HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19990316 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1999, 4:30 PM
SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C, Public
II. MINUTES (3/2/99, 3/3/98, 3/17/95)
III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IV. WORK SESSION
A. Aspen Historical Society, Conditional Use, Amy Guthrie ~/~9'
BREAK FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
V. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Barbee Affordable Housing, Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning and Special
Review, Julie Ann Woods and Mitch Haas
VII. ADJOURN
Ordinance #6, 1999 - 930 King Street, Lot Split — Approved on 1 St reading; public hearing
April 12
Resolution #17, 1999 - "Miner's Trail" Street Name/Mocklin Subdivision —Adopted with a
change of street name to "Miner's Trail Road"
Resolution #19, 1999 — Wind Energy Purchase Agreement — approved agreement with
Platte River Power Authority to provide 3.5 percent of the city's average energy requirement
Ordinance #5, 1999 — Water Service Agreement - North Forty — Adopted on 1 St reading;
second reading/public hearing March 22
Ordinance #3, 1999 - Rezoning Iselin and Rotary Parks, Public — Adopted on 1 St reading;
second reading/public hearing March 22
Ordinance #4, 1999 — Water Service Agreement — Porath Amendment — Adopted on 1 St
reading; second read/public hearing March 22
Ordinance #7, 1999 — Code Amendment — Fireplaces — Adopted on 1 st reading code
amendment to allow decorative, non-functional antique stoves in a house and clarifying
language changes; public hearing March 22
Request for Funds — Y2K Community Coordinator— Approved supplement to the 1999
budget up to $30,000 for coordinator for public Y2K education,; public information on
government preparedness; community contingency planning
Request for Early Release of Grant Awards — Approved early release of grants for Grass
Roots, Sarah Pletts Dance, Aspen Dance Connection
Request for Funds — Council contingency contribution to Club 20 trip $300
Resolution #18,1999 - Burlingame Annexation. -Approved resolution; next step in annexation
will be an ordinance
Ordinance #3, 1998 - Garbage, Trash and Ashes — Finally adopted code amendment to
permit the use of trash compactors approved by the environmental health department and that
every applicant for a business license provide the name of their trash service provider
Resolution 20, 1999 - Request for Funds — Purchase Bass Park — Approved expenditure of
$3.5 million from the housing/daycare and park funds for purchase of Bass park with the not that
Council intends to submit a question to the voters in November 1999 with 3 options (1) the
property will be 100 percent park; (2) the property will be a mix (about Y2 and Y2) affordable
housing/open space; (3) if neither of the above passes to allow the city to sell the property on
the free market
Resolution #131 1999 - Ballot Language — Approved final language for ballot questions to be
submitted to electorate May 4, 1999. Question No. 1, Approval of a $13,894,000 revenue bond
for parks capital Improvement plan; question No. 2, extension of the .45 percent affordable
housing and day care sale tax; question No. 3, expansion of Truscott Place Affordable housing
project
Snyder Final Budget - Approved a final budget of $4,307,274 for Snyder affordable housing
project; staff will return to Council for review of units size, mix and subsidy
Next Regular Meeting March 22, 1999
CITY AGENDAS
3/16 City Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 2/23
Barbee Affordable Housing, Final PUD. Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review; Public Hearing
(CB)
Aspen Historical Society, Work Session (AG)
3/16 Growth Management Commission (5:30)
City Notice 2/23
Barbee AH GMQS Exemption, Public Hearing (CB)
3/22 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 3/2
930 King Street, Lot Split, Grant and Extensions, 2"d Reading Public Hearing (AG)
Iselin Park Rezoning, 2"d Reading Public Hearing (CB)
SCI Zone District Amendments, 2"d Reading Public Hearing (CB)
Barbee Affordable Housing, Final PUD, 1" Reading (CB)
Porath Water Service Agreement Amendment, 2"d Reading Public Hearing (CB)
Nolan Lot Split, 308 North V Street, V Reading (CB)
3/24 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 3/2
135 W. Hopkins, Conceptual, Public Hearing
134 W. Hopkins, Minor and Variances, Public Hearing
234 W. Francis
Work Program
4/6 City Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 3/16
Regular meetings begins at 5: 30
855 Bay Street: Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use for an ADU, Residential Design
Variances, Public Hearing (MI)
Melville Conditional Use for an ADU, 1290 Snowbunny Lane, Public Hearing (CB)
4/7 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 3/16
Special Meeting
DEPP
4/12 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 3/23
Barbee Affordable Housing, Final PUD, 2"d Reading Public Hearing (CB)
4/13 City Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 3/23
Special Meeting
Bavarian Inn Conceptual PUD, Public Hearing (MH)
Lighting Code Work Session
4/14 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 3/23.
2 Williams Way, Inventory, Public Hearing (SO)
4/20 City Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 3/30
Joint Meeting with County Planning & Zoning
Buttermilk Master Plan
4/26 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 4/6
4/27 City Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 4/6
Long Range Planning Meeting
4/28 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 4/6
5/4 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 4/13
2 Williams Way, Inventory, Public Hearing (SO)
Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, Public Hearing (CB)
5/10 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 4/20
2 Williams Way, Inventory, V Reading (SO)
Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, V Reading Action Item (CB)
5/12 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 4/20
5/18 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 4/27
5/24 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 5/4
5/26 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 5/4
2
6/1 City Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 5/11
6/9 HPC
City Notice 5/18
6/14 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 5/25
2 Williams Way, Inventory, 2" Reading Public Hearing (SO)
Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, 2n' Reading Public Hearing (SO)
6/15 City Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 5/25
6/23 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 6/1
6/28 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 6/8
cc: P&Z Packet
City Attorney's Office
City Planning Staff
City Clerk's Office
g:/planning/aspen/agendas/comingup.doc/
3/10/99
3
BRAWL4,[IVEF
tyr, ems; #fs•
jg,��
i
_.. � `�Y'' i;. v. �- `' Mom- '�' '. i� >� �••
� F
Ar
`g
4:ram ,�_ � .� � "+•� � � 77 �
�z�.
sY
a,e, Y. ,� {. iY �°•�it� �r � � � � fi k� ! ., , � S• � ' i� b��
1 . Y
♦ n
4 i i
.i.-c ,...N�- 4 . era y tsi-3�,`{ r ,::•s ' - x ► _ - t .. < x..' ,t ..7y,- �-
-ss -" e
5
y
i
r
y -
.::`' t � rn r ` � :+�. ..` _.�. ,� �, ,.. ' � _ �'• •Y� ...•Y•-°A ..tip+=-;T,.+°.
s,
4:
.•�, <^� r. <<- ; .px ,i`:`+4:�,� �, {�"` .--max �,. ,,. `, .. , s� .ti a �t�,t �• _
y
a ,
f W
f-• A WA ' �- • 4-s mear
r f„i
m
K ;
-a t:vy
" .. £ t: ,'l�Xg1' -, .ems S+`.y;�. E � !� �♦,yE._�QE 'y`i _ x _ ��� a•' r ��.
,
• i
J1 tu
'1{t"!:�i.�- /'r „x` d p rl af'•
n
y - .Y
:c - .ily ..roe t x ; 1 -W
Ow
};cq,�� _ �.. .- > v , �, „•_ 4-krYzs�` .: ,�e�?'�. 9'�� �=z` ac'---; � e �~�.= a"�*,=.,,&fit
.y
g ., y -1?� t �.^. A•s. t txy.$'�. .k"$ ^• ... �S itn '�f ,�*o-
.%°4.z`"r♦i+�,°4-ter,,%d sK� r. r _ ;� - . T u' d': 'ya.�s*r•*.t-- "•Y. *a g,.
t'�y�.�
f . e. .,,i� .me. _ �., s�f , , . ' ;a> t,-Es =t� - ,."�'"♦ a3.'ir $`'�-- _ _: -'y,,"3• ,g•+-
x 114-: 'F
'. v n. •y, y •, • • ♦ r s .sue _ .y_ •ie aT
�
Yj\ ..:. . -,,,'yam �' �:� '. <r., �;i, .. ..,_ ` "'ax'2`'.. b'; i�°x e!*�� _�. �-t,�"•c". t��.=^�',t'•"���`#,': i .::•r0x., - _�+��r � - .R`�.�r,,,,. •`a
•aYF, .,
74
'% �'' s '. -. r. •. ^'°, :Y' }.t. `�, `fFt.,e ,.ate• y>.,cz` �£ aEw 2.. *+:.
- • t
�' P t. •� b' ., . " • • ,,, £ -F �aa; �' e'e � �'. *'Par 5,;,e f- �ry�ii �_ mow•. � Y K � ,
AsAll
ON
1'iis�►�ii `
x
� z1� aka "•S l .+:. r ;: �, ,� { r, � ? � �{
�,, .. � a, Fs �h,•, Y xt .. � - use
�.� v „. u`. 9.:r Ctt-�'�'4`n.,M }"�„t .isY''2 �� 4 .'`� }. •..( ,`d.'3+-,:.`4 � w..w.�+'�+R.'TZ
zx .
Y L�
� r7q.- •�� �• art. .. _ �A.
_1
JL
Of
put X
r
� ,fi � <� , , y ,� r � •. � � Hy�- � .emu ,a- ,M,g
y
,+w
.. .�. � ,. �. AL� 1,m „4 � � i2 y'L". ���K � `fit •�,,`;
,
v'
i
Fk •
a
l
-.. )
< ^k 'r±S,z c • 1 s � ii T•I � ._ ,aewo- � rC .. `� ,
Y
t,a�`ti� ..._.�_-,_._..., £ _ s+r.TS'� s•Lmr..• . � �, WN �ii!�ps'{f; t��l. F <. 323._.. w . � F.`
K J 'J'-'y�s -
� �� s3 fi � � { �''. �j`3 _ i°. }�i ff� s s[-_� }`"✓'"+�' - �' �� � F_F x� 3 �n�`� .� ".3rt ` 1 \ 1 1 T
+ ! '.", :. # .s" t" ��', k� EA e� >��, - 14 �a �- ♦ ^N K � 4.-- t � { �J o ry.T�t �
6t�.i �y t�+#,h.�}�'t..a¢lYs F[j �s47 b.J�,�}{t I.'ti � ., k �K> S �.1" �.��^, '�. ,�., x.-: •
f Before America turns
j! t�{.XH '� +j*:�rttr n � �7y� y .«. Z , ; "`.v r i { b +- _ 3 t , .,r 1 ' .�7
into one giant paved-
- J b sx t'f t "'t. � "� � a ' s s: � ^. r � -� �✓ ,5 '�' �ti�� { �' � �-._.�'z3' 'y`t 3^` t i.. y r :, y
over subdivision,
le are fightingpe0p
2
14z back. is there hope?
By RICHARD LACAYO
.. , t.
-A
A IL
C.
S�
r
,
" `47MIf
SPREAD ALER'
New homes in
UWnnett iCout
3adt pf th f fasl
a&iening um
N
I hear the whistle of the locomotive in the
woods... Whew! Whew! Whew! How is real
estate here in the swamp and wilderness?
—Ralph Waldo Emerson,'1842
HICH BRINGS US TO GREATER
Atlanta, 1999. Once a wil-
derness, it's now a 13-county
eruption, one that has been
called the fastest -spreading
human settlement in histo-
ry. Already more than 110
miles across, up from just 65 in 1990, it
consumes an additional 500 acres of field
and farmland every week. What it leaves be-
hind is tract houses, access roads, strip malls,
off ramps, industrial parks and billboards
advertising more tract houses where the
peach trees used to be. Car exhaust is such a
problem that Washington is withholding
new highway funding. until the region com-
plies with federal clean -air standards. On a
bad traffic day —basically any weekday with
a morning and evening in it —you can review
whole years of your life in the time it takes to
get from Blockbuster to Fuddruckers.
"We can't go on like this," says Georgia
Governor Roy Barnes, a "smart growth"
Democrat who was elected last year.
Barnes has proposed a regional transporta-
tion authority that can block local plans for
the new roads that encourage develop-
ment. But dumb growth is not confined to
Atlanta. Half a century after America
loaded the car and fled to the suburbs,
these boundless, slapdash places are mak-
ing people want to flee once more. "All of a
sudden, they're playing leapfrog with a
bulldozer," be
'
o
says Al Gore, who wants to
the antisprawl candidate in 2000.
'= A
For Gore, turning an assortment of
D
suburban complaints into a vote -getting
issue is no sure thing. But the fact that he's
'
trying shows that suburban overgrowth
m
has become a national headache. Instead of
just fleeing the sprawl (and thus creating
x
more of it), people are groping for ways to
fight it. Last November there were no few-
i
er than 240 antisprawl ballot initiatives
m
around the country. Most of them passed.
45
Some stripped local authorities of
the power to approve new subdivi-
sions without voter assent. Others
okayed tax money to buy open land
before the developers get it. In the
largest of those, New Jersey Gover-
nor Christine Todd Whitman suc-
cessfully pushed a referendum to
use sales -tax money to buy half the
state's undeveloped land —a million
acres. "Americans are finally real-
izing that once you lose land, you
can't get it back," she says.
Twelve states have already en-
acted growth -management laws.
Tennessee just adopted one of the
strictest, requiring many cities to
impose growth boundaries around
their perimeters. In Maryland,
counties get state money for roads
and schools only if they agree to con-
fine growth to areas that the state has
designated as suitable. But managed
growth is not a win -win proposition.
When laws make it harder to build in
the countryside, new development
is pressed into more expensive land 1
closer to town. That can mean high-
er home prices, so the single mother who
manages a doctor's office or the couple who
make $38,000 a year must choose between
a tiny apartment close to work and a 90-
min. commute to housing they can afford.
Limiting growth also means dealing
with a profound conflict between'the good
of the community and the rights of the indi-
vidual. For a lot of people, the good life still
means a big house on a big yard. Who's to say
they shouldn't get it? Yet smart growth en-
visions a nation packaged into town houses
and apartments, a country that rides trains
and buses and leaves the car at home.
Everybody hates the drive time, the scuffed
and dented banality, of overextended sub-
urbs. But are we ready for the confinement
and compromise the solutions require?
Maybe not, according to a recent TiM /CNN
poll. It showed that most people like green-
belts but don't trust government planning.
Americans do believe in property rights —
including the right to profit by selling. So
N A T I O N
the farmers and ranchers who feel squeezed
out when tract housing plunks down next
to their pasture often think about cashing
in. "You get people waving millions," says
Ben Wurtsmith, 67, a rancher in Col-
orado's Eagle County, not far from the ex-
ploding area around Vail. "Some days you
just think about taking the money and tak-
ing off." One way to solve the problem, be-
ing used in parts of Colorado, is "develop-
ment rights," which let builders put up
houses more densely near town in exchange
o for payments to outlying farmers
and ranchers to keep land open.
There's another option being
explored in Ventura County, north-
west of Los Angeles. At night, what
used to be dark hillsides are strung
o with lights from new tract housing.
i Those twinkling lights worked on
m Steve Bennett, a soft-spoken high
school history teacher, until he'd
had enough. Three years ago he co-
founded soAR (Save Open Space
and Agricultural Resources) to get
antisprawl initiatives on the ballot.
It took just nine weeks last year for
Bennett and his allies to collect the
75,000 signatures they needed. In
November, large majorities in four
x of Ventura's five largest cities
z adopted rules that forbid the coun-
ty to rezone land for development
o without voter approval. A fifth city
came on board in January.
"We've protected more than
600,000 acres of land," says Ben-
nett. "But more than 60,000 homes
can be built in areas already zoned
for development. soAR is an attempt
to say some areas have to remain precious."
Opposition came mainly from a local farm-
ers' organization. Why? An appraisal by the
city of Ventura concluded that 87 acres
would be worth $1.6 million as farmland but
$13 million if zoned for development. "The
people of this county have taken away my
property rights," says I loward Atkinson, 51,
who inherited Dart of a 57-acre ranch.
If America's detonating metro regions
were the result of population growth alone,
sprawl would be a problem without a solu-
46
TI N i %1 \ Its -11 22, 1999
LYV 6661 'ZZ HMIVIl 'A I\ II
•spaau uopelndodulmox� e legm jo lJogs
llam slle3 a2eax0u pappe aLp leul uleldwoo
szaplinq pool pau@pim uaaq suq Aiepunoq
glmox6 agl gfnoLp puy •umol wozJ J@T-IeJ
aeaxoe xaduago uo pllnq l,ueo szadolanap
letp si xatpoue ing •slsoo do piq ogm `sluap
-Isar Mau }o xrlgul uu louzlle padlatl sl1Uz1I
tpmoa agl leLp sl uos>;az aup •oosiouez3
uuS uetp Jadeago 11q e lsnf `anisuadxa lsow
P.11T agl mou si puepzod 2uisnotl Joj saplo
S'fl aiqupzojju lsow aLp 2uouze se sxaplmg
awOH Jo uopuloossd IeuopeN atp Aq pquuJ
Gaup '006`6SI$ 04 000`t9$ wog `sxeax OI
lsn f m palgnop uegl axow suLl awog /,IIWEJ
-al�uis e jo aoud umpatu aql la,k 'OOL`9 04 ':3
'bs 000`£i woz4 `siE9X 03 lsed agl xano jluLl u1
lsouzlu �unxgs sug azls 101 a�exane `2uu aLp
jo aoeds alqupllnq �uilpulmp aql u"PIAk pud
•lno auoz aslmzaLpo lq�lw AaLp 2utpmox0
Aq pa�Jawgns aJe 2uu alp ulLplm SUMol Ja
-HEWS •aoud u le sauzoo Lpmox$ Apapzp
•Ipq Flo ww j s91luz Si lzels XalleA
JOAIAd allauieiilM agl jo sagolaxls pallods
-un •axnleu Ilea am X.IauaaB jo lqft pa
-ldnzzalulun agl lsnf fpsoux s,axagl `paloal
-oxd ApolJls si puul uado axagm `aplslnp
•02e sxeaA 03 aip of Xpeaz pgool lugl umol
-umop e punoxe lle sauuxo uoponzlsuoo
aql xoj lun000u sdlaq golgm XllpuaJ pa
-lu-ea axe uoilorulsuoo mau
Joj g!wiad `aplsul •luaw
-dolanap Ile slozluoo `•S•n
alp ul 4uatuuzano2 Ieu01291
paloala ,(powip Aluo agl `ip
-unoo oxiaw eaJe-puepxod
SHJ. `3'IOHIo LVH.L NIHJI
-sumo} �uipunoJzns £Z puu JGdoxd Xj10
agl �ulsopua 2uu u ,`Xirpunoq g4mox2„
u posodwi puupzod mel asn-puel apim
-alels 2wl eaxgpunoB e glim aouuilduzoo
sll jo Imd se `6L6I ul 'g4m0J2 lzetus xoJ
x4io /Czolexogel agl uaaq seg puullzod auill
2uol e x03 uollllw L•I mou uop-elndod
sl1 su aleJ glmoz2 auzes aql `olo£I lsnf puazds
`•azp `puellxod JaleaJ� pouad legs ul '°!o9
lsnf pasewom `uollllw 6'I mou `uoilulndod
sli allgm `olooL peaxds 1qiD sesue)I oxlatu
`966I pule 066T uaamgag •mox� suopelndod
xlagl uelp Jalsej gonw uapim 413g4 sa11c0
aleaxo dlag puedxa of sanlluaoui asagZ
•lsoo XIlenloe sxawoomau xoJ saoinxas legm
jo uopoe.g e lsnf Janoo sxadolanap uo ,SOOJ
loudLul„ -Aeoap of IJaI axe Vols 5uisnog
puu sloogos $upslxa a11gm `umolumop tuoz}
Jej jpnq quawdolanap uugzngns mau 01
sapIlpn zaglo puu sautl Jamas `spuox pualxa
of aaJ5e Xlaupnoz sap1pool `lue:poduzi axoul
uan3 •�pw 3o lJenb e putt of sea jo lzenb
e uznq nog( 4egl 5ulaa4ueJea Xq D eJ4
suasxom goigm `sdogs puu satuoq Io xlux
Xuu plgzo3 AluoWwoo salru 5uluoZ •anuanax
xe44padoxd ssal lnq aldoad axow ui s5uuq
41 asneoaq 5uisnog xasuap lslsax �Claozal�
sallipool XueW •Imuzds azow 5uunsua
`slot �ulplinq a5xel axinbw lutp salnx 5uiuoz
Iuool aze axagl uagj •sasnog loezl put, SUM
�unll-xe3 asogl of spuox aql xoj pled aneg
salplsgns kemg2ig luJapaj `sapeoap x03
•saplo xaluao ulozy Jatpxej Jana oldood axnT
luga saniluaoul olwouooa pue suoisloap Teal
-lilod jo llnsax aql Allenbe axe X@ql ing •uop
TIME/CNN POLL
■ Do you favor or oppose the
establishment of a zone or
greenbelt, around your community
where new homes, businesses or
stores could not be built on land
that is currently undeveloped?
Favor ............
�11.1
Oppose .......... '
■ Do you favor
■ Which is more
or oppose using
important?
taxpayer money
to buy
The ability of individuals
undeveloped
to do what they want with
land to keep it
land that they
'
free from
own .. � ' ' ' ' '
development?
The ability of government
to regulate development
Favor ..
ram.
� �'
for the common ��
Oppose.
L'
good ....... '
From a telephone poll of 1,024 adult Americans taken on Jan.20.21 for TIMUCNN by Yankelovich Partners Inc. Margin of error is:3.1%.'Not sures' omitted.
For all that, the "great wall of Portland"
is very popular with area voters. That's one
reason Gore wants to make sprawl his issue in
the next campaign. He knows that some of his
signature environmental concerns, like glob-
al warming, can seem remote from the here
and now. He's counting on sprawl to be an
environmentalism that people get, especially
the suburban women who drive those crowd-
ed roads and are important swing voters.
"Let's build more new homes," Gore recent-
ly told T1ME, "but build them in places that
help make people's lives more enjoyable."
His message may still need work, but
his plan has some merit. In January, Gore
introduced the Administration's "livability
agenda," a collection of new and recycled
budget programs (see box). Republicans in
Washington have no counterpart, partly
because conservatives think government
should stay out of the way of private devel-
opment. But G.O.P. pragmatists are wor-
ried. In a recent issue of the Capitol Hill
newspaper Roll Call, Republican pollster
Christine Matthews reported that Gore's
"mainstreaming of his environmentalism"
was "startlingly on track with voters."
Even if presidential candidates manage
to nationalize the issue, Washington doesn't
have much to do with the local zoning fights
and roadway approvals that determine
where development goes. "The battle is go-
ing to be won or lost at the state level," says
Richard Moe, president of the National
Trust for Historic Preservation. And the
remedies take many forms. In Illinois,
there's Prairie Crossing, a 667-acre subdivi-
sion 40 miles north of Chicago, where more
than half the land is preserved as green
space. Utopia isn't cheap; the median price
of homes there is $331,000, about $100,000
above that for the immediate area, which
doesn't satisfy the need for the lower -cost
housing that's driving suburban expansion.
In Chicago's southwestern suburbs, res-
idents have joined with environmentalists in
a lawsuit to block a 12.5-mile extension of In-
terstate 355, one they fear will bring more
traffic, more houses, more everything. Two
months ago, Illinois transportation officials
announced they would stop appealing a fed-
eral judge's decision that has stalled the proj-
ect since early 1997. The ruling held that
state officials had failed to take into account
the new road's projected impact on popula-
tion growth. Opponents are hopeful that al-
ternatives to building the toll road will re-
ceive serious consideration. "Highways are
billed as antidotes to congestion," says Mike
Truppa, a policy specialist at the Environ-
mental Law and Policy Center, which joined
the suit. "But inevitably they create more."
Since development tends to pop up any
place it finds a foothold, the battle to con-
tain it never ends. In the rolling country of
Shelburne, Vt., McCabe Brook meanders
through the former Clark farm. A developer
liked the place so much that he planned to
build 26 houses on its 120 acres. But David
Miskell, 50, a bushy -bearded organic -toma-
to farmer, and daily farmer Robert Mack,
44, both of whom had been working to pre-
serve other open spaces in the area, helped
organize public gatherings to discuss the
fact that the development would require
taxpayers to finance firehouses and class-
rooms. "My tomatoes don't go to school,"
Miskell says. "I think that woke people up."
When Shelburne approved the develop-
ment anyway, a neighboring town took Shel-
burne to court. arguing that it would suffer
costs from the pi-o.)ect. To dramatize how
construction would change the area, Miskell
constructed scaffolds on the endangered
land that approximated the proposed height
and footprint of it few of the houses. In De-
cember 1997. the embattled developer sold
the property to the Preservation Trust of
Vermont. "If you are not into controversy,"
says Miskell.': you are not doing anything."
Keeping land open is just half the battle.
The other half is keeping downtowns liv-
able and affordable so people stay happily
bunched there. That way new construction
tends to cluster «-ithin developed zones and
use existing roads, schools and utility lines.
But for the centerless "edge cities" that col-
lect around major highways, the problem is
to create a downtown in the first place. So in
Tysons Corner. va., just outside Washing-.
ton, county officials have just approved an
instant to\vn center —an 18-acre collection
of small office buildings that will also house
shops and restaurants around a plaza. Albu-
querque. N.M., is examining a proposal to
refurbish a 12-block area, nearly one -fifth
of the citv's downtown, into an urban center
with entertainment, retail and,high-density
housing. "It's a typical American problem,
the abandoned center," says architect Ste-
fanos Polyzoides, who designed the scheme.
"It doesn't have to be like this."
Polyzoides is chairman of the Congress
for the New Urbanism, a group of architects
and city planners who believe sprawl can be
remedied in part through better town de-
sign —a return to sidewalks, narrower
streets that don't encourage fast driving, a
mix of homes and shops. Endlessly elastic
suburbia "is not a way we're going to be
building in the future," he predicts. The re-
vival of downtowns in places like San Diego
and Denver —and, for that matter, Atlanta —
and the reaction against sprawl among the
suburbanites who spawned it may also be
signs, as he says, that the problem can be
fixed. But sprawl is mostly indelible ink.
Once the roads and houses and strip malls
set in, you can't just get them out. The best
way to fight sprawl is to stop it before it
starts. —Reported by Wendy Cole/Chicago,
Dan Cray/Ventura, Daniel S. Levy/Shelburne, Todd
Murphy/Portland and Timothy Roche/Atlanta
48 I i ,m %,, \ l W 11 22. 1999
AGENDA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1999,5:30 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Barbee AH GMQS Exemption, Julie Ann Woods and Mitch Haas
IV. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joint Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission
&� VW
FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Develo ment Directo
Mitch Haas, Interim Deputy Director
DATE: March 16, 1999
RE: Barbee Affordable Housing Growth Management Exemption
-- Public Hearing
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Mary Barbee, John Barbee, Hallie Rugheimer, and Aspen-Pitkin
Employee Housing Inc., obtained conceptual PUD approval in January of 1998
pursuant to Ordinance 44, Series of 1997, for 10 new residential units to be constructed
within the "70/30 mix" of the AH1/PUD Zone District. The applicant is requesting
these units be exempted from the competition and scoring procedures of the Growth
Management Quota System, as well as approval of the method in which the affordable
units are being proposed. Both of these requests may be granted by City Council after
the Growth Management Commission makes a recommendation at a public hearing.
The proposed development is located along the west side of S. Garmisch Street,
between Juan Street and Durant Avenue. There is an existing house, proposed to
remain, and various out -buildings.
Specifically, the request is for 7 affordable housing units and 3 free-market, AH-
Associated units for a total of 10 units. The applicant has indicated that three (3) RO
lots will be conveyed as vacant parcels for no more than $130,000 and that four (4)
Category 4 three -bedroom units (in duplex configuration) be constructed with the
proceeds from the sale of both the vacant RO lots and the Category units themselves.
This would be the proposed method of providing affordable units.
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority reviewed this proposed method and is
recommending approval with one caveat: that the developer of the .Category units
review the final development costs with the Housing Authority and give the Housing
Authority the opportunity to "buy -down" the units to a lower Category prior to sale.
Community Development staff recommends that the Housing Authority's review of the
final development costs be limited in scope such that only the potential for "buying
down" the units to lower categories be considered.
The review criteria and staff responses are attached as Exhibit A. Referral comments
are attached as Exhibit B, the submitted application is attached as Exhibit C, and a
vicinity map is provided as Exhibit D.
Staff recommends that the Growth Management Commission advise City Council
to approve this request, with conditions.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council considered and
approved the conceptual PUD with the conditions incorporated into Ordinance 44,
Series of 1997, included in the application packet. The final PUD is now being
considered by the City P&Z.
PROCEDURE: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Affordable housing projects are eligible for an exemption from the scoring and
competition components of Growth Management by City Council. The application
must first be reviewed and considered by the Growth Management Commission at a
public hearing. Affordable housing projects are deducted from the annual allotment
pool. Please refer to Exhibit "A" for the applicable criteria.
GROWTH ISSUES: ALLOTAIEArTSAVAILABLE
The application was received in the 1998-99 Growth Management year. New
affordable housing units are deducted from the annual pool of development allotments.
There are 43 allotments available each year plus additional allotments carried over from
previous years. Approximately 120 allotments in this category have been carried
forward and added to the current 43, equaling approximately 163 available allotments
for the 1998-99 GMQS year. This figure does not include AH projects currently in the
planning process that have not been finally awarded allocations. Also to be subtracted
from this number are a few caretaker units approved in the County. The applicant is
requesting seven (7) units from this 163 unit pool.
AH-Associated Free Market units are also deducted from an annual pool. There are
eight (8) allotments available each year plus those units not used in previous years.
Approximately 26 units have been carried over from previous years plus the eight (8)
available this year. The applicant is requesting three (3) AH-Associated allotments of
the 34 currently available.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency referral
comments have been included as Exhibit "B." The application materials have been
included as Exhibit "C."
RECOMMENDATION:
City Staff has reviewed this application according to the applicable criteria and
recommends that the Growth Management Commission forward a recommendation of
approval to City Council for this project, with the following conditions:
1. The project shall consist often (10) new residential units and one (1) existing
residential unit. Of the new units, three (3) shall be free-market units of no more
than three (3) bedrooms each; three (3) shall be RO Lots, each for the purpose of a
single-family residence of no less than three (3) bedrooms; and, four (4) shall be
K
Staff Comments: Barbee Affordable Housing
The exemption by City Council may only be granted subsequent to review and consideration by
the GMC. There are, however, no specific review standards for this review other than the more
general criteria listed below. To the extent possible, staff has incorporated general observations
of the project in relation to the Community Plan, the Interim Housing Guidelines, and pertinent
criteria of PUD and Subdivision reviews.
Approval of the method by which the applicant proposes to provide affordable
housing shall be at the option of the City Council, upon the recommendation of the
Growth Management Commission. In evaluating the applicant's proposal, the
advice of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be sought in considering
the following factors:
1. Whether the city has an adopted plan to develop affordable housing with
monies received from payment of affordable housing dedication fees.
2. Whether the city has an adopted plan identifying the applicant's site as
being appropriate for affordable housing.
Staff Finding:
The City, through the Housing Authority, has developed an affordable housing plan for both
public and private monies. The site is not identified in the Community Plan as a potential
affordable housing site. The Plan, however, only identified individual parcels and did not
provide direction in evaluating all sites in general. However, the City and county Planning
commissions have adopted Resolution No. 98-11, "The Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan" as an
update of the Housing Element of the 1993 AACP.
Based on it's location, size, and proximity to general services, staff believes this site is an
appropriate site for affordable housing. Staff believes the Interim Housing Guidelines further this
opinion.
3. Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the development of
affordable housing, taking into account the availability of services,
proximity to employment opportunities and whether the site is affected by
environmental constraints to development or historic preservation
concerns.
Staff Finding:
The site is an excellent site for affordable housing. Its proximity to physical and social
infrastructure, transit, employment and recreation opportunities, and location within an
established neighborhood make this a well -suited, appropriate site. Furthermore, the preservation
of the majority of the property as a conservation easement protecting Shadow Mountain furthers
many community goals,'not only those related to affordable housing.
staff comments page 1
sense of community that cannot be achieved by placing that critical mass in a remote
location, regardless of where the metro area or extended metro boundaries exist.
Open Space and Environment: Providing housing opportunities within walking distance
to employment, entertainment, recreation, and other residences reduces the need to use a
vehicle for every trip. Also, compact development within the townsite reduces the need
to extend services and develop land on the outskirts of town, and preserves those natural
open space areas for their wildlife and aesthetic functions.
The proposal is preserving areas that are clearly not appropriate for development. The
proposal also preserves the bench area above the proposed RO lots, just above the Little
Cloud Subdivision. It is important to underscore this preservation because this area could
be expensive "view lots" with dramatic affects upon the visual openness of the mountain.
Staff believes this approach to development is the most desired for this parcel and is
appreciative of the site planning and preservation.
1993 AACP: This project addresses elements of the existing AACP. Specifically, it
`creates a housing environment dispersed, appropriately scaled, and affordable. 'And, it
preserves and enhances the natural beauty of the area. '
1999 AACP: This document has not been adopted. However, the draft document
provides substantial support for affordable housing to be located in town where it protects
surrounding open spaces outside of town and where the residents can become integral
members of the social fabric. The plan also supports the preservation of natural open
space areas such as the proposed conservation parcel for Shadow Mountain.
Interim Housing Guidelines:
The development proposed is consistent with the Interim (Citizen) Housing Guidelines
adopted by the City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions. The development is
within the Metro Area, is within walking distance of the community core, preserves a
significant amount of natural lands, represents quality design visually appropriate for the
neighborhood, integrates different social levels within one project, is an optimum
development level for this site, and does not promote urban sprawl. In addition, this
project is proposed with no public subsidy and is not expected to have a significant
negative fiscal impact upon the City or its taxpayers.
This proposal places the development of affordable housing where it is needed and where
it is appropriate — in town. It represents the philosophy behind the "Aspen Area Citizen
Housing Plan" criteria. It does not represent sprawl and it does not destroy valuable open
space. In fact, the area proposed for development can be easily served with existing
utility and infrastructure capabilities and the side of Shadow Mountain has its
development rights extinguished including the bench above the Little Cloud Subdivision
which could support "view lots" with a high level of visual impact upon the City.
staff comments page 3
GNOVc."
, m" -, a r(i� ii
11111111o�
W, /,& 2
_
CITY CLERK:
Lc�GAoj
STAFF: �lkL,L (EE� A-Dkj
WITNESSES: (1)
(2)
,A jZ2 Uf
t� 19 IQ
(4)
2EI >
4+Attg
(5)
-
EXHIBITS: 1
Staff Report ( )
((Check If Applicable)
2
Affidavit of Notice
( (Check If Applicable)
3 Board Criteria Sheet ( ) (Check If Applicable)
0
5
MOTION:
VOTE: YES�tNO -0
ROBERT BLAICH YES -AZNO
RON ERICKSON YES VNO
(f: f�4K L-t E'7rAfJ ele )
5-r4&-V-E: tO A-L-P P -5
�5p- - =-t
TIMOTHY MOONEY YES NO
STEVEN BUETTOW YES NO
TIM SEMRAU YES ✓ NO
Ptr-, r� YtiA lend -ygS
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E)
being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
By mailing. of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on thd5;;Wday of e;*11, 1991 (which is Zf days prior to the public
hearing date of
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from thc!��--I*day
of ` 4y , 199c7 , to th/G '"111ay ofl"1*14 , 199 `7. (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
(Attach photograph here)
Signed be
1999 . by
me this JL�- day of MaWJ1.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires:
s`Ibl �4,�
•
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E)
L V-410 , being or representing an
P g
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on the �1a which is//
Y of �� 199 � ( days prior to the public
hearing date of �% 1z 5'f ).
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the 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 1-14-OWI , 1995 , to thco day of 1-114WI , 199'7 . (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
(Attach photograph here) Signed before me this kg' day of
1991. by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires:
..
Not4�4dblic
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: BAR 3EE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, FINAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION, REZONING, AND SPECIAL REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March
161 1999 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena, Aspen, Colorado to
.consider an application submitted by Mary Barbee, John Barbee, and Hallie Rugheimer,
1400 Story Mill Road, Bozeman, Montana 59715, requesting approval for a final Planned
Unit Development, subdivision, rezoning to the Affordable Housing Zone District (AH-
1), and special review for parking for a project to contain three free-market and seven
affordable residential dwellings. The property is located at 601 South Garmisch Street,
and is described as a 17.67 acre tract of land being a part of Lot 1, NE1/4, NE1/4, Section
13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. For further information, contact
Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena
St., Aspen, CO, (970) 920-5072, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us.
s/Bob Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on February 27, 1999.
City of Aspen Account
PUBLIC NOTICE
BARBEE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA
SYSTEM EXEMPTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March
16, 1999 at a meeting to begin at 5:30 p.m. before Aspen/Pitkin County Growth
Management Commission, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galenda, Aspen,
Colorado to consider an application submitted by Mary Barbee, John Barbee and Hallie
Rugheimer, 1400 Story Mill Road, Bozeman, Montana 59715, requesting an exemption
from the "scoring" and "competition" procedures of the Growth Management Quota
System (GMQS) for a project to contain three free-market and seven affordable
residential dwellings. The property is located at 601 South Garmisch Street, and is
described as a 17.67 acre tract of land being a part of Lot 1, NE1/4, NE1/4, Section 13,
Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. For further information, contact
Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena
St., Aspen, CO, (970) 920-5072, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us.
s/Bob Blaich, Chair
Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on February 27, 1999.
City of Aspen Account
5 /) (",-) f q 9
NAME OF PROJECT: �4keEr.-
CITY CLERK:
STAFF: LA L14=— 414AJ
WITNESSES: (1) <5ltr.{►-,lY
(2) 4
(1) ,-( " A4,A, �-,i C) m t)
(4)
(5)
EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( /(Check If Applicable)
2 Affidavit of Notice ( /(Check If Applicable)
3 Board Criteria Sheet ( ) (Check If Applicable)
4
5
MOTION Pj_
VOTE: YES 4 NO-0
ROBERT BLAICH YES NO
RON ERICKSON YES VNO
TIMOTHY MOONEY YES NO
TIM SEMRAU YES NO
BARBEE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION,
REZONING, AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING - PUBLIC HEARING
Planned Unit Development
A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and
requirements:
1. General Requirements:
A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which
GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant.
2. Density:
A. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone
district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced if:
1. There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to serve the proposed
development;
2. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development;
3. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of slope,
ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers;
4. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion -and consequent water pollution;
5. The proposed development will have deleterious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the city; or
6. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the
proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to
critical natural features of the site.
Staff Comments 1
B. Reduction in density for slope consideration.
l . In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and
guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in
areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent in the following manor:
a. For lands between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent slope, the maximum density
allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district.
b. For lands between twenty-one (21) and thirty (30) percent slope, the maximum
density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50) percent of that permitted in the
underlying zone district.
C. For lands between thirty-one (31) and forty (40) percent slope, the density shall
be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone
district.
d. For lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope, no density credit shall be
allowed.
2. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be
calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary
in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit.
For parcels resting in more than one (1) zone district, the density reduction calculation
shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district.
4. Density shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04, Definition of Lot Area.
3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone
district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a
zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall
only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district.
4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of
the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in
the following:
a.
Minimum distance between buildings;
b.
Maximum height (including viewplanes);
C.
Minimum front yard;
d.
Minimum rear yard;
e.
Minimum side yard;
f.
Minimum lot width;
g.
Minimum lot area;
h.
Trash access area;
i.
Internal floor area ratio; and
j.
Minimum percent open space.
If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the
minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided that the total area of all lots, when
averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any variation permitted
shall be clearly indicated on the final plat development plan.
Staff Comments 2
5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied
from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following
considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development.
b. The parking need of any nonresidential units.
C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
d. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including
those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public
recreational facilities in the city.
Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain
assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change
6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying
zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be
permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the
proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a
common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common
park or recreation area if it:
a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and
b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom
the common area is intended.
A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in
perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD), together
with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development.
Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned
facilities.
7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development
plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior
spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant
species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate.
S. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final
development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural
consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the
purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly
enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular
Staff Comments 3
building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural
character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon
appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and
proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses.
Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and
maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage
and reduce soil erosion.
9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands.'
10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged.
11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that
adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed
development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no
net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings
shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency
vehicles.
12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation.
a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD)
shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with
controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to
streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic.
C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion
on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such
surrounding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be
adversely affected.
d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway
or drive providing access to a public street.
e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct
access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any
street.
f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained
under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all
pertinent city regulations and ordinances.
Staff Comments 4
Subdivision
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and
requirements:
1. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the area.
C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this title.
2. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography, or any other
natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to
create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature
extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
3. Improvements.
a. Required improvements. The following shall be provided for the proposed
subdivision.
1. Permanent survey monuments, range points, and lot pins.
2. Paved streets, not exceeding the requirements for paving and
improvements of a collector street.
3. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
4. Paved alleys.
5. Traffic -control signs, signals, or devices.
6. Street lights.
7. Street name signs.
8. Street trees or landscaping.
9. Water lines and fire hydrants.
10. Sanitary sewer lines.
11. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers.
12. Bridges and culverts.
13. Electrical lines.
14. Telephone lines.
Staff Comments 5
15. Natural gas lines.
16. Cable television lines.
b. Approved plans. Construction shall not commence until on any of the
improvements required by this Section 26.88.040(C)(3)(a) until a plan, profile,
and specifications have been received and approved by the City Engineer and,
when appropriate, the relevant utility company.
C. Oversize Utilities. In the event oversized utilities are required as a part
of the improvements, arrangements for reimbursement shall be made whereby
the subdivider shall be allowed to recover the cost of the utilities that have been
provided beyond the needs of the subdivision.
4. Design Standards. The following design standards shall be required for all
subdivisions.
a. Street and related improvements. the following standards shall apply to streets
regardless of type or size, unless the street has been improved with paving, curb,
gutter, and sidewalk.
1. Conform to plan for street extension. Streets shall conform to approved
plans for street extensions and shall bear a logical relationship to the
topography and to the location of existing or planned streets on adjacent
properties.
2. Right-of-way dedication. Right-of-way shall be dedicated for the entire
width for all local, collector, and arterial streets.
3. Right-of-way width. Streets and alley right-of-way widths, curves and
grades shall meet the following standards:
Street Min. Curve ROW Max %
Class. Radius Width Grade
Local 100 60 10
Collector 250 80 6
Arterial 625 100 5
Alley 50 20 5
4. Half -street dedications. Half -street dedications shall be prohibited
unless they are for the purpose of increasing the width of an inadequate
existing right-of-way.
5. Street ends at subdivision. When a street is dedicated which ends on the
subdivision, the last foot of the street on the terminal end or outside
perimeter of the subdivision shall be dedicated to the City of Aspen in
fee simple and shall be designated by using outlot(s). The City shall use
the dedicated land for public road and access purposes.
6. Cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs shall not exceed four hundred (400) feet in
length and shall have a turnaround diameter of one -hundred (100) feet.
A cul-de-sac of less than two hundred (200) feet in length in a single-
family detached residential area does not require a turnaround if the City
Engineer determines a "T," "Y" or other design is adequate turnaround
for the vehicles expected to use the cul-de-sac.
7. Dead-end streets. Dead-end streets, except for cul-de-sacs, shall be
prohibited unless they are designed to connect with future streets on
adjacent lands that have not been platted. In cases where these type
Staff Comments 6
dead-end streets are allowed, a temporary turnaround of one hundred
(100) feet shall be constructed.
8. Centerline offset. Streets shall have a centerline offset of at least one
hundred and twenty-five (125) feet.
9. Reverse curves. Reverse curves on arterial and collector streets shall be
joined by a tangent of at least one hundred (100) feet in length.
10. Changes in street grade. All changes in street grades shall be connected
by vertical curves of a minimum length in feet equivalent to the
following appropriate "K" value multiplied by the algebraic difference
in the street grades.
Street Classification: Local Collector Arterial
"K" Value for:
Crest vertical curve 28 16 55
Sag vertical curve 35 24 55
11. Alleys. Alleys shall be provided in subdivisions where commercial and
industrial development is expected, except when other provision are
made and approved for service access.
12. Intersections. Intersections shall approximate right angles and have a
minimum tangent of fifty (50) feet on each leg. The subdivision design
shall minimize the number of local streets that intersect arterial streets.
13. Intersection grade. Intersection grades shall not exceed four (4) percent
for a minimum distance of one hundred (100) feet on each leg. Flatter
grades are desirable.
14. Curb return radii. Curb return radii for local street intersections shall be
fifteen (15) feet. Curb return radii and corner setbacks for all other types
of intersections shall be based upon the expected types of vehicle usage,
traffic volumes, and traffic patterns using accepted engineering
standards. In case of streets which intersect at acute angles, appropriate
increases in curb return radii shall be made for the necessary turning
movements.
15. Turn by-passes and turn lanes. Right -turn by-passes or left -turn lanes
shall be required at the intersection of arterial streets or the intersection
of an arterial street and a collector street if traffic conditions indicate
they are needed. Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated to
accommodate such lanes when they are required.
16. Street names and numbers. When streets are in alignment with existing
streets, any new street shall be named according to the street with which
they correspond. Street which do not fit into an established street -
naming pattern shall be named in a manner which will not duplicate or
be confused with existing street names within the City or its environs.
Street numbers shall be assigned by the City Building Inspector in
accordance with the City numbering system.
17. Installation of curb, gutter sidewalks, or driveways. No finish paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalk, or driveways shall be constructed until one year
after the installation of all subsurface utilities and improvements.
18. Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be eight (8) feet wide in the Commercial
Core (CC), Commercial (Cl), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and
Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone Districts and five (5) feet wide in all
other zone districts where sidewalks are required. Consideration shall be
given to existing and proposed landscaping when establishing sidewalk
locations.
Staff Comments 7
19. City specifications for streets. All streets and related improvements
shall be constructed in accordance with City specifications which are on
file in the office of the City Engineer.
20. Range point monuments. Prior to paving any street, permanent range
point monuments meeting the standards of Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(d)
shall be installed to approximately finish grade. Permanent range point
boxes shall be installed during or a soon as practicable after paving.
21. Street name signs. Street name signs shall conform to the type currently
in use by the City.
22. Traffic Control signs. Any required traffic -control signs, signals, or
devices shall conform to the "Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices."
23. Street lights. Street lights shall be placed at a maximum spacing of three
hundred (300) feet. Ornamental street light are desirable.
24. Street tree. One street tree of three-inch caliper for deciduous trees
measured at the top of the ball or root system, or a minimum of six-foot
height for conifers, shall be provided in a subdivision in residential zone
districts for each lot of seventy (70) foot frontage or less, and at least
two (2) such trees shall be provided for every lot in excess of seventy
(70) feet frontage. Corner lots shall require at least one tree for each
street. Trees shall be placed so as not to block sight distances at
driveways or corners. The City Parks and Recreation Department shall
furnish a list of acceptable trees. Trees, foliage, and landscaping shall
be provided in subdivisions in all other zone districts in the City in
accordance with the adopted street landscaping plan.
b. Easements.
1. Utility easements. Utility easements often ten (10) feet in width on each
side of all rear lot lines and five (5) feet in width on each side of lot lines
shall be provided where necessary. Where the rear or side lot lines abut
property outside of the subdivision on which there are no rear or side lot
line easements at least five (5) feet in width, the easements on the rear
and side lot lines in the subdivision shall be between twenty (20) feet
and ten (10) feet in width, respectively.
2. "T" intersections and cul-de-sacs. Easements twenty (20) feet in width
shall be provided in "T" intersections and cul-de-sacs for the
continuation of utilities or drainage improvements, if necessary.
3. Potable water and sewer easements. Water and sewer easements shall be
a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width.
4. Planned utility or drainage system. Whenever a subdivision embraces
any part of a planned utility or drainage system designated on an adopted
plan, an easement shall be provided to accommodate the plan within the
subdivision.
5. Irrigation ditch, channel natural creek. Where an irrigation ditch or
channel, natural creek or stream traverses a subdivision, an easement
sufficient for drainage and to allow for maintenance of the ditch shall be
provided.
Staff Comments 8
6. Fire lanes and emergency access easements. Fire lanes and emergency
access easements twenty (20) feet in width shall be provided where
required by the City Fire Marshal.
7. Planned street or transit alignment. Whenever a subdivision embraces
any part of an existing or planned street or transit alignment designated
on an adopted plan, an easement shall be provided to accommodate the
plan with the subdivision.
8. Planned trail system. Whenever a subdivision embraces
any part of a bikeway, bridle path, cross country ski trail or hiking trail
designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan:
Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan Map, an easement shall be
provided to accommodate the plan within the subdivision.
C. Lots and blocks.
d. Survey Monuments.
1. Location. The external boundaries of all subdivisions, blocks and lots
shall be monumented on the ground by reasonably permanent
monuments solidly embedded in the ground. These monuments shall be
set not more than fourteen hundred (1400) feet apart along any straight
boundary line, at all angle points, and at the beginning, end, and points
of change of direction or change of radius of any curved boundaries.
2. C.R.S. 1972 38-51-101. All monuments shall be set in accordance with
the provisions of C.R.S. 1973 38-51-101, as amended from time to time,
unless otherwise provided for in this title.
3. Range points and boxes. Range points and boxes
meeting City specifications shall be set on the centerline of the street
right-of-way unless designated otherwise.
C. Utilities.
1. Potable waterline and appurtenances. All potable waterlines, fire
hydrants and appurtenances shall meet the City's standards on file in the
City Engineer's office.
2. Size of waterlines. All potable water lines shall be at least eight (8)
inches in size unless the length of the line is less than two hundred (200)
feet. Where the potable waterline is less than two hundred (200) feet in
length, its minimum size shall be six (6) inches in width.
3. Fire hydrants. Fire hydrants shall be spaced no farther apart than five
hundred (500) feet in detached residential and duplex subdivisions. Fire
hydrants shall be no farther apart than three hundred fifty(350) feet apart
in multi -family residential, business, commercial, service, and industrial
subdivisions.
Staff Comments 9
4. Sanitary sewer. Sanitary sewer facilities shall meet the requirements of
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
5. Underground utilities. All utilities shall be placed underground, except
transformers, switching boxes, terminal boxes, meter cabinets, pedestals,
and ventilation ducts.
6. Other utilities. Other utilities not specifically mentioned shall be
provided in accordance with the standards and regulations of the
applicable utility department or company.
7. Utilities stubbed out. All utilities shall be stubbed out at
the property lines of lots.
f. Storm Drainage
g. Flood hazard areas.
h. The design and location of any proposed structure, building envelope,
road, driveway, trail, or other similar development is compatible with significant
natural or scenic features of the site.
i. Variations of design standards. Variations from the provisions of this
section, "Design Standards," may be granted by special review as provided for in
Chapter 26.64.
5. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units
shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.48, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of
new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with
the requirements of Chapter 26.100, Growth Management Quota System.
6. School land dedication standards.
C. Dedication Schedule.
1. Land Dedication. School land dedications
shall be assessed according to
the following schedule:
Unit Type
Land Dedication Standard
Dormitory
.0000 acres (0 sq., ft.)
Studio/One bedroom
.0012 acres (52 sq. ft.)
Two bedroom
.0095 acres (416 sq. ft.)
Three bedroom
.0162 acres (707 sq. ft.)
Four bedroom
.0248 acres (10.81 sq. ft.)
Five bedroom
.0284 acres (1236 sq. ft.)
2. Cash -in -lieu payment. An applicant may make a cash payment in -lieu of
dedicating land to the City, or make a cash payment in combination with
a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this section. Because
the cost of subdivided land in the City of Aspen, the School District and
Staff Comments 10
Aspen have decided to require payment of a cash -in -lieu amount which
is less than the full market value of the land area. The formula to
determine the amount of cash -in -lieu payment for each residential
dwelling unit is as follows:
Market value of land x applicable land dedication standard x 0.33 = cash payment.
Payment of cash -in -lieu of a land dedication shall be made to the City prior to and on a
proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential dwellings.
REZONING:
Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to Rezoning
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation
facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency
medical facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the. City of Aspen.
Staff Comments 11
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Commission makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all standards set forth below.
B. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever off-street parking requirements of a
proposed development are subject to establishment and/or mitigation via a payment in lieu by
special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions
are met:
1. In all zone districts where the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development
are subject to establishment and/or mitigation by special review, the applicant shall demonstrate
that the parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project have been
met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the
project, the projected impacts onto the on -street parking of the neighborhood, its proximity to
mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for
residents, guests, and employees.
Staff Comments 12
V,7A*
TO:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Develop ent Directo
Mitch Haas, Interim Deputy Director •
DATE: March 16, 1999
RE: Barbee Final Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, Rezoning, and
Special Review for Parking -- Public Hearing
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Mary Barbee, John Barbee, Hallie Rugheimer, and Aspen-Pitkin
Employee Housing Inc., obtained conceptual PUD approval in January of 1998
pursuant to Ordinance 44, Series of 1997. The development proposed is for 10 new
residential units falling within the 70-30 "mix" allowed in the Affordable Housing Zone
District. The site is located at the base of West Aspen or "Shadow" Mountain just
south of Koch -Lumber Park (see attached Exhibit "D"). The property includes a
substantial portion of Shadow Mountain which is proposed as a conservation parcel to
be deeded in fee to the City of Aspen. The following chart summarizes the proposed
mix of units:
Lot/Unit Type
Lot Size
FAR Proposed
1 / Free -Market
10200 s.f.
4,500 s.f.
2 / Free -Market
11,705 s.f.
4,500 s.f.
3 / Free -Market
11,440 s.f.
4,500 s.f.
4 / Free -Market
11,440 s.f.
4,500 s.f.
5 / RO
6,318 s.f.
2,575 s.f.
6 / RO
5,887 s.f.
2;575 s.f.
7 / RO
11,736 s.f.
2,575 s.f.
8 / Category
3,017 s.f.
1,400 s.f.
9 / Category
2,259 s.f.
1,400 s.f.
10 / Category
2,211 s.f.
1,400 s.f.
11 / Category
2,255 s.f.
1,400 s.f.
The Conceptual approval addressed only the PUD review criteria. This Final PUD
application also includes land use requests for Subdivision, Rezoning, and Special
Review for Parking. The land use request for growth management exemptions will be
considered for recommendation by the Growth Management Commission (also
scheduled for March 16, at 5:30 PM as a separate public hearing) and finally decided
upon by City Council. City Council's'review will consider the recommendations of the
Planning and Zoning Commission, the Housing Authority, and the Growth
Management Commission.
The applicant has addressed most of the concerns raised during the conceptual review.
Accommodations for architectural and landscape consistency, shared access ways,
utility easements, site lighting, legal instruments for the conveyance of the conservation
parcel, draft plats, engineering schematics, and a draft Subdivision Improvements
Agreement have all been included in the application.
The majority of staff s comments are included in Exhibit "A" of this memorandum.
Major points of discussion have been summarized below.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a
recommendation of approval for this Final PUD/Subdivision and Rezoning to the
City Council, with conditions, and approve the Special Review for Parking.
APPLICANT:
Mary Barbee, John Barbee, Hallie Rugheimer, and Aspen-Pitkin Employee Housing
Inc., all represented by Sunny Vann and Associates.
LOCATION:
Approximately the corner of Juan and S. Garmisch Streets. Lots 1 and 2 of Block 11,
and Lots 1-9 of Block 5, City and Townsite of Aspen, plus additional metes and bounds
within City of Aspen and Pitkin County as shown on the Site Improvements Survey
(see attached vicinity map, Exhibit "D").
ZONING:
The portions of the subject property currently within the City of Aspen are zoned R-
15/PUD/L and Conservation. Portions of the property in the County are zoned AFR-10
and R-15/PUD. The applicant is seeking annexation into the City for the County
portion of the property and a rezoning to AH1/PUD. This will be accomplished prior to
the recordation of a final plat and SIA.
LOT SIZE:
17.695 acres, or approximately 770,794 square feet.
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
Most of the subject property consists of slopes of greater than 30%. Subtracting areas
of slopes and the proposed access easements, the following lot areas apply for FAR and
Density:
FAR shall be based on 761,130 s.f. of Lot Area.
Density shall be based on — 109,144 s.f. of Lot Area.
These are preliminary figures to be confirmed by the City Zoning Officer during
building permit review.
ALLOWABLE FAR AND DENSITY (UNDER AH-1/PUD ZONING:
FAR — 145,565 square feet by right, can be increased by Special Review.
2
Density — for single family and duplex units: 36 units (109,144 _ 3,000).
PROPOSED FAR AND DENSITY:
FAR — 31,325 square feet.
Density — 10 new units plus one existing unit = 11 units.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Single-family residence, assorted outbuildings.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Same, but with ten (10) additional residences and two carport structures. The majority
of the property is proposed to be deeded as a conservation parcel.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission considered and recommended approval of the conceptual PUD with
the conditions incorporated into Ordinance 44, Series of 1997, included in the
application packet.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Final Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, Rezoning. The Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider the application at a hearing and recommend approval,
approval with conditions, or denial to City Council.
Special Revieiv. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the application at a hearing.
The Growth Management Commission will formulate a recommendation on the
requested exemptions during a separate public hearing.
BACKGROUND:
The property is currently in two jurisdictions. The applicant has requested annexation
into the City and this action will take place concurrent with or after final land use
approval from City Council. The actions taken by the Commission are subject to
annexation of the property and become void if the land is not annexed into the City.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The City Planning Department is concerned about community character, sense of place,
and sense of pride residents have in the City, and the ways in which development
affects these perceptions through visual appearance. The following concerns remain as
issues to be resolved on this project.
Shared Access Ways: The Planning and Zoning Commission raised a concern about the
multiple curb cuts on Garmisch Street and the affect of garage doors on the facades of
3
both the free-market homes and on the RO homes. The applicant has responded by
providing a shared access drive between Lots 3 and 4.
Staff believes that this is a step in the right direction, but we recommend that the shared
driveway access easement be placed between Lots 2 and 3, and that Lot 4 be accessed
through the shared driveway (Lot 12), behind the carport structure. Staff believes that
this will have the effect of minimizing the extent of garages on the front facades. As
the RO units come in for building permit, staff will evaluate each design for compliance
with the Residential Design Standards, including how the garages are handled.
Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk: During the conceptual review, planning staff expressed a
desire for the edge of this project to be designed in a less urban manner. The
Commission agreed and the applicant was required to investigate the design of the curb,
gutter, and sidewalk with representatives of the Streets, Parks, Engineering, and
Planning Departments. The applicant did discuss this treatment with Engineering and
Streets, who requested a more urban approach to the curb, gutter and sidewalk design.
The City Planning Department prefers this standard be met with a less urban treatment
and suggests the Commission and Council consider requiring a drainage swale in the
median, planted with tall native grasses and street trees, with a detached sidewalk. This
type of treatment is more appropriate for the transitional edge of the city and will lessen
the visual contrast prescribed by the subdivision standards. Planning staff believes this
type of treatment is more visually appropriate, can accomplish the same purposes as a
more urban treatment, and elevates community character, sense of place, and
neighborhood pride in this area. The applicant will be required to enter into an
agreement for future improvements.
Preservation of Existing Large Shed located nearest to Dean Street: During the
conceptual review, staff urged the developer to find a mechanism to preserve some
aspect of the large existing shed on the property. It is important to point out that this
shed is not protected by the City's Historic Preservation regulations and the developer
is under no obligation to preserve the structure. However, regardless of the shed's
technical value as a historic structure, the City Planning Department believes these old
sheds are important reminders of the City's history — as a type of visual reference to the
Aspen society and culture as it has changed through time.
Staff still believes this structure, or some part thereof, could and should be incorporated
into the development plans, such as the stree-side view of the carport structure. The
structure could also be preserved on one of the proposed lots, or moved to another
location in town and re -used. The structure is located approximately where the
proposed shared driveway between Lots 3 and 4 is located.
Variances: First, the applicant is requesting approval of smaller lots and zero lot line
setbacks to allow for the creation of duplexes on individual lots, rather than with shared
ownership. This also saves the applicant from having to amend the plat in the future to
0
condominiumize the duplexes and separate ownership. This variation is appropriate
and is recommended by staff.
The second variation is for the front yard setback of Lot # 1. The R-15 zoning requires
this distance be 25 feet. However, the existing house is much closer to the street and
the back of the proposed lot rises significantly. The applicant has proposed a 10 foot
setback and a building envelope. Staff supports this variation for three reasons: 1) the
R-15 zoning is the most appropriate for the location of the property; 2) the 10 foot
setback will be consistent with the remainder of the development being proposed and
with existing development in the area; and, 3) the proposed building envelope and
minimized front yard will protect the steep area of the lot from development — a
preferred development approach.
Summary: With the .exception of the issues addressed above, the applicant has
accommodated the concerns expressed by the Planning staff and the Commission in this
application. The application is complete and includes all additional information
requested during the initial review including suggestion made by staff and the
Commission.
The conceptual review approval included a request for an application for 8040
Greenline Review if the completed survey information determined that the proposed
development was in the overlay area. After reviewing the completed survey, no
proposed development is in the 8040 jurisdiction and therefore, no review is required.
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." A vicinity map has been included as Exhibit "D."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of
approval to the City Council for this development application, with the following
conditions:
1. The Land Use action is subject to annexation of the property into the City of Aspen. Failure to
complete annexation within 180 days of this approval shall render this land use action void,
unless the timeframe is extended by City Council.
2. Following annexation, but within 180 days after final land use approval by City Council and
prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Final PUD/Subdivision
development plan. This plan shall include all necessary plat requirements of the City
Engineer including site plans, grading plans, utility plans, any physical improvements
required to mitigate for additional air quality impacts as determined by the City
Environmental Health Department, all utility easements, architectural plans and elevations,
and a landscape plan.
3. Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit,
the applicant shall record a PUD/Subdivision Improvements Agreement binding the property,
6i
the Barbee Subdivision, to this development approval. The Agreement shall describe all
subdivision and PUD improvements, requirements, and restrictions, and maintenance, and
shall provide financial assurance to the City for said improvements and the success of the site
landscaping for a period of two (2) years after installation. The agreement shall be reviewed
concurrently with the final plat and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation.
4. That the following description of each Lot's development provisions be included in the final
Ordinance:
Requirements Common to Entire Development
Lot Dimensions: As represented on Final Plat.
Minimum distance between buildings: 10 Feet.
Maximum height (including viewplanes): 25 Feet.
Building Envelope: No development other than approved landscape
materials on natural grade, approved access ways,
and approved driveways may occur outside of the
building envelope, as represented on the final plat
and within the setbacks.
Minimum percent open space: No requirement (building envelopes).
Lot 1 (existing Free -Market)
Zone District:
R-15/PUD
Allowable Floor Area:
4,500 s.f.
Setbacks:
Minimum front yard:
10 feet.
Minimum rear yard:
Varies, refer to building envelope on final plat.
Minimum side yards:
North and East sides 10 feet each.
Lot 2 (Free -Market
Zone District:
AH I /PUD
Allowable Floor Area:
4,500 s.f.
Setbacks:
Minimum front yard:
10 feet.
Minimum rear yard:
60 feet.
Minimum side yards:
10 feet.
Lot 3 (Free -Market
Zone District:
AH I /PUD
Allowable Floor Area:
4,500 s.f.
Setbacks:
Minimum front yard:
10 feet.
Minimum rear yard:
50 feet.
Minimum side yards:
10 feet.
Lot 4 (Free -Market
Zone District:
AH 1 /PUD
Allowable Floor Area:
4,500 s.f.
Setbacks:
Minimum front yard:
10 feet.
Minimum rear yard:
50 feet.
Minimum side yards:
10 feet.
rl
Lot 5 (resident occupied)
Zone District:
Allowable Floor Area:
Maximum Gross Floor Area
Setbacks:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot 6 (resident occupied)
Zone District:
Allowable Floor Area:
Maximum Gross Floor Area:
Setbacks:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot 7 (resident occupied)
Zone District:
Allowable Floor Area:
Maximum Gross Floor Area:
Setbacks:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot 8 (category unit)
Zone District:
Allowable Floor Area:
Setbacks:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot 9 (category unit)
Zone District:
Allowable Floor Area:
Setbacks:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot 10 (cateeory unit)
Zone District:
Allowable Floor Area:
Setbacks:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot 11 (category unit)
Zone District:
Allowable Floor Area:
AH 1 /PUD
2,575 s.f as measured pursuant to City Zoning.
Pursuant to APCHA Guidelines for RO Units.
10 feet.
Varies, refer to building envelope on final plat.
North 10 feet; South 15 feet.
AH 1 /PUD
2,575 s.f as measured pursuant to City Zoning.
Pursuant to APCHA Guidelines for RO Units.
10 feet.
Varies, refer to building envelope on final plat.
10 feet.
AH 1/PUD
2,575 s.f as measured pursuant to City Zoning
Pursuant to APCHA Guidelines for RO Units.
10 feet.
Varies, refer to building envelope on final plat.
North 10 feet; South 15 feet.
aAH 1 /PUD
1,400 s.f plus a 500 s.f. basement.
35 feet from southern -most lot line.
10 feet.
east 0 feet; west 9 feet.
AH 1 /PUD
1,400 s.f plus a 500 s.f. basement.
27 feet.
10 feet.
east 7 feet; 0 feet.
AH 1 /PUD
1,400 s.f plus a 500 s.f. basement.
14 feet.
10 feet.
east 0 feet; west 7 feet.
AH 1 /PUD
1,400 s.f plus a 500 s.f. basement.
7
Setbacks:
Minimum front yard:
Minimum rear yard:
Minimum side yards:
Lot 12 (shared access parcel)
Zone District:
Allowed Uses:
Allowable Floor Area:
Setbacks:
Trash access area:
Conservation Parcel
6 feet.
10 feet.
east 14 feet; west 0 feet.
AH 1 /PUD
10 carport parking spaces, trash, snow storage, uses accessory
to use of residential lots. Residential use shall require a
substantial PUD amendment.
10 covered carports in two structures as represented on final
plat.
As represented on final plat.
Minimum 10 feet wide, unobstructed.
Zone District: Conservation
Allowed Development and Uses: Uses allowed in the Conservation Zone District and allowed
pursuant to the Deed of Conservation Easement, as amended.
Uses and development necessary for community health and
safety reasons may occur on this parcel.
5. The City shall accept title to the "conservation parcel" only after the City Attorney has
reviewed all aspects of the Bargain Sale Deed, the Deed of Conservation Easement, and is
satisfied that no inordinate liability issues exist with respect to prior mining activities on the
parcel. To satisfy this concern, the City may require areas of mining activity to be mitigated,
or otherwise properly treated, or a legal instrument indemnifying the City prior to
conveyance. The title shall be clear that a trail easement will be conveyed and allowed in this
Conservation Area.
6. Replacement after demolition of the existing single-family residence on Lot 41 shall require a
GMQS Exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.050, as amended.
7. The Home Owners' Association, or similar entity responsible for Lot 412, the common
access way, shall install a stop sign at the exit of the access way at such time determined
necessary for public safety by the City Engineer.
8. Access to Lots 3 and 4 shall be via the shared access easement as described on the final plat.
The City Engineer shall issue only one curb cut permit between these two Lots.
9. All Lots are subject to the City's Residential Design Standards, as amended. Lots 1-4 shall
be included in the Architectural Guidelines, as proposed in Exhibit C of the draft SIA. Lot #1
shall be subject to the provisions of the Landscape Guidelines, as proposed in Exhibit B of
the draft SIA upon redevelopment of the Lot. All other aspects of the Residential Design
Standard, as amended, applicable to all Lots of this Subdivision may be appealed to the
Design Review Appeal Committee pursuant to section 26.58, as amended. If an appeal is
sought, the Architectural Guidelines applicable to this Subdivision and the proposed
development's conformance to said guidelines shall be considered.
10. For purposes of calculating the fee -in -lieu of school land dedication, the building permit
application for each lot shall include an appraisal of the lot's fair market value. The City shall
retain the right to concur with the fair market value represented by the owner or obtain a third
0
party appraisal performed by an agreed upon real estate appraiser at the sole cost of the lot
owner.
11. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for an individual lot, the. School Land Dedication Fee
shall be paid in full pursuant to the following calculation formula:
(Fair Market Value per square foot of the Lot) x (.33) x (applicable dedication standard for unit)
The applicable dedication standard varies depending upon unit size pursuant to Section
26.88.040, as amended.
12. Prior to recordation of the final plat, an air quality mitigation plan shall be submitted to the
City Environmental Health Department for approval. Physical improvements to the site
required for mitigation shall.be delineated on the final plat.
13. A Building Permit application for any and all lots shall include a fugitive dust mitigation plan
for review and approval by the City Environmental Health Department.
14. Prior to issuance of a building permit for each and every lot, the applicant shall gain the
necessary permits from the Environmental Health Department for any fireplaces or wood
burning devices.
15. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Exceeding the City
Noise Ordinance may result in a stop work order.
16. The applicant shall provide a street light near the vehicular entrance to the development. The
standard for this light shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. All exterior
lighting, including street lights, shall be downcast, sharp cut-off, and not used to accentual
landscape or architectural features of the development. No exterior up -lighting is permitted.
No exterior floodlights are permitted.
17. The Community Development Dept. shall assign street addresses as follows: Lots 2-4 shall
receive numbers with a Garmisch Street address. Lots 5-11 shall receive numbers with a
Dean Street address.
18. The applicant is strongly encouraged to protect the existing shed north of the existing parking
pad (approximately Lot 4 of Block 5). The structure could be preserved permanently on -site
as a cultural landscape feature, preserved temporarily on -site until development and moved to
a receiving site, or the facades could be incorporated into the Garmisch Street side of the
carport structure. If preserved for storage use, its FAR shall be exempt.
19. The applicant shall redesign the edge of the S. Garmisch Street R.O.W to provide a drainage
swale with native grasses and a pedestrian path constructed with crusher fines over a
compacted road base material. The design presented in the final application may be
constructed only if the City Engineer determines the redesign un-workable.
20. Six (6) street trees shall be provided along the Garmisch Street R.O.W or Midland Trail in
locations approved by the City Forester considering the storage of plowed snow. These trees
shall be three -inches or greater in caliper if deciduous or at east six feet in height if
coniferous.
21. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant will be required to gain approval for a
line extension and a collection system agreement from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District. For the duplex units, a shared service agreement may be required. There exists a
possibility that gravity service from Lots 5-7 will require a pump system; if so, its design
must be approved by ACSD and the City Engineer.
22. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for any Lot, adequate silt fencing shall be erected to
ensure that no sediment -loaded drainage will be leaving the property during construction.
This fencing shall remain in place until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the respective
Lot.
23. Prior to applying for a Building Permit for any Lot, the applicant shall complete and record
an agreement to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing
improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. This agreement can
be recorded with the plat and SIA documents.
24. Building Permit applications for any and all lots shall include payment of a $50.00 per lot fee
in lieu of digital submission requirements.
25. Any work within public rights -of -way shall gain approval from the appropriate City
Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for a mailbox and landscaping
from the City Streets Department.
26. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and
Recorder.
27. That the plat be modified to included a shared access/driveway easement between Lots 2 and 3;
and a shared access easement to serve Lot 4 via the common driveway serving the remaining
lots, and entering Lot 4 behind the carports.
28. That the City Council determine'the final "mix" of categories to be assigned to Lots 8, 9, 10,
and 11.
29. 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.
30. That the language of these conditions as finally approved by the approporiate authority
be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit set of plans and all other sets made
for the purpose of construction.
31. That the applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of all P&Z,
GMC, and City Council resolutions and ordinances applicable to this project. The
contractor must submit a letter as part of the building permit application indicating that
conditions of approval are known and understood.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the Special Review for Parking for the Barbee Affordable housing
development and recommend City Council approve the Barbee Final PUD/Subdivision
and Rezoning, with the conditions outlined in the Staff memo dated March 16, 1999."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A --
Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B --
Comments from Referral Agencies
Exhibit C --
Application
Exhibit D --
Vicinity Map
10
EXHIBIT A
Staff Comments: Barbee Planned Unit Development
A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and
requirements:
1. General Requirements:
A. The proposed development shall be. consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff Finding:
Community Vision: The proposed development increases resident housing opportunities,
encourages a balanced permanent community, may provide residents with a
transportation alternative if they choose to walk to town, work, etc., and is a relatively
sustainable development pattern.
Community Vitality: The proposed development is 70% affordable, addressing the
community's desire to provide affordable housing opportunities within a reasonable
walking distance to employment and recreation resources. The proposed development is
an in-fillsite within, or approximately within, the original townsite. Increased residential
density, especially for local working residents, within the functional town promotes a
sense of community that cannot be achieved by placing that critical mass in a remote
location, regardless of where the metro area or extended metro boundaries exist.
Open Space and Environment: Providing housing opportunities within walking distance
to employment, entertainment, recreation, and other residences reduces the need to use a
vehicle for every trip. Also, compact development within the townsite reduces the need
to extend services and develop land on the outskirts of town, and preserves those natural
open space areas for their wildlife and aesthetic functions.
The proposal is preserving areas that are clearly not appropriate for development. The
proposal also preserves the bench area above the proposed RO lots, just above the Little
Cloud Subdivision. It is important to underscore this preservation because this area could
be expensive "view lots" with dramatic affects upon the visual openness of the mountain.
Staff believes this approach .to development is the most desired for this parcel and is
appreciative of the site planning and preservation.
1993 AACP: This project addresses elements of the existing AACP. Specifically, it
`creates a housing environment dispersed, appropriately scaled, and affordable. 'And, it
preserves and enhances the natural beauty of the area. '
1999 AACP: This document has not been adopted. However, the draft document
provides substantial support for affordable housing to be located in town where it protects
Staff Comments 1
surrounding open spaces outside of town and where the residents can become integral
members of the social fabric. The plan also supports the preservation of natural open
space areas such as the proposed conservation parcel for Shadow Mountain.
Interim Housing Guidelines:
The development proposed is consistent with the Interim (Citizen) Housing Guidelines
adopted by the City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions. The development is
within the Metro Area, is within walking distance of the community core, preserves a
significant amount of natural lands, represents quality design visually appropriate for the
neighborhood, integrates different social levels within one project, is an optimum
development level for this site, and does not promote urban sprawl. In addition, this
project is proposed with no public subsidy and is not expected to have a significant
negative fiscal impact upon the City or its taxpayers.
B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding:
Surrounding development to the northeast consists of multi -family housing, a park, older
lodge conversions, and future potential mini -base development for Lift 1 or `Town Lift.'
There is virtually no development, or potential for development, to the Southeast of the
site which is compatible with the open space easement proposed. The proposed
development is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Staff Finding:
The surrounding area's development or redevelopment potential will not be affected by
this development. Redevelopment of the largely vacant areas to the east have sufficient
access from surrounding streets and a platted alleyway.
D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which
GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant.
Staff Finding:
Although exempt from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures, the application
must receive development allotments for 10 residential units. The Growth Management
Commission will consider this case and make a recommendation to City Council. The
GMC public hearing is also scheduled for March 16, 1999, at 5:30 PM.
2. Density:
A. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone
district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced if:
l . There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to serve the proposed
development;
2. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development;
3. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of slope,
ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers;
4. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed,
due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution;
Staff Comments 2
5. The proposed development will have deleterious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the city; or
6. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the
proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful
disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding:
The density proposed on this site is far below that allowed by the gross lot size. There
are sufficient utilities and services to accommodate this development. The access to the
RO and Category lots has been designed in cooperation with the Fire Marshall and is
adequate for fire protection service. The portion of the property where development is
proposed is. suitable for development: The applicant has not provided an Air Quality
Mitigation Plan in the final application. The Environmental Health Department has
suggested several recommendations, and the applicant is reviewing final details of the
recommended mitigation measures. The location of the proposed development does not
appear to be in conflict with the natural terrain and features of the site.
B. Reduction in density for slope consideration.
1. In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and
guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in
areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent in the following manor:
a. For lands between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent slope, the maximum density
allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district.
b. For lands between twenty-one (21) and thirty (30) percent slope, the maximum
density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50) percent of that permitted in the
underlying zone district.
c. For lands between thirty-one (3 1) and forty (40) percent slope, the density shall be
reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone district.
d. For lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope, no density credit shall be allowed.
2. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be
calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary
in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit.
3. For parcels resting in more than one (1) zone district, the density reduction calculation
shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district.
4. Density shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04, Definition of Lot Area.
Staff Finding:
The application specifies the percentages of the property falling within the described
slope classifications. A substantial portion of the property is steep and does not
contribute to development potential. As a general guideline, the flat portion of the
property is the only portion which has development potential both in physical location
and zoning (density and floor area). However, even considering the steep topography, the
site has far more development potential than is being proposed. In this case, the
community gains the assurance of an appropriate level of development notwithstanding
the high level of potential development.
3. 'Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone
district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a
zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall
only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district.
Staff Comments 3
Staff Finding:
The application includes a request to rezone the property to AH1/PUD. The present
zoning, both City and County, allows for residential development in varying densities.
The applicant is proposing the duplexes in a clustered, zero lot line configuration.
4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the
underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in the
following:
a. Minimum distance between buildings;
b. Maximum height (including viewplanes);
c. Minimum front yard;
d. Minimum rear yard;
e. Minimum side yard;
f. Minimum lot width;
g. Minimum lot area;
h. Trash access area;
i. Internal floor area ratio; and
J. Minimum percent open space.
If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the
minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided that the total area of all lots, when
averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any variation permitted
shall be clearly indicated on the final plat development plan.
Staff Finding:
This PUD will establish the dimensional requirements for Lots 1-12. Two variations to
the underlying zone district are proposed. The first is to the minimum lot size for Lots 9,
10, and 11. The minimum lot size for a fathering parcel this large is 3,000 s.f. The
minimum lot area per unit in a duplex configuration, however, is 1,500 s.f. This
essentially allows for a duplex on a 3,000 s.f. lot but does not allow for the duplexes to sit
on their own fee simple property. Upon completion, the developer usually
condominiumizes the shared property to separate ownership to allow each unit to sit on
its own land as a limited common element.
The smaller lot and a zero lot line setback allows for the creation of duplexes on
individual lots rather than with shared ownership. This also saves the applicant from
having to amend the plat in the future to condominiumize the duplexes and separate
ownership. This variation is appropriate and is recommended by staff.
The second variation is for the front yard setback of Lot 41. The R-15 zoning requires
this distance be 25 feet. However, the existing house is much closer to the street and the
back of the proposed lot rises significantly. The applicant has proposed a 10 foot setback
and a building envelope. Staff supports this variation for three reasons: 1) the R-15
zoning is the most appropriate for the location of the property; 2) the 10 foot setback will
be consistent with the remainder of the development being proposed and with existing
development in the area; and, 3) the proposed building envelope and minimized front
yard will protect the steep area of the lot from development — a preferred development
approach.
Staff Comments 4
Staff supports the proposed dimensional requirements as outlined in the main body of this
memorandum.
5. Off-street parking. The number of off -.street parking spaces may be varied from
that required in the underlying zone district based on the following
considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development.
b. The parking need of any nonresidential units. .
c. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed.
d. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for
pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the
proposed development.
e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreational
facilities in the city.
Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain assurance that
the nature of the occupancy will not change
Staff Finding:
The proposed underlying zone district(AHl), mandates that parking requirements be
established through Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
proposal includes at least 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, which is the minimum for
development city-wide. The RO and Free Market lots shall provide two spaces pursuant
to the City's parking standards at the time of actual development. The Category units are
provided with two spaces per unit with an additional two spaces for guests. The Special
Review standards are provided later in this section. Staff is recommending Special
Review approval for the parking proposal.
6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone
district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such
variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD, and if
the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all
development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area.
An area may be approved as a common park or recreation area if it:
a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and
b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom the common
area is intended.
A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in
perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD), together
with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development.
Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned
facilities.
Staff Finding:
The Conservation parcel will be deeded to the City with the surface easement granted to
the Aspen Valley Land Trust. The legal instruments to protecting the area have been
provided to and reviewed by the Parks Department who intends to maintain a trail
easement.
No common area for recreation is required and none is proposed. Thus, no legal
apparatus for its maintenance has been provided. The maintenance, repair, and
Staff Comments 5
snowplowing of Lot # 12 (access parcel) has been defined in the proposed SIA. The
responsibility of this will lie with a condominium association, including Lots 5-12.
7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan
a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces.
It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that
are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding:
The Final Development Plan includes a Landscape Plan for the Category parcels and the
access parcel. This plan provides a reasonable amount and variety of plantings
appropriate for the neighborhood and the climate.
Landscape guidelines for the remaining parcels have been supplied to ensure some
consistency between parcels without significantly restricting personal choice. These
guidelines are appropriate and adequately address the concerns about visual consistency
between parcels.
Adequate areas for snow storage have been delineated. The access drive has been slightly
shortened and the snow storage is not expected to encroach on the Midland Trail — a
concern raised during conceptual review.
8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final
development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural
consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the
purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly
enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building,
or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based
upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon appropriate use of
materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings
with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize
disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing
vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion.
Staff Finding:
Building envelopes have been placed appropriately considering the natural terrain and
surrounding land uses. Architectural plans and elevations for the Category units have
been included in this application. The proportions, massing, and materials are
appropriate.
During the conceptual review, staff expressed a desire that the free-market and RO
buildings be of similar architectural character to the Category structures because of their
proximity. This was not an attempt to control style but rather to minimize contrast. The
applicant has proposed architectural guidelines to ensure some compatibility with the
Category units without being so strict as to limit creativity and personal expression.
These are well prepared and more sensitive about materials, colors, and style than the
City's more objective standards. The lots not proposed for current construction are
subject to the City's Residential Design Standards. Staff recommends that in the case of
Staff Comments 6
an appeal of the standards, that these architectural guidelines for the PUD should also be
considered.
During the conceptual review, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
expressed a desire for combined vehicular entrances to reduce the street presence of
driveways and garage doors. Suggestion for combining lot access way were discussed
and the applicant agreed to study those possibilities. The applicant has proposed
combining driveways between Lots 3 and 4. Staff is recommending that the shared
driveway access easement be placed between Lots 2 and 3, and that Lot 4 use the
common driveway with access behind the carports.
9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands.
Staff Finding:
Lighting shall be downcast. No lighting of landscape elements or architectural features
should be allowed. This will be included as a recommended condition in the final
Ordinance.
10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged.
Staff Finding:
The development has been clustered. The entire site is 17 acres with approximately 13.6
acres set aside for conservation. This leaves less than 4 acres available for development,
which is less than 24% of the site. Therefore, all development would be clustered onto
less than one quarter (1 /4) of the entire property.
11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate
public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at
the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for
the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged
such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles.
Staff Finding:
The proposed access way and fire suppression has been designed to accommodate the
Fire Marshall's requirements as explained evident in Exhibit 4 of Appendix C (in Exhibit
44U
The City Engineer has requested a ten (10) foot strip of land be dedicated to the City
R.O.W. in front of Lot # 1 upon that lot's redevelopment. This area is required to
accommodate the full requirements for the R.O.W.
There exist sufficient utilities in the immediate area to accommodate this development.
The applicant is obligated to provide for utility upgrades and extensions.
An easement to access the existing manhole near the front steps of the existing house has
been proposed on the final plat. This easement addresses the request of the ACSD.
The Sanitation District will require a line extension, a collection system agreement, and
possibly a shared service agreement for the duplexes. There may exist an elevation
problem for gravity lines from the RO Lots to the trunk line on S. Garmisch Street. The
Staff Comments 7
applicant should consult with the ACSD to determine if a pump system or alternative fall
line can be designed to accommodate sanitation service. Staff recommends this issue be
finalized prior to acceptance of an application for a building permit.
The Engineering and Streets Departments are asking for the development of curb and
gutter with this project. The Planning Department is hoping the same operational goals
for drainage, snowplowing, etc. can be achieved with a less urban treatment such as a
drainage swale and a detached sidewalk. Planning staff prefers this type of treatment
based on the location -of the site on the edge of the City and the transition from an urban
to more natural character.
12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation.
a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall
have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian
way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with
controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor
streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside
the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic.
c. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the
arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding
collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected.
d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or
drive providing access to a public street.
e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct
access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any
street.
f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained
under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all
pertinent city regulations and ordinances.
Staff Finding:
The proposed development meets these standards. Each lot created has adequate access
to public rights -of -way. The land owners sharing Lot 12 will be responsible for
maintaining safe access.
Staff Comments: Barbee Subdivision
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and
requirements:
1. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses
in the area.
c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Comments 8
Staff Finding:
The proposed development meets these standards. Please refer to staff s findings for these
criteria under the PUD review, pages 1 and 2 of this section.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of
this title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed Subdivision is in compliance with applicable requirements of the land use code
considering the variations recommended for approval and the conditions proposed by staff.
2. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable
for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow,
rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography, or any other natural hazard or
other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety,` or welfare of the residents in
the proposed subdivision.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public
facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding:
The city staff has reviewed this project and found that with the clustering proposal, the land
proposed to be developed is suitable, and the layout of the subdivision is spatially efficient.
3. Improvements. The improvements outlined in Section 26.88.040(C)(3) must be provided.
Staff Finding:
The City Engineer has reviewed the engineering documents provided in the application and
provided referral comments. The applicant shall provide lot pins for each lot and provide range
points and monuments within the S. Garmisch Street R.O.W. as determined necessary by the City
Engineer. All street improvements and repairing shall be accomplished pursuant to the final plat
documents. A new street name is not necessary as the parcels can be numbered with a Dean
Street address. Traffic control signs are not expected to be necessary, however, the homeowners'
association should be required to install a stop sign at the exit of the access way at any time the
City Engineer feels the sign is necessary for safety reasons. The installation of six street trees are
required. The installation of the appropriate site utilities and drainage has been included in the
provided engineering drawings for the final plat.
4. Design Standards. The design standards of section 26.88.040(C)(4) shall be complied with.
a. Streets and Related Improvements.
Staff Finding:
The City Engineer has requested a 10 foot wide strip of land in front of Proposed Lot # 1 be
dedicated to the City right-of-way upon the redevelopment of that parcel. This is to correct for a
deficient width of the R.O.W. and to allow for safe travel and maintenance of the roadway. The
setback and building envelope for that parcel shall be adjusted to correspond with the new
property line after the dedication. Dedication of this strip shall be noted on the final plat. The
status of the northeasterly corner shall be verified on the final plat.
The proposed access way meets these standards and is adequate for fire access. Final paving of
the new access way and the final overlay on S. Garmisch Street shall not be completed until one
year after all subsurface improvements are completed unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
Staff Comments 9
Street names. The three new parcels along S. Garmisch Street shall be numbered with S.
Garmisch Street addresses. The seven new parcels accessed from the new drive shall be
numbered with Dean Street addresses, unless an alternative street name is proposed and accepted
by City Council. The homeowners' association shall be responsible for traffic control signs if a
safety issue arises in the future, as determined by the City Engineer.
The City Engineer has requested the provision of two street lights along the property. This is
different from the one street light requested at the access way entrance by the City Engineer
during the conceptual review and as proposed by the applicant. The City Planning Department
believes the one street light proposed by the applicant is sufficient for safety and meets the
standard as provided above. This opinion is based on the exact letter of the law, the opinion of
the City Engineer during conceptual review, the relatively low traffic levels on this portion of S.
Garmisch Street, and the desire to not over -urbanize the edge of town with excessive outdoor
lighting. Too much lighting detracts from safety by causing glare.
The proposed curb, sidewalk, and planting buffer is adequate and meets city standards.
However, this type of urban treatment may contrast the less urban context of the neighborhood
and the base of Shadow Mountain. The City Planning Office prefers this standard be met with a
less urban treatment and suggests the Commission and Council consider requiring a drainage
Swale, planted with tall native grasses and street trees, with a detached sidewalk. This type of
treatment is more appropriate for the transitional edge of the city and will lessen the visual
contrast prescribed by the subdivision standards.
Trees. One street tree per lot facing S. Garmisch Street would result in six trees. The applicant
shall install six street trees along the planting buffer of the street R.O.W. or in another suitable
location at the discretion of the City Forester. These trees shall be planted in a location where
they will not be crushed with plowed snow. These trees shall be three inches or greater in caliper
if deciduous, or at east six feet in height if coniferous.
b. Easements.
Staff Finding:
The final plat shall show and describe a general easement for access and maintenance of utilities
within the proposed access way (Lot 12) and specific easements for individual utility agencies as
required for above or below ground equipment, pedestals, and service personnel within Lot 12
and within Lots 5-11, as needed. Utility easements for Lots 1-4 shall be shown and described on
the final plat to the extent utilities are being currently provided. Otherwise, utility easements on
Lot 1-4 shall be provided at the time of actual development. Shared access easements shall also
be placed on the plat.
c. Lots and blocks.
Staff Finding:
The proposed Lots meet the design standards for Lots and Blocks.
d. Survey Monuments.
Staff Finding:
The lots shall be pinned and monumented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If required by
the City Engineer, a range point shall be installed within the S. Garmisch Street R.O.W. and the
proposed access way.
Staff Comments 10
e. Utilities (Water, sewer, fire, and other).
Staff Finding:
The final plat shall show and describe plans and specifications for the provision of utilities.
Approval from the respective utility provider is required for the final plat. The applicant should
be aware that there may exist lack of elevation for gravity flow sanitary sewer from proposed
Lots 5-7 and a pump system may be required.
f. Storm Drainage.
Staff Finding:
The City Engineer concurs with the grading and drainage plans submitted for this review. These
plans shall be incorporated into the final plat. The applicant shall provide drainage control for
construction to limit sediment loaded drainage from exiting the property.
g. Flood hazard areas. The following standards shall apply to special flood hazard areas
as defined in Section 26.68.040 of the Municipal Code.
-Staff Finding:.
The subject lands are not within the flood hazard area.
h. The design and location of any proposed structure, building envelope, road,
driveway, trail, or other similar development is compatible with significant natural
or scenic features of the site.
Staff Finding:
The proposed development is preserving a substantial portion of the natural and scenic features
of the site.
i. Variations of design standards. Variations from the provisions of this section, "Design
Standards," may be granted by special review as provided for in Chapter 26.64.
Staff Finding:
The applicant is not seeking any variations form the Subdivision standards. Staff is
recommending varying the sidewalk, curb and gutter standards, but feels that the signing of an
improvements agreement is a commitment to meeting these standards.
5. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall
be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter
26.48, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.100, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Finding:
As a new subdivision that would be comprised of new dwelling units, the applicant is seeking
GMQS exemptions pursuant to the referenced section. No replacement dwelling units are
proposed.
6. School land dedication standards.
Staff Finding:
This is not an appropriate location for land dedication. Upon application for development each
Lot owner shall be responsible for the payment of the School Land Dedication Fee (payment -in -
lieu). This -fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the respective Lot at the time of
development, the land dedication standards applicable for the proposed development, and the
calculation formula as specified in the code. The City shall retain the right to concur with the fair
market value represented by the owner or obtain a third party appraisal performed by an agreed
upon real estate appraiser at the sole cost of the lot owner.
Staff Comments 11
STAFF COMMENTS: Barbee Rezoning
Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to Rezoning
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title.
Staff Finding:
The development proposed is proceeding through a Planned Unit Development review to ensure
consistency with all applicable City requirements.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
The rezoning allows for increased density for projects representing 70% affordable housing.
This incentive zone is consistent with the AACP and the development being proposed is in
substantial compliance with this community document. Please refer to the AACP compliance
criteria of PUD more fully responded to on pages 1 and 2 of this section.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding:
The rezoning, as well as the level and type of development being proposed is consistent with and
appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding:
The rezoning and the level of development being proposed does not represent an adverse effect
on road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public
facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
The rezoning and the level of development being considered is within the community's
infrastructure capabilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse
impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
The rezoning will not have significant adverse impacts upon the natural environment. In fact, a
large portion of the property is being preserved against development to the benefit of the natural
environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character
in the City of Aspen.
Staff Comments 12
Staff Finding:
A mix of free-market and affordable housing is appropriate for this neighborhood and the level of
density being proposed is appropriate for the edge of the City's urbanized area.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
The proposed amendment allows for development of the parcel with 70% of the units being deed
restricted to affordable housing and a substantial portion of the property being zoned
conservation. The removal of the Lodge (L) overlay on Lot # 1 is appropriate given the purely
residential use on either side of the lot.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent'of this title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed rezoning is not in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with the intent
of the municipal code.
STAFF COMMENTS: OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
No development subject to special review shall be. permitted unless the Commission makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all standards set forth below.
B. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever off-street parking requirements of a
proposed development are subject to establishment and/or mitigation via a payment
in lieu by special review, the development application shall only be approved if the
following conditions are met:
l . In all zone districts where the off-street parking requirements of a proposed
development are subject to establishment and/or mitigation by special
review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the
residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project have been met,
taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic
generation of the project, the projected impacts onto the on -street parking of
the neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown
area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests,
and employees.
Staff Finding:
The City-wide parking standards require one space per bedroom or two per unit, whichever is
fewer. For this project, two spaces per each unit is the requirement. The applicant has proposed
two spaces per each Category unit with an additional two spaces being provided for all guests.
The applicant has further proposed each of the free-market and RO Lots be required to provide
two off-street spaces. This Parking Special Review provision allows a developer to. request fewer
spaces than the City Code requires but does not allow the Commission to require more than the
City -Code. In the case where the developer is proposing a number of parking spaces in
conformance with the City Code the review is a mere formality. Staff is recommending the
Commission approve the Special Review for Parking for this project.
Staff Comments 13
C AIBrf'g'
1M[EM0RANDUjNJ
To: Chris Bendon, Project Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Protect 9ngmeer of
Date: March 9, 1999
Re: Barbee (Family) Subdivision and Final PUD
Physical Address: 601 South Garmisch Street. City of Aspen, CO
Legal Description: A 17.67 Ac. tract of land being a part of Lot 1, NE 1/4, NE 1/4, Section
13, T10S, R85W, of the 6th P.M., lying partially in both the City of
Aspen and Pitkin County, CO.
After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the
comments of the Engineering Department:
Summary: The applicants have satisfactorily addressed the majority of the principal
requirements and elements for the proposed subdivision. Further refinement will be required to
fill out the conceptual plans to construction plans.
Changes in Conditions & Subsequent Reviews: If the proposed use, density, or timing of
construction of the project change, or the site, 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 re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in
this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated November 22, 1997) 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, parking or utility
designs.
1. Improvement Survey & Rights -Of -Way: After minor corrections, the several
survey sheets included in the application should be included in the Final Subdivision / PUD plat
for the development.
2. Utility Services & Easements: The applicant should verify conformance with the
specific requirements for each utility provider. Construction plans must be approved by each
respective utility provider prior to building permit application.
The design engineer should re-evaluate the extension of sanitary sewer service lines to Lots 5, 6
and 7.
Water and electric utility meters and service connection points must be accessible to service
personnel in the completed project and not obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, parked
vehicles, other structures, landscape features, or vegetation. Any new surface utilities requiring a
DRCM6a99.DOC
1 OF 4
Memo - Barbee (Family) Subdivision and Final PUTD
pedestal or other above ground equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the
property owner and not located within the public right-of-way. As stated in the application, the
20 ft wide water main easement into the development will run through the driveway (Lot 12).
Any required easements for utilities shall be shown on the final subdivision plat submitted for
approval and shall also be shown on the plan sets submitted for building permits.
3. Final Plat, Agreements and Building Permits The applicant will prepare the
final subdivision/PUD plat, all agreements and fulfill the conditions of approval which precede
any construction activities prior to submitting any applications for building permits. Utility
providers will have signature blocks on the final plat for confirmation of compliance with their
standards for their respective utility systems.
A space 10 feet wide across the frontage of Lot 1 should be reserved for future right-of-way
dedication and identified as such on the subdivision plat.
4. Streets and Pedestrian Area: The intersection of S. Garmisch St. and Juan St. most
likely will require re -construction to improve the width, alignment and grading of the roadway
and to improve the storm drainage. We expect improvements to the adjacent streets will become
necessary, in part, as a result of this development. These improvements should include
pavement improvements, re -aligning, grading and reconstruction of the corner of S. Garmisch St.
and Juan St., street lighting, drainage, and landscaping. The street-scape improvements would
include curb, gutter and sidewalk, planted median, and street lighting.
5. Driveway Access: Given the irregular intersection geometry of S. Garmisch St. and
Juan St., the driveway to Lot 2 should be located at the northerly side of this lot to provide better
sight distance between the driveway and the intersection.
6. Redevelopment of Lot 1: If, or when the existing house on Lot 1 is removed, the
owner will dedicate ten (10) ft width of right-of-way to the City dependent upon the existing
width of the right-of-way and the needs of the City for such widening. Correspondingly, the
front setback line and building envelope for this lot should be set based upon the revised front lot
line after such adjustment, if a front lot line adjustment is completed.
7. Site Drainage and Erosion Control: The new development shall not release more
than historic storm run-off flows (in non -concentrated fashion) from the site and any increase in
historic storm run-off flows must be first routed and detained on the site. A drainage plan and
report by a currently licensed Colorado civil engineer shall be included in the site development
plans submitted for the individual free-market and deed restricted lots as each is developed. The
report should provide general construction techniques and details (minimum standards) for
erosion control and sediment transport control to be employed by the developer(s) when the
several residences are constructed. If the lots are developed individually, the property lines shall
be fenced with construction and sediment fencing prior to construction and shall be securely
DRCM6a99.DOC
2OF4
Memo - Barbee (Family) Subdivision and Final PUD
maintained until the later of either establishment of the permanent ground cover or issuance of a
C.O. for the project.
8. Mine Closures and Mine Tailing Clean-up: The property owners should provide full
disclosure of the conditions (size. depth, stability) of the shafts and mine openings to the City.
The several mine shaft openings and discovery shafts should be evaluated by a qualified,
independent party to determine if any reclamation activities need to be performed to secure the
mine workings and secure the sites as possible hazards to the future property owners and the
general public. The Colorado Geological Survey may perform the evaluations without charge
for the owners. If any remediation or closure work is recommended by the CGS, the owners
should arrange to complete the work prior to development of any housing units and prior to
conveyance of the open space parcel to the City. The Colorado Division of Minerals & Geology,
(Dept. of Natural Resources) can provide recommended design details and procedures for the
closure of mines.
9. Survey :Monument Records: The applicant's surveyor shall record the monument
records prescribed by State law. These records shall be filed before the recordation of the
subdivision/PUD plat and the proposed annexation of the parcel presently located in the county.
10. West Aspen Mountain Trail: The location of the existing hiking trail shall be included
on the Improvement Survey and on the final subdivision plat. If a new alignment is developed or
approved for the trail, this should be shown on the subdivision plat.
11. Water Wells and Water Rights: If there are any water wells on the subject
property, they will be properly abandoned and capped according to the City Water Department
standards prior to development of any housing units and prior to conveyance of the open space
parcel to the City. The owners will fulfill the requirements of the City Water Department for
new service and conveyance of water rights.
12. Underground Improvements: The owners will fully disclose the location and
condition of any underground improvements, facilities or services such as underground storage
tanks (USTs), wells, vaults, cellars, pipelines, etc. which may be located on the property.
13. Street Lighting: The applicants should provide a street light along the S.
Garmisch Street frontage of the 'property as per the site plan.
14. Rock Removal: The stone rip -rap along the westerly side of S. Garmisch St. may
need to be removed to permit the construction of the sidewalk and provide an easement for the
existing sanitary sewer main and manhole. This is contingent upon verification of the right-of-
way width and geometry.
DRCM6a99.DOC
3 OF 4
Memo - Barbee (Family) Subdivision and Final PUD
15. ADU Parking: If any ADUs are developed in the free-market homes, on -site
ADU parking will be provided for the unit(s) on the respective lot.
16. Standard Conditions of Construction: The standard conditions regarding
construction practices (e.g. dust, debris and drainage control on and around the site, traffic
control, temporary facilities and parking, etc.) will be required of the developer at the time of
construction. As -built records in. GIS compatible format will need to be submitted to the City
GIS Dept. to update the city records for the several stages of development. This condition also
applies to the individual development of the free-market lots.
DRCM6a99.DOC
4OF4
FEB 7 ** S9 12i PM PSPEI I -40 ISING VFW_
MEMORANDUM.
TO: Chris Bendon, Community Development Dept,
FROM: Cindy. Christensen, dousing Office
DATE: February 17, 1999
RE: Barbee Subdivision and Final PUD
Parcel ID No.2735-131-00-100
REQUEST: The applicant received conceptual approval to annex the County portion of
the property into the City and to subdivide the property into 12 lots for development
purposes and a conservation parcel. Lot 'I ccntains an existing single-family residence.
Lots 2, 3 and 4 are to constitute the projects .free-market component. The affordable
housing portion is to include three Resident Occupied single-family lots and two Category
4 duplexes. The duplexes are to contain three bedrooms and approximately 1,400
square feet of floor area, plus a 500 square foot basement. The RQ residences will be
restricted to a minimum of three bedrooms, maximum size of 2,200 gross square feeet, a
maximum .00 square foot garage and an 600 square foot basement.
RECO M NDATION: The Housing Board recommends approval of this project, but
would also like the opportunity to re-evaluate the designation of the duplex units to a
lower category. A condition of approval is recommended that would allow the review of
the pro formas to evaluate whether any or all of the units can be categorized to a lower
category.
%Mf@ aNWt:e.mh
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Community Development Department
From: Lee Cassin, City Environmental Health Director
Date: February 2,1999
Re: Barbee Subdivision and Final PUD
Parcel ID #2735-131-00-100
The Aspen/ Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under
authority of the Municipal Code of the Cit-,T of Aspen, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 "'it shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any building
used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on -site sewage disposal device."
The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 "All buildings, structures, facilities, parks, or the like within the
city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system."
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental
Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen water supply meets all
standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water quality.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 "For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply from
injure and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over
all streams and sources contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water
supplies are diverted."
The applicant has addressed this issue with the provision of drywells on site to detain runoff from
impervious areas. This drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive and
parking areas will be evaluated by the City Engineer.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of (the air quality section of the Municipal Code] to achieve the maximum practical
degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution
throughout the city..." The Land Use Regulations seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as
to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
The code requires that the proposed development not have a deleterious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the city. The primary negative effect on air quality of a residential
development is the traffic generated, and the resulting PMlo emissions. To meet the code
requirements, the development will need to determine which mitigation measures will be the
easiest for the applicant to implement. PM-10 (83% of which comes from traffic driving on paved
roads) is a significant health concern in Aspen. The traffic generated will also produce carbon
monoxide and other emissions that are health concerns. The _municipal code requires
developments to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity by using all available
practical methods to reduce pollution. The applicant needs to implement measures that will
minimize traffic increases of the development, or offset the emissions from the project with PM10
reduction measures elsewhere. The application does not address this, but confines its comments to
stating that traffic will increase and the neighboring streets can handle the added traffic.
In our previous comments on this application we recommended that a condition of
approval be that before final submission the applicant provide information to the
Aspen/ Pitkin Environmental Health Department which documents that proposed
mitigation measures are sufficient to offset any increases in PM10 caused by the project.
The standard Institute of Transportation. Engineers Trip Generation Report, Fifth Edition ITE trip
generation rate is 9.55 trips/day for a single family home or duplex unit. This number of trips is
not expected to be made just by the residents. The figure includes trips by visitors, mail trucks,
service workers, etc. However, the Pitkin County Road Maintenance Standards allow a trip
reduction for residential units located within one half mile of a transit stop of 1.5 trips per day.
While in many cases, this is not realistic, given the location of this project within walking distance
of downtown for errands that do not involve carrying heavy items, and within walking distance
of bus routes, this reduction is more reasonable.
This project consists of 11 homes, one of which is alreadv existing, so the net number of trips to be
offset is 80 trips/ day, which produces 11 pounds of PMlo emissions per day. (This is after taking
the reduction for proximity to transit.)
There are several measures the applicant can explore to reduce, and then offset the trips. These
include, just to list a few of the steps other applicants have taken or proposed, and that might
work for this project,
• Having reduced homeowners assessments (or sale prices) for owners having -one or no cars
• Providing covered, secure bike storage facilities (minimal trip reduction)
• Providing free bikes for use of owners to reduce car use for short trips (small trip reduction)
• Having a gate with small fee so that persons leaving the parking area in a car pay a small fee
each time, to encourage residents to make some short trips on foot or bike
(Many other measures have been implemented as well, from providing Dial -a -Ride
service to adding bus service to providing a connecting bike trail easement to plowing a
bike path, to paving an existing unpaved area, etc. These measures would probably not
be appropriate for this project.) These or any other programs that the applicant feels
might benefit the project, and will also reduce trips could be used. A combination of
measures will likely be needed.
A condition of approval should be that the applicant provide a PM10 mitigation plan for approval
from the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department, which documents that measures are
sufficient to offset increases in PM10 caused by the project. This plan should be approved prior to
final approval or issuance of building permits. Without such a plan, the project would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. This was also a condition of approval of
Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1998 and has not yet been complied with.
FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove registration form with the
Building Department before the building permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log
fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per
bu ding. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel.
FUGITIVE DUST A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of
haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed
limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance.
Dust control will be crucial due to the closeness of existing homes to the site.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution
that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of aspen
and it its visitors ...... Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and
at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels."
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be
done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on
the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise
levels. A suggestion that has been very effective for others is notifying neighbors of the construction schedule.
RED
F/ VE,O
Me. o
FEB ; 149
To: Chris Bendon, Planner COMM
�A8p 9
p�EK/ly
From: Aspen Fire Protection District LO'MEM'
Subject: Barbee Subdivision and Final PUD
Date: February 1, 1999
Chris,
This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District.
This includes and is not limited to those outlined in Section IV page 20.
If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
BEd Van Walraven, Fire Marshal
r aspen Consolidated �� anitation District
Sy Kelly * C_6irman JAn Keleher
Paul S MA * Treas Frantz Louslun
�',lic ael \el v* � ecv Bruce titatller v, l�r
February 1, 1999
Chris Bendon
Community Development
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen. CO 81611
Re: Barbee Subdivision Final PUD
Dear Chris:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient line and treatment capacity to
serve this project. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications which are on file at the District office. Once detailed plans are available, tap permits
can be completed which will estimate the fees for the project. We would request that the total
connection fees be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.
The applicant will be required'to complete a line extension request and collection system
agreement for the short line extension that will be needed. Both items will need to be approved by
our Board of Directors. Shared service line agreements will also be needed for the affordable
housing component if it is served by shared service lines. There are some downstream line
constraints that wi11 be eliminated through a system of proportionate additional charges.
It is not clear from the plans how sewer service will be provided for lots 5,6, and 7. The short line
extension that is shown may need to be extended to allow lots 5,6, and 7 to be served. District
line specifications prohibit taps to manholes.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
V
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
565 N. Mill � t.,Aspen, Co 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2531
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Bendon, City Planner
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, County Planne�q J
J
RE: Barbee Family Final Subdivision/PUD
DATE: February 2, 1999
I have reviewed the application and offer the following comments:
The County Planning staff supports annexation of the remainder of the Barbee parcel into the City and
the rezoning and development of the majority of the parcel as a mixed affordable housing/free market
project. The site is consistent with the philosopies and criteria of the "Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan"
that was jointly adopted by the City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions in June of 1998.
Specifically,. the development is within the Aspen metro area, is adjacent to available public mass transit,
does not promote sprawl, and is served by existing urban services.
The Aspen Skiing Company has proposed in their recently approved Aspen Mountain Master Plan to
open existing terrain on lower Shadow Mountain/West Aspen Mountain, when conditions permit. Egress
from this terrain is represented to be "near Little Cloud Park", but staff would note that this terrain may
be adjacent to the 13.6 acre conservation parcel to be established as part of this development. The
applicant may wish to contact ASC to determine the boundaries of the ski terrain.
Lj
•
Koch Park
SITE 2
Rube Park
Juan St. AH ts.
V,