORANDUM o: Chris Bendon, Project Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer f`�� From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer Date: June 29, 1998 Re: SkiCo 8040 Greenline Review Physical Address: Aspen Mountain, Aspen, CO Legal Description: Metes & Bounds parcel, City of Aspen, CO [Sec. 13, TlOS, R84W] Parcel ID No.: xxxx-xxx-xx-xxx After reviewing the application, making a site visit, and a subsequent meeting at the City Engineer's office, I am reporting the combined comments made by the members of the DRC: Summary: The work plan outline for revegetation, replacement of water mains and regrading of the lower ski slope generally fulfills the conditions for an 8040 Greenline Review although we request farther information and that the applicant elaborate on some portions of the work plan, specifically, verification of the composition :end proportions of the proposed fill materials, prior and on -going work to mitigate geologic 'azards (soil movement/landslide, rockfall), sediment transport and erosion control measures, and coordination with adjoining property owners. Approval of the application may be made with the condition that these additional pieces of information will be provided and necessary adjustments will be made to ensure the stability of the fill material on the re -graded slopes. 1. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project change, or the site, grading, drainage, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of the revised plans should be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated June 5, 1998 and June 19, 1998) provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, grading, drainage, parking or utility designs. 2. Application: To verify and coordinate specific details of the project, we have requested additional information and submittals listed below: a) Two (2) cross -sections drawn through the work area; one through the area to be cut and the other through the area to be filled, to scale showing construction techniques, the approximate volume of the cut and fill, benching, drainage diversion, erosion and debris barriers, etc., b) Composite detail section showing the earth barriers, silt fencing, hay bale checks, etc. in relation to one -another in the work site perimeter, (diversion dike with hay bales, silt fence), c) Gradation analysis from a trench pit to confirm the proportions of clays and large aggregate in the area to be cut, [Atterberg Limits (P.I., L.L.)], at mentioned in the earlier report, DRC17a98.DOC 1 OF 3 Memo - Pre -Application Review for SkiCo 8040 Greenline Application d) If the soils contain too much clay and insufficient aggregate with acceptable P.I. and L.L. to provide stable fill material, a traffic control plan for the importation of suitable fill material to the site, (traffic control plan by a certified Traffic Control Specialist), e) Geologic/Geotechnical Report regarding previous stabilization work for the Straw Pile area, f) Consent for work which encroaches onto the property of adjacent property owners. In completing the several applications and permits required for this,project, the City requests that when requirements or standards of different agencies are in conflict, that the most stringent requirements be fulfilled. 3. Water Line Replacement Work plan: Since the new water mains will provide water for human consumption, the system will need a backflow preventor, and the lines will need to be decontaminated and tested for bacteria before they may be used to provide potable water. The City Water Dept. also requires that SkiCo enter an agreement with the City regarding monitoring and liability issues for any additives to the snowmaking system since a single water main will provide both potable water and water for the snowmaking system. SkiCo is also required to test, and if necessary replace, the water meter between the City water distribution system and the SkiCo system to ensure 98% or better accuracy in delivery volume. Cut-off walls should also be incorporated with the construction of the water mains on the mountain to help mitigate ground water conveyance through the pipeline bedding. a. Traffic Impacts: SkiCo intends to employ its regular employees in the proposed work so only additional traffic due to delivery of equipment and materials will be generated in this project without any permanent increase in vehicular traffic. The proposed work is scheduled to be completed this summer (1998). 4. Utility Services: Several types of utility lines appear to cross the proposed re -grading work area. The owner will need to coordinate relocation of these lines with the respective utility providers and maintenance of service during the work. 5. Site Drainage: For this project and in a long term perspective, the City desires to establish a drainage master plan for the Aspen Mountain drainage basin and requests the active participation of the Ski Company in this process. In this re -grading project, temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures are of particular concern. We understand that the intention is to maintain the historic drainage patterns from the mountain to the City below. While the primary intent of the grading project is to improve the ski runs in the re- grading area, this may also result in less snow -making activity and indirectly a reduction in the drainage flows in this sub -basin. In the pre -application meeting, discussion was made of the possibility of siting a temporary sediment pond around or on the Top of Mill property to reduce the sediment load carried onto S. Mill Street until another drainage plan is developed for this property. The City requests that SkiCo pursue this option further with Savannah Partners Limited (SPL) and obtain written consent if acceptable with SPL (grantor). In my telephone conversation with Mr. John Sarpa, (SPL), at 4:55 p.m., Tuesday, June 30, 1998, he had not received a copy of the revised drainage plan showing the detention basin proposed for the Top of Mill site. He expected to receive DRC170800C 2OF3 Memo - Pre -Application Review for SkiCo 8040 Greenline Application a copy on July 1, 1998 which would then be reviewed by consultants for SPL locally and in the Los Angeles ffice before a decision would be made by SPL regarding the proposed detention basin. The new development cannot release more than historic (pre -development) storm run-off flows from the site and any increase in historic storm run-off flows must be first routed and detained on the site. A drainage report and design completed and stamped by a Colorado licensed civil engineer will be required for the project to accommodate the drainage flows originating from the site., Due to the high Atterberg Limits, the surface drainage must be collected, de-sedimented and directed to a nearby closed drainage system to prevent artificial injection of additional water into the soils which may contribute to soil movement(s). The drainage report and plan will be approved prior to construction. Precipitation intensity curves for a five year (5 yr.) storm frequency should be used in designing the drainage improvements. Interim and permanent techniques for erosion and sedimentation control to }preserve the site and protect adjacent properties and rights -of -way will be included in the drainage report and plan. 8. Driveways, Access, Roads & Trails: The grading plan should incorporate the existing and re- routed roads within the grading area to minimize the visual scarring of the mountain side, erosion and rockfall hazards. The applicant has already agreed to coordinate routing of the ski and hiking trail easements with the City Parks Dept. during the final grading of the area. Presently there are at least four (4) vehicular access routes on to the face of the mountain which are also drainage ways onto public and private roadways. These are: a) Aspen Mt. Summer Road; b) access from the driveway at the easterly end of Dean St. (beside the Tippler Restaurant); c) through the Top of Mill property 'Savannah Partners Limited); and d) access from the Shadow Mountain lift at the end of S. Aspen Street. Aile it is not the intention of the present projects to improve the entire mountain face or these specific areas at this time, the City requests that these vehicular access points be included in future improvement projects to help minimize erosion and sediment transport onto the public and private roadways accessing this property. 9. Environmental Health Dept.: Comments and conditions of the Environmental Health Dept. are included in the'attached memorandum. 10. City Parks Dept.: While SkiCo has expressed its willingness to mitigate the several trees which will be removed in this re -grading project, it has also requested an alternate form of mitigation in replacing trees in kind rather than the dollar cost replacement mitigation. Due to its management agreement with the US Forest Service, SkiCo may provide replacement trees at a lower cost than market price to mitigate those which will be removed. As an alternative, SkiCo offered to place a bond to guarantee the survival of the replacement trees. The Parks Dept. is reviewing the specifics of the proposal. DRC Meeting Attendees: Applicant: Victor Gerdin, SkiCo Staff & Referral Agencies: Chris Bendon, Ross Soderstrom; John Krueger, Rebecca Schickling DRC17a98.DOC 3OF3 June 5, 1995 ilk Victor Gzrdin, Moun tarn Plar� er Asper Skiing Compare% PC Box 121-3 HEALTH DUARTMENT Dear Mr . Ger din , Your Fug; t 4 ve Dias t Plan and Ba=th moving Pe=4 t are approved by this department with t*-^ e f o l" owing cond_ t i ons ,- -add-4 t i .ons and modi`icat-on: Because of noise generated from construction you cannot work 10 hours.a day 7 days a weak which is stated on the face of the.Fugiive Dust Plan. The county allows work on - of and Saturdays from 7 am to 10 pm and Sunday from 9 am to 6 pm. The City allows construction from 7 am to 10 pm seven days a week. No noise variance wi 11 be granted for this project . Dust blow_ng from this project, especially in the areas of the Little Nell and the regrading of the World. Cup Course Base Area, are a great concur of this department. No visible dust may be transferred off the property onto adjoining property. So watering at least a couple of times a day or more often to prevent visible dust is required.* Fencing. to prevent wind blow dust is required when excavation will be close to residents and businesses. Clean up of paved areas by hand sweeping and hose water is not probably enough measure to prevent track out of the dirt.A mechanical sweeper will likely be needed. Speed limits are contradictory in several places. In one section of the permit speeds are limited to 10 mph on - mountain roads and 5 mph near residential dwellings. in the Fugitive Dust Plan, speeds are limited to 15 mph. Speeds must be limited so that no dust is created. A condition of approval of this permit is that before removal and replacement of gas storage tanks occur, all state pe=its must he in place. _ 1 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPE:vrCOLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5070 - F, x 970.920.5197 printed on Recycled Paper No approvals from the state are required for the replacement of the water 1i r_e to Bonn.ies Restaurant. Please call me .at 920-J076 i= you have any further questions. Sincerely, Nancy MacKenzie Environmental Health Spec i al i s t 2 WITNESS LIST* AGENDA ITEM: c ON AreeA NAME OF WITNESS: 1. Staff Person 2. -T/ f <cc 3. 4 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. * Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members Vt EXHIBITS* ASP-6-4 SU I0ci C AGENDA ITEM: EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION IN DEMO 2 5��� a �l�lg a ✓J -- Cart�-r��1�'te� ✓ * "In" means the exhibit is introduced into the record. "Demo" means the exhibit is used only for demonstration or illustrative purposes. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission l^ j THITZU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Direct FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner RE: 920 West Hallam Street Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing. Parcel I.D. No. 2735-123-03-003. DATE: July 7, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval to place two (2) detached residential dwellings on a lot with an area of more than 6,000 square feet. The list of Conditional Uses permitted in the R-6 zone district allows for two (2) detached residential dwellings on an historic landmark designated lot with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet. In total, the applicant is attempting to split an existing 11,048 square foot lot into one parcel of 3,432 square feet (Lot A) and another of 7,616 square feet (Lot B) by having the property designated as an Historic Landmark and then completing an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The single-family home that would be built on Lot A would be allowed by right, as a permitted use in the zone district. Lot B, which is the subject of this application, would contain the existing historic house as well as a new house. Thus, the proposal before the Planning and Zoning Commission involves only the 7,616 square foot parcel (Lot B) that would be created and the two (2) detached residential dwellings that would be located thereon; thus, if approval is to be granted by the Commission, it would need to be contingent upon City Council approval of the proposed Landmark Designation and Lot Split. The applicant's Conditional Use Application is attached as Exhibit "A" and referral comments are included as Exhibit "B." Community Development staff recommends that the Conditional Use at 920 W. Hallam be approved, subject to conditions. APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, represented by Ron Robertson and Glenn Rappaport. LOCATION: 920 West Hallam Street; legally described as the east 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, O and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is on the north side of West Hallam Street, between the Castle Creek Bridge (to the west) and 8th Street (to the east). ZONING: Medium -Density Residential, (R-6). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residential. The site in question currently contains three (3) separate structures. The principal structure is a two -bedroom single-family house EXHIBIT 1 containing approximately 990 square feet of floor area; it was built in 1888 and is a one- story, cross -gabled structure with a prominent bay window and decorative ornamentation on the front facade and porch. Next, the structure that is currently used as a garage was originally used as a "section house" for housing workers of the Colorado Midland Railroad and was moved to this site in the early 1940's; it contains approximately 454 square feet of floor area. Lastly, the property contains a 231 square foot shed that was once used as a concession stand at the base of Aspen Mountain and was moved to this site in the late 1940's. LOT SIZE: The lot in question contains a total area of 11,048 square feet (.25 acres). As proposed, the Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption would result in a 3,432 square foot parcel (Lot A), and a 7,616 square foot parcel (Lot B). ALLOWABLE FAR: The existing lot of 11,048 square feet in the R-6 zone district would have an allowable duplex FAR of 4,202 square feet, exclusive of reductions or bonuses (such as the 500 square foot FAR bonus applied for though the Historic Preservation Commission). Given the Historic Landmark Lot Split provisions, the maximum amount of FAR floor area that can constructed on the whole site cannot exceed the allowable FAR for a duplex on the fathering 11,048 square foot parcel. Thus, the FAR that could, by right, be built in a single structure would, if the proposal is approved, be split up between three (3) separate structures. The FAR of the proposed home on Lot A is 1,850 square feet, while Lot B would contain the existing 1,000 square foot historic house and a new 1,850 square foot residence. In total, the proposal does not provide the applicant with any additional FAR (other than the potential for a 500 square foot FAR bonus from the HPC) than what is allowed by right under the zoning. PROPOSED LAND USE: Two (2) detached single-family residences with attached garages. Detached residential dwellings are permitted as conditional uses on landrriarked lots of 6,000 square feet or greater in the R-6 zone. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Conditional use approvals by the Planning and Zoning Commission require a public hearing. It is a one-step review that requires notification to be published, posted and mailed in accordance with Section 26.52.060(E). The following sections of the code are applicable to this conditional use review: Section 26.28.040, Medium -Density Residential (R-6); and, Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses. The applicant will also be going before the Historic Preservation Commission for a public hearing on July 8, 1998 for review of an application that includes requests for Partial Demolition, On -Site Relocation, Off -Site Relocation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, Significant Development (Conceptual), and variances to the side yard setbacks, combined side yard setbacks, site coverage, and residential design standards. The application will then go before the City Council for final decisions regarding the Landmark Designation and Landmark Lot Split requests. After this is done, provided approvals are granted, the applicant would have to return to the HPC for Final approval of the Significant Development request. 2 REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, and the City Engineering, Housing, Zoning and Parks Departments are included as Exhibit B. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.28.040, Medium -Density Residential (R-6) Two (2) detached residential dwellings on landmarked lots are permitted as conditional uses on lots of 6,000 square feet or greater in the R-6 zone district. The lot (Lot B) would have an area of 7,616 square feet. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit for historic landmark lots is 3,000 square feet per unit, and the proposal exceeds this requirement. The minimum lot width for lots created via the Historic Landmark Lot Split process is thirty (30) feet, and Lot B's width would be approximately seventy-six (76) feet. The required side yard setbacks call for a minimum of five (5) feet, but both sides combined must total at least 23 feet. The minimum front and rear yard setbacks are ten (10) feet each, but must combine for a total of at least thirty (30) feet. The site coverage is not allowed to exceed thirty-five (35) percent (2,666 square feet), and the maximum roof height cannot exceed twenty-five (25) feet, as measured to a variety of points depending on the particular roof slope. There must be a total of four (4) off-street parking spaces provided (two (2) for each dwelling unit). The proposed plans indicate that the development would meet all of the dimensional requirements of the zone district, with the exception of the side yard setbacks (each side and combined), and the maximum site coverage; the applicant is seeking variances from these dimensional requirements from the HPC as part of their Significant Development Review. Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, a development application for a conditional use approval shall meet the following standards: (A) The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located. Response: The stated purpose of the R-6 zone district "is to provide areas for long-term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. . . Lands in the Medium -Density Residential (R-6) zone district are generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, contain relatively dense settlements of predominantly detached and duplex residences and are within walking distance of the center of the city. " The proposal would provide long-term residential units of up to 1,850 square feet of floor area. This size is relatively small for residential developments in or around Aspen and, as such, stands a good chance of being priced in a range suitable for a primary residence. The proposed development is in harmony with the purpose of the zone district, which is to contain relatively dense settlements long- term, residences. 3 The "Intent" statement of the AACP's Housing Action Plan calls for creating "a housing environment which is dispersed, appropriately scaled to the neighborhoods and affordable." Staff believes that the proposal would create housing that is appropriately scaled to the neighborhood, and due to the proposed size of the units (scale), they should be as, if not more, affordably priced than any newly developed, non -deed restricted residences built within the West End in recent history. The "Intent" of the Design Quality and Historic Preservation element of the AACP is to "ensure the maintenance of character through design quality and compatibility with historic features." This section of the AACP also declares that "the loss of our historic architecture through total removal or insensitive adjacent development must be prevented." The applicant could, by right, make an addition of some 3,200 square feet to the existing historic structure but has, instead, decided to permanently preserve the miner's cottage in its present condition (there would be no FAR remaining on the site) and add two appropriately sized/scaled (1,850 square feet) homes, one on each side. All three houses will be compatible and sympathetic in scale to each other and to the surrounding neighborhood. (B) The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The subject parcel is surrounded by single-family residential uses to the north and west, and multi -family residential uses to the south and east. The proposed development is both consistent and compatible with the existing residential development in the immediate vicinity. From a visual perspective, the proposed development would be highly compatible with the historic nature of the surrounding area, as described above. The proposed density of one (1) dwelling per 3,682 square feet of lot area is consistent with that of the neighborhood and the R-6 zone district. (C) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. Response: As explained in the foregoing, the proposal would help to preserve an historic resource while developing the property in a manner that creates an attractive and appropriately scaled residential area at the entrance to town. The property is situated on important and prevalent vehicular and pedestrian routes and would be an asset to their character. The proposed development would ensure that this gateway to town includes human- and pedestrian -scaled homes along with the existing multi -family developments and Poppie's Restaurant; an alternative scenario, which could be developed as a use by right, would have this strategically located lot developed with a 4,200 square foot home exemplifying the infamous "monster homes of Aspen at its primary gateway. In terms of operating characteristics, the proposal involves "reclaiming" the unused alley at the rear of the property. Once improved, vehicular access, parking, utility pedestals, and trash areas would be located along the alley; thus, the operating characteristics of the site 4 would be vastly improved from its current condition. In addition, the pedestrian circulation systems would be improved by the installation of sidewalks. With the applicants' improvement and opening of the alley, the existing yet dangerous curb cut that provides vehicular access directly to/from Highway 82 would be eliminated. Other neighbors along the alley are already planning to relocate their parking to the alley -side of their lots, which will serve to lessen congestion and parking problems on neighborhood streets. (D) There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: The property is in the historic Aspen Townsite and all services and facilities are immediately available. See Engineering referral comments, attached as Exhibit B. (E) The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Response: Housing mitigation will be required for the two (2) new homes that are proposed on the site. According to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c), in order to qualify for a single-family GMQS Exemption, the applicant has three (3) options: provide an accessory dwelling unit, pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee, or record a resident -occupancy deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. Accordingly, the applicant has chosen to pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee for each of the two (2) new units. Under the provisions of the land use code, this constitutes an acceptable commitment to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. For an in depth discussion of these fees and how they are calculated, please refer to the Housing Department's referral memo attached with Exhibit B. (F) The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this title. Response: The proposed conditional use will comply with all additional standards imposed on it be the AACP and by all other applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. STAFF FINDINGS: Based upon review of the applicant's land use application and the referral comments, Community Development staff finds that there is sufficient information to support the request. The proposal meets or exceeds all standards applicable to the review of conditional uses. The proposed development is rather exemplary in that it does not set out to develop in a manner that would bring the highest possible economic return; rather, the proposed development seeks to preserve an historic resource at the gateway to town by maintaining its scale, form, and design while adding two (2) new and appropriately scaled homes of small -to -moderate size by Aspen standards. No Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are proposed, but these units have proven difficult to control under the current regulations and (unfortunately) often serve as extra bedrooms. Staff believes the proposed development offers a win -win development scenario for the applicant and the City, respectively. I RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends that the conditional use request to develop two (2) detached dwellings on Lot B of the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split be approved with the following conditions: 1. The approvals contained herein shall of no force unless and until the proposed Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split are granted final approval by the adoption of an ordinance to that affect by City Council. 2. The approvals contained herein are fully contingent upon the applicants' receiving approval of the needed variances from the dimensional requirements of the underlying R- 6, Medium -Density Residential zone district; the conditional use approval shall not create any nonconformities. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall: a. Pay the applicable (at the time of payment) cash -in -lieu fee for affordable housing mitigation (GMQS Exemption) attributable to the new structure; b. Receive final significant development approval from the Historic Preservation Commission for the design and layout of the proposed development; c. Verify that the site development will meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado; d. In the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for any trees that are to be removed or relocated; also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s); and, e. Provide information to the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department which documents that proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to offset increases in PMj0 caused by the development; the applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit, as well as a fugitive dust control plan with the Environmental Health Department. 4. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall: a. Remove the existing driveway's curb cut onto West Hallam Street (a/k/a Colorado Highway 82) and replace it with a standard tapered curb matching the existing curb on each side; b. Improve the alley between West Hallam and West Francis Streets to City standards; c. Install detached sidewalks of at least five (5) feet in width and railings along said sidewalks in areas where the City Engineer determines that the grade differentiation necessitate such railings. Any sections of curb and gutter in disrepair shall be replaced and the applicant shall sign a curb and gutter agreement; rel d. Remove any and all existing encroachments from the alley right-of-way, including but not limited to the existing shed and garage structures. Similarly, the existing concrete steps onto the West Hallam Street right-of-way must be removed and relocated to within the limits of the property; likewise, the steps associated with the front walkways of any new homes shall also be located within the limits of the properties; e. Install ,any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment on an easement provided by the property owner and not within the public rights -of -way; said easements shall be depicted on the building permit application plan sets. The proposed size and location of the transformer easement within the private property shall be modified to provide ten (10) feet of length along the alley, six (6) feet of width into the property, and six (6) feet of depth below the finished grade to permit servicing of the transformer; f. Agree to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrently upon approval of this application; and, g. Permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. 5. Submit as -built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprint, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements, if and when, any exterior renovation or remodeling of the property occurs that requires a building permit. 6. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: • The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way; • The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; • The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, • The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. 7. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. If the proposed use, density or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation, or for referral back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 9. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. 7 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission may decide to approve the proposal with the conditions outlined above, approve the proposal with additional and/or modified conditions, or deny the conditional use request. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use request to place two (2) detached residences on Lot B of the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split with the conditions outlined in the Community Development Department memo dated July 7, 1998." EXHIBITS: "A" - Conditional Use Application "B" - Referral Comments 8 rvufatT %%Art LA F1 n 920 w. hallam June 4, 1998 City of Aspen Mitch Haas, Planner 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 920 W. Hallam Street Land Use Application Dear Mitch; Herewith please find our application for Conditional Use before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The application includes the following: 1. Land use application form. 2. Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the representatives authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Response to review standards for Conditional Use. 4. Legal description of the parcel and a disclosure of ownership of the parcel. S. A general vicinity map. 6. A site improvement survey 7. Graphics representing the proposed development. 8. Photographs of the property and surrounding properties (to be provided at the meeting.) Sincerely, Aspen Historic Cottages, LL�C 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 EXHIBIT LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name: 920 W. Hallam Street. 2. Project location: 920 W. Hallam Street, the east 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, O, and P, and the west 7.16 feet of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. 3. Present zoning: R-6, Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures 4. Lot size: 11,048 square feet 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, 601 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number: Ron Robertson, 417 Main Street, Carbondale, CO 81623. Glenn Rappaport, 229 Midland Avenue, Basalt, CO 81621. 7. Type of application (check all that apply): _Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision TextlMap Amend Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property): Two bedroom single family house- approximately 980 square feet, Garage- approximately 453 square feet, Shed- approximately 231 square feet. No previous approvals have been granted. 9. Description of development application: The application is for a conditional use which is available for historic landmarks in the R-6 zone district, and which allows a duplex or two residential detached dwellings on a lot with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet. The subject lot will be created through a historic landmark lot split, which is under review by the HPC and City CounciL Through the lot split, the property will be divided into two parcels. Lot A is a 3,432 square foot lot and will be allowed one single family home by right. The size of the home will be 1,850 square feet. Lot B, which is the subject of this application, will be 7,616 square feet and is to contain the two detached dwellings allowed as a conditional use. These dwellings will be the existing historic house, which will remain 1,000 square feet and will have no addition made to it, and a new house, which will also be 1,850 square feet. This proposal does not provide the applicant with any additional FAR than what is allowed by right and HPC FAIL bonuses. What could be added to the site in the form of a massive addition to the existing house, or a significant addition to the old house and an out of scale new house built adjacent to it, will instead be placed in two appropriately sized small homes, placed on either side of the existing home. There will be no FAR left to be allotted to the historic house, so it will be preserved in its present condition permanently, unlike any other miner's cottage in Aspen has been. 920 w. hallam June 4, 1998 Mitch Haas City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 920 W. Hallam Street Land Use Application Dear Mitch; This letter serves as our authorization for Ron Robertson, 417 Main Street, Carbondale, CO, 81623 and Glenn Rappaport, 229 Midland Avenue, Basalt, CO, 81621 to act as our representatives in this application. Sincerely, Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 REVIEW STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USE When considering a Development Application for Conditional Use, the Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met. A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located. Response: The proposal is consistent with the AACP, particularly the goals for "Design Quality and Historic Preservation." Rather than make an addition of some 3,200 square feet to the existing 1,000 square foot historic house on this site, or even to break the allowed FAR into one new building and a large addition on the historic house, this conditional use will allow the historic miner's cabin to preserved intact with no addition whatsoever, and two small new homes of 1,850 square feet each to be built on the site. All three houses will be compatible and sympathetic in scale to each other, and to the surrounding neighborhood, and will include the kind of pedestrian scaled features and character which are desired of new homes in this community. The project will provide a excellent gateway into the Aspen Townsite. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The visual compatibility of this project with the surrounding neighborhood is described above. In terms of uses, the neighborhood is primarily multi -family housing (Sagewood on the east, the Villas and other apartments to the south). Single family and duplex properties abut to the north and west. The application to allow another, unit on this site is therefore consistent and compatible with housing densities and uses in the area. C. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations, and odor on surrounding properties. Response: Again, as stated above, the goal of the project is to preserve a historic resource and develop the property in a way which creates an attractive and appropriately scaled residential area at the entrance into town. The property lies on important vehicular and pedestrian routes and will be an asset to their character. All services such as parking and trash will be dealt with along the historic alley which runs across the back of this site but which has never been opened for vehicular use. By opening the alley, the dangerous curb cut which currently connects this property to Highway 82 will be eliminated and parking and garages can be placed on the alley, where these uses belong. Other neighbors along the alley are already planning to relocate their parking to this area as well, which will lessen congestion on the neighborhood streets. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: The property is in the historic Aspen Townsite and alL services are immediately available. E. The applicant commits to� supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Response: Housing mitigation is required for the two new homes that will be built on the site and will be provided in the form of a cash -in -lieu payment. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. Response: The proposal meets all standards required by the AACP and Aspen Municipal Code. QUIT CLAIM DEED Katie T. Skiff, a/k/a Katie Skiff for TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and quit claims to Aspen Historical Cottages, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company whose address is 601 East Hyman Avenue, -4102, Aspen, Colorado 816111 the following real property in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; to wit: c. p r. The East 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, 0, and P, and that parcel z described as commencing at the SW corner of Lot Q, thence South 75' 09' 11" East 7:16 feet; thence Northerly to a point on the a. Northerly line of said Lot Q which lies South 75' 09' 1 V East 5.95 !� 1 r• T /� T n ) 1 ) CCC c= feet from the N w corner of said Lot Q; thence -North 75 V 09 11 West 5.95 feet to the NW corner of said Lot Q; thence South 14' 50'49" East 100 feet to the point of beginning; all in Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen, ,n with all its appurtenances. SIGNED this 13th day of April, 1998. Katie T. Skiff, a/k/a Katie Skiff a �ow 44 O w 9 �--STATE OF COLORADO ) E � X ) ss +-� X W-tiCOUNTY OF GARFIELD ) 44 Q�f; The foregoing Quit Claim Deed was acknowledged before me this 13 th day of April, 1998 by Katie T. Skiff, a/k/a Katie Skiff. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires l `-Notary I'l-6b is 11011111 nisi niui HE 111111111111111111111111111 IN iisosi psseee'osa. ee n e.eeDriinin coax*r co W FRANCIS ST .JUN 1:, ' S8 09: =5HM ASPO 1 HOLISILNG DFF'-- e0larr �� 'B. MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Maas, Community Development Department FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing office DATE: June 11, 1998 RE; 920 West Hallam Street Conditional Use Review Parcel ID No. E: The applicant is proposing construction of two new 1,850 square fool; homes, BA+ EDUND: According to Section 25.100.050, fit, c,(1), in order to quaffy for a single-family examoon, the applicant shall have three options: a. providing an accessory dwelling unit; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee; or C. recording a resident -occupancy deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. After reviewing the a;ppiication, there is no mention of an ADU or deed restricting the units to RQ, therefore, the affordable housing impact fee would be due, With inference to mitigating affordable housing impacts, the Housing Board's preferences are shed below: 1. on -,site housing; 2, of -site housing, including the buydown ooncept; 8. cash-in-iieuftn&n-lieu Staff would prefer on -site housing. The impact foe is calculated as follows: Average of payment in4eu amount for Category 2 and Category 3 _ 3,000 X the net increase in FAR of new structure(s) = payment -in -lieu payment ($77,000 + $54,000) _ 2 = $70,800 b 3,000 = $23.50 per square foot $23.50 X 3,700 for homes on Lot A & g = 8.95D slue prtWn building RmIt ($93,O00 + 0,000) + 2 : $$6,500 + 3,000 = $28.8333 per square foot $28.8333 X 3,700 for homes on Lot A -& E _ JUM3,21AMO pdotjto hu• ammit The 1998 Guidelines should bec me effective in the middle of August, 1998. s'Pen COnsOl daied(�drzlY¢%On '0/ 1s/ lci 565 North .Viill Street Aspen, Colorado 31611 Tele. ('970) 925-3601 FA.Z �(970) 925-2537 Sv Kelly - Chairman Paul Smith - Treas. Louis Popish - Secy. June 15, 1998 Mitch Haas Community Development 130 S . Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 920 W. Hailam lot split Dear Mitch: Michael Kelly Frank Loushin Bruce Natherly, Mgr. The existing residence at 920 W. Hallam is currently served by the District. The District's line is located in the alley between Hallam and Francis. The elevation of the alley may need to be adjusted, in order to serve two additional dwelling units, if the units include basement levels. If additional cover is added to the alley to improve the grade, then the manhole elevation may need to be adjusted. Any changes needed must be paid for by the applicant and designed according to District line specifications. We would like to review the site drainage plans when they become available. Once detailed plans are available we can complete a tap permit which will estimated the total connection charges for the new units. If the existing unit is unchanged and relocated within 50 11 feet of its existing footprint, then no additional fees will be charged for that unit. Each single family residence will be need to be connected by a separate service line. As usual, service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. Please call if you h.: e an.'y questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 • 1986 - 1990 Regional and National MEMORANDUM To: Mitch Haas, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer Date: June 16, 1998 Re: 920 W. Hallam Street - Conditional Use, Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption Reviews Physical Address: 920 W. Hallam St, City of Aspen, CO Legal Description: E 1/2 half of Lot M, all of Lots N, O & P, and the westerly portion of Lot Q, all lying in Block 4, Original Aspen Townsite, City of Aspen, CO [Sec. 12, TIOS, R85W] {Parcel ID No. 2735-123-03-003) The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their June 10, 1998 meeting, and we have the following comments: 1. Property Title and Encumbrances: Improvement Survey indicates an area of record overlap between the subject property and the property to the west in the southwest corner of the subject property. The survey also indicates some uncertainty of title, encumbrances, or boundary line question for the area bounded by the Line 6-7, Aspen Townsite and the westerly property line of the property. The application did not include a title commitment, discussion nor documentation regarding property title, and specifically these uncertainties regarding the westerly boundary of the subject property. The owner is required to provide a complete title commitment to the Engineering Dept. and resolve the uncertainties in the property boundary and area of the property to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and City Engineer before the property may be subdivided. 2. Improvement Survey: For future applications, please provide the Engineering Department with a wet ink, original stamped and signed surveys. This authenticates that the plat is the surveyor's work without alternation by other persons. 3. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project change, or the site, grading, drainage, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and DRCM1598.DOC 1 OF 5 DRAFT DRAFT Memo: 920 W. Hallam St. - Conditional Use, Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption Reviews re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated June 4, 1998) provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, grading, drainage, parking or utility designs. 4. Access: As shown in the site plan, the access for the proposed lots is required to be from the alley and the existing driveway curb cut onto W. Hallam St. (a.k.a. Colorado Highway 82) should be replaced with a standard tapered curb matching the existing curb. The platted alley adjacent to the applicant's property has not been developed. The applicant will be required to improve the alley to City standards prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. At this time the applicable standard for the alley surface would be class 6 aggregate base course. During construction, provision must be made to maintain drainage on site and to prevent construction vehicles from tracking mud onto the alley and City streets. 5. Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter: From a previous review of this property by Chuck Roth, Randy Ready and John Worcester regarding the future width of the right-of-way on Hallam Street/Highway 82, John Worcester stated that the City does not need to pursue the acquisition of a 100 foot wide right-of-way on Hallam Street under the approved plan for the future entrance to the City of Aspen. The applicant must install sidewalk prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The sidewalk should be five feet wide with a buffer space to the curb because of the reasons discussed in item 11 below. Because of the site grades, there will need to be a railing along the sidewalk. Any sections of curb and gutter in disrepair must be replaced. The applicant should be required to sign a curb and gutter agreement. 6. Encroachments: The existing encroachments (shed and garage) must be removed for the development of the alley right-of-way and prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. The existing concrete steps on to Hallam Street should be removed and relocated within the limits of the property. Likewise, the steps associated with the front walkways of the proposed new homes should also be located within the limits of the properties and not in the public right-of-way. The existing concrete retaining wall along the W. Hallam St. frontage may be left in place or removed if required in the development of the right-of-way. If the wall is removed or relocated, another form of structural support will be required to maintain the lateral support of the roadway of W. Hallam St. 7. Site Drainage: The drainage inlet basin located in the landscape area of the right-of-way provides an access point for cleaning and inspecting the storm drain line. As such, is should remain DRCM1598.DOC 2OF5 DRAFT DRAFT Memo: 920 `'V. Hallam St. - Conditional Use, Historic Landmark Lot Split. GMQS Exemption, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption Reviews although it may be altered, with the written approval of the Streets and Engineering Departments, to better accommodate the sidewalk and blend into the landscaping of the area, if desired. The new development cannot release more than historic (pre -development) storm run-off flows from the site and any increase in historic storm run-off flows must be first routed and detained on the site. A drainage report and design completed and stamped by a Colorado licensed civil engineer will be required for the project to accommodate the drainage flows originating from the site. If a ground injection or re -charge type drainage system is proposed, the percolation rate of the soils will need to be measured and included as the basis for sizing the infiltration field. The drainage design should coordinate with the site plan which is also required for the development and building permit applications. The drainage report and plan will be included with the plan set submitted for the building permit application. 8. Utility Services, Trash and Recycling Areas: The existing electrical transformer, telephone pedestal and other utilities with above ground boxes, cabinets and appurtenances will need to be relocated within easements on the private property at the expense of the developer when the alley is developed. In the case of the electrical transformer, the City Electric Dept. will perform the work and bill the developer for the cost of relocating the transformer. If a larger capacity transformer needs to be installed to service the loads of this proposed development, the developer will also need to re- inburse the City Electrical Dept. for installation of the larger transformer. The proposed size and location of the transformer easement within the private property will need to be modified to provide an easement with 10 ft of length along the alley by 6 ft deep by 10 ft above and 6 ft below finished grade to permit servicing of the transformer. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the. applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way. For pedestals, easements must be provided. The building permit drawings must indicate all utility meter locations. Any new or relocated utility service connection points, meters, or appurtenances need to be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and not obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, other structures or landscaping. All existing and any new easements for utilities shall be shown on the final improvement plans submitted for the building permit. 9. City Streets Department: They do not currently plow the alley at the Sagewood Condominiums at Sagewood's and the neighbors request, but they will plow the alley, or the applicant's portion, if the applicants so wish. Paving the alley makes it easier to plow but may not be consistent with the community plan. Snow removal on Hallam is the responsibility of CDOT however snow removal is presently performed by the City under contract with CDOT and the snow is windrowed and hauled away, not plowed to the side. If the street reverts to the City when Highway 82 is realigned, then the snow will DRCM1598.DOC 3OF5 DRAFT DRAFT Memo: 920 W. Hallam St. - Conditional Use, Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption Reviews be plowed to the side, not removed, and it would be better in that case to have a detached sidewalk with a planting and snow storage median between the back of curb and sidewalk. It is preferable for construction trailers to be placed on private property however, if this is not possible, a temporary encroachment license is required for placement of construction trailers in the public right- of-way. The alley right-of-way may be the preferable location. 10. City Water Department: The applicant needs to meet with the Water Department. The water service lines will have to be sized to meet fire protection regulations. There will be 3 lines, however they can and must share the same trench (for pavement protection reasons). The yard hydrant will need to be served through the water meter rather than tapped directly from the service line to the building. If the applicant owns water well rights, they must be conveyed to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. Parks Department: The Rocky Mountain Juniper is a high quality example of this species and if it is to be relocated, a letter of credit or other financial security acceptable to the City Attorney should be provided to the City to insure that the tree will survive at least five (5) years after transplanting. A tree removal permit must be obtained for any code regulated trees that are to be removed. 12. Environmental Health Department: not in attendance. 13. Snow Storage: The applicant is advised to provide snow storage areas in the site design and to indicate the areas on the site plan submitted in the building permit application. 14. Subdivision Exemption Plat: If this proposed development is approved, a subdivision exemption plat meeting the standards of a subdivision plat, will need to be prepared and recorded. In addition to the standard plat content requirements, the plat will carry a note that, "No further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.88, Subdivision, Aspen Municipal Code, and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100, Aspen Municipal Code." 15. Improvement Districts: The property owner is required to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under DRCM 1598.DOC 4OF5 DRAFT DRAFT Metro: 920 W. Hallam St. - Conditional Use, Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption, Rezoning, PUD. GMQS Exemption Reviews an assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent with recording the subdivision plat. 16. - As-Builts: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Services Dept. as-builts drawings for the project showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the' property boundaries and any other improvements. 17. Work in the Public Rights -of -Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights -of -way; Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and irrigation systems; Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the City Community Development Department (920-5090). DRC Meeting Attendees Applicant: Staff & Referral Agencies: Nick Adeh, Jack Reid, Mitch Haas, Bill Earley, Jack Reid, John Krueger, Steve Ellsperman, Ross Soderstrom -_ DRCM1598.DOC 5OF5 DRAFT DEVIENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC Address: 920 W. Hallam Street Zone district: R-6 Lot size: 11,048 square foot fathering parcel. New Lot A: 3,432 sq. ft., New Lot B: 7,616 sq. ft Existing FAR: 1,289 square feet Allowable FAR: 4,202 square feet, plus potential FAR bonus) , Proposed FAR: 4,702, including 500 square foot FAR bonus -,%' Existing net leasable (commercial): NA Proposed net leasable (commercial): NA Existing % of site coverage: 13% Allowed % of site coverage: Lot A: no limitation, Lot B: 35% Proposed % of site coverage: Lot A: no limitation, Lot B: 37% Existing % of open space: NA Proposed % of open space: NA Existing maximum height: Principal bldg: 12 ft. Accessory bldg: 11 ft, 6 inches Proposed max. height: Principal Bldg: 13 ft. 6 inches history -house 23 ft new houses Accessory bldg: 11 ft., 6 inches Proposed % of demolition: 6% (100 sq. ft. garage lean-to) Existing number of bedrooms: 2 Proposed number of bedrooms: Lot A: 3 bedrooms,Lot B: 6 (3 per house) Existing on -site parking spaces: 2 On -site parking spaces required: Lot A: 2 spaces, Lot B: 4 spaces (2 per house) Setbacks: Existing (house): Minimum required Front: 31' Front: Lots A & B: 10' Rear: 31' Rear. Lots A & B: 10' Front/rear Front/rear Combined: 62' Combined: Lots A & B: 30' East side: 47' East side: Lots A & B: 5' West side: 34' West side: Lots A & B: 5' Combined Combined Sides: 81' Sides: A: 10', B: 23' Proposed Front: 20' f Rear: 10,-,' Front/rear, Combined: 30' East side:Lot A: 5',Lot B: 2' West side:Lot A: 5',Lot B: 2' Combined / Sides: Lot A: 10', Lot B: 7'�/ Existing nonconformities or encroachments: Garage and shed encroach into alley. Variations requested: Lot B: 500 square foot FAR bonus, sideyard setback variances of 3 feet on the east and west sideyards fo ells, combined sideyard setback variance of 16 feet, site coverage variance of 2%. C Jn�'Clj'rli — Cc.z:�' ur L-. County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060 (L) I, V being or representing an Applicant to the City o Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuan to Section 16.52.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner. 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail to ail owners of property with three hundre 1 (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list. on theZ2�' day o O� 199 hich is 1�7 days prior to the public hearing date of 7 )-7 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on she subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the day of "A& 1996�) (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph e posted sip is attached hereto. Sip -nature/ (Attach photograph here) Signed efore me this_T day _ � .199i6y WITNESS MY HAND My commission exp' '� An P <. Notary Public Notary Public's Sign COL0 rCL �-, paP SEAL Vale-VU PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 920 W. HALLAM STREET CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 7, 1998 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC, requesting Conditional Use approval to place two (2) detached dwelling units on one (1) Historic Landmarked lot of 6,000 square feet in the R-6, Medium -Density Residential, zone district. The property is located at 920 W. Hallam Street, which is described as the East 1/2 of Lot M, all of Lots N, O, and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095. s/Sara Garton, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on June 20, 1998 City of Aspen Account g:\planning\aspen\notices\920whal.doc LOUD H MONTGOMERY & PAULA PO BOX 11660 ASPEN, CO 81612 STUART DONA PO BOX 11733 ASPEN, CO 81612 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 RUNNING BEAR LLC SHARP DESIGNS INCORPORATED A COLORADO CORPORATION PO BOX 8630 ASPEN, CO 81612 GREGORY KIRK GREGORY PETRA PO BOX 10055 ASPEN, CO 81612 MAINTENANCE SHOP CITY OF ASPEN 530 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CRYSTAL PALACE CORPORATION PO BOX 32 ASPEN, CO 81612 ALDERFER JOHNNIE MAE BOX 10880 ASPEN, CO 81612 COORDES HEINZ E - COORDES KAREN V 233 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 O BENTON SMITH-ADV PROPERTY TALENFELD ELIZABETH G SKIFF KATIE SERVICES 915 W FRANCIS ST 920 W HALLAM ST 315 E HYMAN AVE STE 211 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BERGMAN CARL R & CATHERINE 1y1 JONES EARL - ZUCKERMAN NORBERT. A TRUST PO $OX 1365 - ., 834 W HALLAM ST ZUCKERMAN-fiELENLFV-!N-G",fTJR-Lf. -- ASPEN,. CO 81611 -: - - 280 DAMS. ST-E-,-220_ BIRMINGHAMTMI 48009 C LARNER JACQUELINE L MURRY PAUL J _ 35�o NW 61 ST CIR 376 DAHLIA MURRY BONITA J BOCA RATON, FL DENVER, CO 80220 814 W BLEEKER ST C-5 ASPEN, CO 81611 D'ALESSIO ROBERT J D'ALESSIO JEAN M 814 W BLEEKER C-4 ASPEN, CO 81611 TRAN HONG HUONG 814 W BLEEKER UNIT C 1 ASPEN, CO 8161.1 LUU TONG KHON TRAN TUYET LE PO BOX 2785 ASPEN, CO 81612 LI( JWALTER GARY R 356 ,BOLT RD JOLIET, IL COHEN RICHARD A COHEN ELIZABETH A FATAHI AMENEH PO BOX 1806 PO BOX 8080 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 SCHAFFER WILLIAM H MORRIS CHARLES R JR SCHAFFER KAREN W ASPEN VILLAS MGM'T 127 BRIXWORTH LN APT 7 814 W BLEEKER, NASHVILLE, TN ASPEN, CO 81611 TOPELSON ALEJANDRO TOPELSON REBECA UHLER FRANCES M 5300 DTC PKWY #400 814 W BLEEKER ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 ASPEN, CO GELLER SCOTT HEISLEY MICHAEL E 29 BARKLEY CIR LW GIES - HEICO INC C/O FORT MYERS, FL 2075 FOXFIELD RD STE 102 ST CHARLES, IL 60174 KURTZ KENNETH T & KAREN BRAKUR CUSTOM CABINETRY INC C/O 18656 S RT 59 EWOOD, IL 60435 KOPF CAROL ANN & DONALD W PO BOX 956- ASPEN, CO 81612 EIDSON JOY REVOCABLE TRUST-1/2 EIDSON ARVIN WAYNE REVOCABLE TRUST-1/2 PO BOX 271 SULPHUR, OK 73086 HINRICHS NANCY R GLATMAN THEMIS ZAIVIBRZYCKI 100 N 8TH ST #2 GLATMAN BRUCE ROY ASPEN, CO 81611 20034 CALVERT ST WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 FERRARA VINCENT J FERRARA ANNA M - JT TENANTS 100 N 8TH ST # 16 ASPEN, CO 81611 DOYLE R & G 10% SEARIGHT P 30% DOYLE R T III 30% GRIST F 30% 3711 EASTLEDGE DR AUSTIN, TX 78731 SAMUELS LAURA R ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM PO BOX 4934 ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81612 617 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 HADDON HAROLD A HADDON BEVERLY J ;� ANZALONE GRACE E _..___...._- PO BOX 3808 DENVER, CO 80205 ASPEN, CO 81612 b. TT JAMES W JR 100 N 8TH ST #5 ASPEN, CO 81611 SIEGEL ELIZABETH N & NEIL B 4706 WARREN ST NW WASHINGTON, DC 20016 BEHRENDT H MICHAEL 334 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 TOTH MICHAEL & ANNE G 910 W HALLAM ST #3 ASPEN, CO 81611 LANDIS JAMES H C/O MICHELLE BRIGHT 530 RIVERSIDE DR BASALT, CO 81621 WARD PATRICIA ANN 429 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 BLANZ JAMES M 2555 NE 11 TH ST FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33304 FAGAN PAUL L PO BOX 244 ASPEN, CO 81612 DI BARTOLOMEO BETTY M VILLAS OF ASPEN #C-14 100 N 8TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 REED BRENT H & GEORGE L II 100 N 8TH ST #6 ASPEN, CO PITKIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS OF ASPEN LLC 601 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 LEPPLA JOHN L--------- - LEPPLA JOEN-F - --- 4040 'DAHL RD- MOUND', MN 5`5364 RICCIARDI RIK 100N8TH ST#14 ASPEN, CO 81611 PATERSON CARRIE E PO BOX 11675 ASPEN, CO 81612 BEHRENDT H MICHAEL 334 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 CHISHOLM MARGO J PO BOX 4870 ASPEN, CO 81612 SA Z ANDY L & MICHELLE M,t SHOAF JEFFREY S BEHRENDT HERMAN MICHAEL PO BOX 1801 PO BOX 3123 334 W HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 o PETROCCO J ANTHONY 910 W HALLAM # 11 KEILIN KIM MILLER BEN HAMOO SHLOIVIO & PATRICE ASPEN, CO PO BOX 10064 ASPEN, CONYERS CO 81612 PO BOX 2902 ASPEN, CO 81612 MADSEN GEORGE W JR MADSEN CORNELIA G MAROLT RANCH OPEN SPACE - - - - - 931 W FRANCIS ST CITY OF ASPEN FOREST SERVICE ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST HEADQUARTERS ASPEN, CO 81611 UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE EXHIBITS* AGENDA ITEM: cl Z0 EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION IN DEMO * "In" means the exhibit is introduced into the record. - "Demo" means the exhibit is used only for demonstration or illustrative purposes. �I�Igg C, WITNESS LIST* AGENDA ITEM: (� 2-0 �4 L L, 4-�,4 NAME OF WITNESS: 1• Staff Person 2. e)A47)� 127�r- 3. a. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. * Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members. COP SCALE so sA.1O4Tw. wlurwAto r� PM rQ ICA CAP J7►V LEGAL DESCRIPTION M t 1/7 A to II. op LOTI N. 4, ,.w ► AM r"r ►amm i�!�1 u !IM ATA 1r t>f�ll! W Of s. 11OQ wim •a•� / FO Rt�navct +�wlntiv16 LOOT�t rTM� A r�lwT a+ C.s fA�4N oww to M 1�+��T1.'�op 1aw 0/ 9�A1r •M0�" 11 AS[ 660Q/rtQ� Nib GIX • ISM ITQf, fart" Nall 1af w.11N�M14 �Of LI.fs 4 CKWM M ►1RIN. /TAR W CMARW 14.,p.� sT "� .10 -�'T A~r iw o oo..a.on bodmAtN\. u,t ArAn,Ar 011MAC/ L 1 M ,7.00'll'I IMPROVEMENT SURVEY ►M)AAO A ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC. in 4. &LAO slum ► 4. ow JSM MPM. a". 41511 p.mmim.&AM two$ .A•1460 AO to JIM afY A. low CERTIFICATION I. DAVID p. MM104. A 4NiSTlA4) LAID UMVW7W IA TN( STAT's A► MMAD0 00 NOW CSIITI►v TIME Till• 1111117RT VAS plAu 4141" M PAII"Omar ts1.1 a OUT IMl 4N M 40*Ao w M ►OmofT LSOALLT 0411942IS00 .MOON. me IS QIA4we IYO 411 "a rr10L M0111ly •owl All 0011M 1MOON. NO TVAT "ON AM Ns OOISOWNCIO. ®IA.IC". w1OATA1/S IN AMA. OOIAIDMfl 1.11M op %JCTs. SCROAo4oles. 4w4AA"11.J o 4p of "Valois. sA4olts 4A A141Rs o/ SLY III 1'ISL sYIOOJCl4 4A t.ow1 TO I". =0111 T AS 14111111111011 POW. WMITN1s p1m in vIsIKm Arpuir swcas Ass Oonown Op meow 4JJT JIAImtsly TO M WAVII AM MKWIM. THIS a1TIVICATION Is vOi• 9111.01111 wT STAlwo n M •sift 0r M MARVN OA. $mm INis3� DAY op low. low. J 1.3A-.aIC c..i • /fl � `..fit__ • LEGEND AND O TE S IV" A►R/CI.LL .NI Wr TW CITY Or ASMX OLt 1JL/ AASJ! or f1 awr ifow arim to Wr Sill[( XArWr CCMIrnftt Q 11TILITT ow KAA1M0 SAB OM C.D.0.T. 7471p48NTs 3" Ale 441. s TITLi IMIOWMTION PUM13MW ST: I ►IT[IN CDHITT TIRII. INC. CASE NO. ►CT I "M oAit®: 04.149isv su M plem lea ss " WIT" CN As NOTED OA As (IM1Si1• • Moms" o AST MO*Mff CD14JAp pl. ♦ AIM" p,TM AM CAP 'LJ MM' A". M few At1K= -A-- plot F47= K1 A64 CY J.•IJ rr/ idol C --+/ fA/) IV ISTY. ou CY J. Lflf Ii.L • l.11r IrI moms 1 e� R. C. A09911TSON ARCHITECTS 417 MAIN STREET, STUDIO 'A` CARBONDALE, co. 81623 970-963-0567 970 • 963 • 8936 FAX R[ A.I.A. Lev ;t I; AIL N. o to 96 . r . •� J��tl. t /' fU Zio r ,dF-7 F 6 -1 i i \ •�-71K IN I t 1 1.1 Ll .1 ■ Q to R. C. ROBERTSON - ARCHITECTS 'wc` 417 mA'IN STREET, `' STUDIO 'A' CARBOND'ALE, CO. 81623 970`9$3.0567 970 •963 •.8936 FAX M A.I.A. SO rr �� 1 I I ff i -•- ---" - ----- `- -4-1- 1• i --- -- -- - - - l Fk, co s�9B 3 �� 6 V,y • •.i1 I —. a '_ ems-` t-I I• i i ._. IL JL kd V L R. C: ROBERTSON, 'ARCHITECTS 0 71 MAIN," STREET, STUDIO 'A' CARBONDALE, • CO, 81623 870.963 • •0567 F %� • - _ _ _.J- ----_ -_ 970 - ae3'• 8806.FAX ----. --------- � t0 • I .� � d I MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Bob Nevins, Long Range Planner RE: Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Update DATE: 7 July 1998 PURPOSE: To provide Planning and Zoning Commissioners with an update regarding the current planning activities for Burlingame Ranch; and to solicit Commissioner concerns and comments. Jim Curtis, consultant to the Housing Authority, will present the project and answer questions. BACKGROUND: Attached for review is a memo that was prepared for City Council in May 1998. It provides a project overview and describes potential development options for the various parcels: • Parcel A and Back Bowl (includes Zoline and Aspen Valley Land Trust properties)-200 to 225 AH units and Free-market lots, 265 acres. • Parcel B (adjacent to Maroon Creek Club AH units north of Old Stage Road)- 50 units/200 beds, MAA and Seasonal Housing, 2.5 acres. • Parcel C (behind U.S. West at AAB C)-3 8 AH rental units, 2.5 acres. • West Buttermilk Parcel (first switchback on West Buttermilk Road)- 1 Single-family, free-market lot, 6 acres. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Thru: Amy Margerum, City Manager Stan Clauson, City Planning Director From: Dave Tolen, Hosing Director Jim Curtis, Consultant to Dave Tolen Date: May 14, 1998 Re: Burlingame Ranch Update SUMMARY: The purpose of this memorandum and the Monday, May 18 work session (5:00 - 7:00 p.m., Council Meeting Room) is to give Council a complete update on the Burlingame Ranch planning activities. The work session will give Council an opportunity to comment on the planning activities, hear public comment, and direct the Planning Team how to proceed. The planning activities include the following: 1. Parcel A & Back Bowl Area behind Deer Hill. 2. Parcel B along Highway #82 and adjacent to the Maroon Creek Club existing affordable housing. 3. Parcel C behind U.S. West garage facility at the AABC. 4. West Buttermilk Parcel off West Buttermilk Road. 5. Annexation. I. PARCEL A & BACK BOWL AREA COOPERATIVE PLANNING The Parcel A - Back Bowl Study Area is shown in Exhibit A and encompasses approximately 265 acres among 3 major property owners as follows - - City of Aspen (90 ac.) Zoline Family (136 ac.) and Aspen Valley Land Trust (39 ac.). As directed by Council, a Citizen Design Group was formed to review the cooperative master planning options for the area. Two Citizen Design Charettes were held on February 26 and May 7. The Design Charettes were very successful and resulted in lively broad - based discussions concerning the study area. At the May 7 Design Charette, the group reviewed 3 affordable housing concept plans for the study area, as outlined below, and which will be reviewed at the Council work session. A context map identifying the buildable areas of the 3 plans is given in Exhibit B. 1. Concept Plan A - - A village cluster of 195. units using the lower portions of the City owned "bowl" land and the Zoline Property as shown in Exhibit C. No Aspen Valley Land Trust Property is used as part of this plan. 2. Concept Plan B - - A village cluster of 188 units using the Aspen Valley Land Trust Property, the Zoline Property, and the lowest two pockets of the City owned "bowl" land as shown in Exhibit D. The remaining portions of the City owned "bowl" land is not used as part of this plan. 3. Concept Plan C - - A village cluster of 190 units using the southern portion of the Aspen Valley Land Trust Property, the Zoline Property, and the lowest two pockets of the City owned "bowl" land as shown in Exhibit E. The remaining portion of the City owned "bowl" land is not used as part of this plan. Design Charette Recommendations At the May 7 Design Charette, the following recommendations were generally agreed upon to be forwarded to Council. 1. It was felt affordable housing development was appropriate in the Back Bowl Study Area. 2. Concept Plans B & C were the preferred land areas for development. The group preferred no development take place in the majority of the City owned "bowl". land in exchange for development on the Aspen Valley Land Trust -Property. In concept, this is acceptable to the Aspen Valley Land Trust. 3. That the "targeted" unit count for either Plan B or C be increased to 200 to 225 units. A minority of individuals at the Charette felt the 200 to 225 unit count was too low, and suggested 250 or greater units even if achieving this resulted in consuming greater land area for development. They felt the higher unit count Oa was necessary for the City/County to achieve its affordable housing goals and asked that their minority position be forwarded to Council. 4. That the City continue to promote a cooperative planning and development process among the City, Zoline Family and Aspen Valley Land Trust. �. That the next step would be for the 3 landowners, i.e. City, Zoline and Aspen Valley Land Trust to negotiate a "Preliminary Joint Development Agreement" which would outline the commitments, obligations and responsibilities of the parties. It was felt this preliminary partnership agreement was important early - on to determine if the 3-way partnership was "do -able" and to prevent any upfront misunderstandings among the parties. - 6. Concurrently with the "Preliminary Joint Development Agreement," the Planning Team would refine the concept plan and unit count/mix for review by the Design Charette Group and City Council. 7. The Planning Team would prepare a joint Annexation and Land Use Development application for submittal to the City based on the comments from the Design Charette Group and City Council from above. Planning Team Supplemental Recommendations The Planning Team (Jim Curtis, 'John Lifton, Dave Tolen) agrees with the recommendations of the Design Charette Group and wishes to add the following comments to the aforementioned recommendations. 1. The Planning Team feels Concept Plan C is preferable over Concept Plan B for the following reasons and is the plan recommended for future refinement. A. Plan C is more compact; has more neighborhood "connectiveness," and is better suited for transit use. B. Plan C is more consistent with the directives of the Aspen Valley Land Trust regarding its land exchange participation. C. It was generally felt Plan C was the most preferred plan among the Design Charette members even though a formal show of hands did not occur at the meeting.. 3 2. The Planning Team has a preliminary concern that achieving much over 200 units may be too aggressive and the quality of the plan may be reduced. However, to evaluate the recommended increase in unit count to 200 to 225 units, the Planning Team will come back to the Housing Board and Design Charette Group with "refined" alternatives of Concept Plan C showing different unit counts and unit mixes. 3. The Planning Team recommends the "Preliminary Joint Development Agreement" be negotiated by a working group composed of: — Dave Tolen and a designee from the Housing Board Jim Curtis, John & Pamela Lifton, Reid Haughey Stan Clauson Start-up tasks of the working group will be agreeing on its agenda and schedule, outlining a "comprehensive issues list," and preparing development pro formas for the project to understand its economics and financing. It is also understood the working group will be an advisory group to City Council and the group may have different opinions among its members which may need to be resolved with Council. 4. The Planning Team recommends returning to the Design Charette Group and City Council in 3 - 4 months, if possible, with the following: — Preliminary Joint Development Agreement — Refined Concept Plan C alternatives with different unit counts and unit mixes — Development pro formas for the project — Financing plan for the project — Implementation plan for the project Key Outstanding Issues: Hift ghway 82 Access & Transit Plan Key outstanding issues regarding the development continues to be the access connection to Highway 82 and transit planning. The Planning Team has had ongoing discussions with Ralph Trapani, CDOT, and 3 options are still being discussed. 1. Direct tie -into the proposed West Buttermilk intersection and signal. This would be a full automobile and transit 4-way intersection at the proposed West Buttermilk intersection. 4 2. Transit only (shuttle buses) tie -into the proposed West Buttermilk intersection and signal. Automobiles would use New Stage Road and the Stage Road underpass. 3. No connection to the proposed West Buttermilk intersection and signal, and both transit and automobiles would use New Stage Road and the Stage Road underpass. The Maroon Creek Club has consistently expressed opposition to using New Stage Road and the Stage Road underpass. The Club acknowledges these are publicly dedicated roads, but feel the road and underpass has limited capacity to handle additional traffic. Also, there are golfers/golf carts conflicts in using New Stage Road which would require constructing a golfer/golf cart underpass. The Design Charette was updated on this issue, but did not discuss it in detail. The Planning Team feels this is primarily a technical and political discussion between the City, County and CDOT in the context of overall Highway 82/transit planning. This issue impacts the development of both the village cluster and Parcel B. Recommendation 1. The Planning Team recommends City Council deal with these issues in a follow-up work session soley devoted to these issues in 30 ± days. This will give the traffic/transit consultants, Planning Team and Stan Clauson additional time to continue to work with Ralph Trapani. Ralph will be invited to the work session, as well as the County Commissioners and the Maroon Creek Club. 2. This additional time will also give the traffic/transit consultants, the Planning Team and Stan Clauson time to prepare a refined transit plan and transit incentives for Concept Plan C and any other plan alternatives recommended by Council. II. PARCEL B - 200 BED MAA/SEASONAL DOUSING PROPOSAL Parcel B is approximately 2.5 acres and is shown in Exhibit A. The Design Charette did not address this proposal, but only the Back Bowl Area. The Planning Team updated the County Commissioners on the Burlingame activities on April 28th, and the Commissioners were conceptually in favor of allowing development on the parcel. The Commissioners and Scott Smith, airport manger, discussed the airport/noise issues at that meeting and the Commissioners felt comfortable with the project. Again, the key technical issue outstanding is the access to Highway 82. 5 The MAA has presented a preliminary "Agreement of Understanding„ to City staff for its review as previously directed by Council. The proposal calls for the MAA to purchase Parcel B at an agreed upon price, and to construct and operate the 200 bed facility with the Aspen Skiing Company. The proposal also establishes a formula for the City to financially participate in the project, if it wishes, in exchange for a percentage of the wintertime beds to be available to the general employee public. Recommendations 1. If Council wishes to pursue the MAA proposal, Council has said it would consult with the Housing Board. The Housing Board has been invited to the May 18 work session with the understanding a follow-up Tuesday, May 19 work session, 5 :00 - 7:00 p.m., was possible. 2. If Council wishes to pursue the MAA proposal, Council should direct staff and the MAA to negotiate the "Agreement of Understanding" including the purchase price of the land and return to Council. Council also needs to decide if it wishes to financially participate in the project in exchange for a percentage of the wintertime beds being available to the general employee public. 3. If Council wishes to pursue the MAA proposal, Council and the MAA need to prepare the ballot question for the tentative June 30 Special Election. III. PARCEL C - LAND BEHIND U.S. WEST Parcel C is behind U.S. West as shown in Exhibit A. Council has discussed purchasing an additional l+ acres from U.S. West. A rental project of 38 units is possible with the additional land from U.S. West. Again, Parcel C was not discussed at the Design Charette. As previously identified by the Planning Team, the traffic impact of this project on the stoplight/intersection at the airport/AABC is an issue. The issue is the queuing. time and back-up distance for AABC traffic to use the stoplight. This problem will also be impacted by the pending North Forty project. This issue was discussed with the County Commissioners at the April 28th meeting. While the Commissioners felt this was a good location for housing, they recommended no subdivision application be submitted until such time as a solution to the stoplight/intersection problem is agreed to. The Commissioners have asked Bud Eyler (County Engineer) to prepare conceptual solutions and funding plans for their review by August/September. 0 The Planning Team feels there are 2 options regarding Parcel C. 1. Proceed with the negotiations/purchase of the U.S. West land understanding that project construction could be 2 - 3 years away or longer. Also, the project would be expected to financially participate in the cost of the stoplight/intersection solution based on its projected traffic. 2. Postpone the negotiations/purchase with U.S. West until a solution and funding plan for the stoplight/intersection is conceptually agreed to by the County and CDOT. If the Commissioners look at preliminary options in August/September, it is estimated additional discussions extending to November/December or longer are likely. Recommendation 1. The Planning Team feels either Option 1 or 2 is reasonable based on the desire of Council; however, the safest, more conservative approach would be to postpone the negotiations/purchase with U.S. West until August/September when Bud Eyler is scheduled to present his preliminary solutions to the Commissioners. This will allow the City to evaluate the parcel in the context of what may happen to the stoplight/intersection, and it is unlikely U.S. West will do anything with the land in the interim. Moreover, even if the City purchased the land now, it would not be able to fast -track the construction of the project as originally hoped. IV. WEST BUTTERMILK PARCEL The West Buttermilk Parcel is shown in Exhibit F. The parcel is the buildable land behind (west) of the ridgeline and with access off the first switchback curve of West Buttermilk Road. Four development alternatives have been examined for the parcel as follows: 1. One Single -Family Free -Market Lot/Homesite. Exhibit G. The lot would be approximately 6 acres with a designated building envelope. The market value of the lot is estimated at $750,000 - $800,000 based on a preliminary appraisal valuation by Aspen Appraisal Group. The development cost (infrastructure, marketing, etc.) to develop the lot is estimated at $152,000. Assuming a $750,000 sales price, the net proceeds are approximately $600,000. The high development cost is mainly attributable to tieing -into and extending the proposed West Buttermilk water line to the lot (est. cost $75,000) and if a 6% 7 real estate sales commission is paid ($45,000). An individual well may be possible for the lot, but wells have been problematic in West Buttermilk area hence the proposed extension of the municipal water line to the area. If Council wishes to proceed with the free-market lot option, the well (est. cost $15,000) vs. municipal water (est. cost $75,000) alternatives should be examined more closely. The Planning Team also examined the possibility of two free-market lots/homesites for the parcel but felt the 2nd homesite was problematic. The 2nd homesite would be highly visible from the surrounding neighbors and West Buttermilk Road (would stick out like a sore thumb), and would negatively impact the market value of the 1st homesite. 2. Two Affordable Duplexes. Exhibit H. Each duplex would have two 3-bedroom units of 1,600 - 1,800 square feet per unit. This alternative could also be 2 affordable single-family homes. The Planning Team feels this could physically work, but would probably be controversial with the neighborhood. Also, the Planning Team would need to confirm if the West Buttermilk Water Improvement District could block/veto the extension of the municipal water line to the. affordable duplexes. 3. Three Affordable Single -Family Homes. Exhibit I. Each affordable single-family home would be 3-bedrooms, 1,800 - 2,000 square feet per unit. The Planning Team feels this alternative is incompatible for the parcel and is not recommended. 4. Five Affordable Townhouses. Exhibit J. The townhouses would be a mix of 2 and 3 bedroom units. Again, the Planning Team feels this alternative is incompatible for the parcel and is not recommended. Recommendation 1. The Planning Team recommends the one single-family free-market lot because it is the most compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and would help recapture some of the Burlingame Ranch land cost, or the proceeds of the free- market lot could be used more efficiently to support the development of the village cluster. It is also recommended the individual well (est. cost $15,000) vs. extending the proposed municipal water line (est. cost $75,000) alternatives be examined more closely and potentially drilling a test well (est. cost $10,000). 0 V. ANNEXATION The Planning Team has determined the total Burlingame Property (222 ac.) can be annexed at one time. An annexation plat for the Burlingame Property has been prepared and John Worcester, City Attorney, is working on a Petition For Annexation for Council's review. Annexation of the property was discussed at the County Commissioners update on April 28th, and the Commissioners did not express any concerns at that time. A second phase annexation is envisioned for the Zoline Property and Aspen Valley Land Trust Property as part of a joint Annexation and Land Use Development Application. Recommendation 1. The Planning Team recommends annexing the total Burlingame Property in one step. 9 ` MAIOMCRM Quo , / fill ) 11 . )JI l� //l ';l/l'' /;, �' '' r ''llr;l ,// 41M Jl/ ir Ml �'i l �/I �;'�ll f;l'// 1. I, I I I.O /111 (4! I I� � ®r:• �; %� il, l/�iljllfJ'rff it,l 11��411 ��1 `I� �<���` Jtff;jit�Jtj M`: AL ia Ittl" It fi; I �f�l j�I�Ii�';' ii� V1 -� . 1'r fill l I � l � �/� j/� !•l1�'j�lil�i�!rlj� - I 0 m 41 LNO-15"U. 0 Ul ill 11il 0 0 'r FRL 777Iva f t `� 2• T� f ' «f i • :ram � � �� ,.-- �+�. /f v. r �3 �► 4� � • _ .Y �� � • - �": � a - :� �� A �, air _ ! =, NV �yq q1 'oWAW rn �. � �' � ,nr ,, .. -. � � r rya rt '>� � 4 ,c.•$`p. �y �t r W tin T - t s; 'dow I • I I I f. "S? - • fit' ��-. -;.�. �.r l - a l a r �M1 h ; a S++C§ n _Zf a In r-All i } lot * ii z ML ■ w - S 17 r Afk l u r I� n am e fi�an�h 9 Mu i - Farmily Alternative