HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19991207 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1999
4:30 PM
SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
4:30- 5:0o A. Molly Gibson Lodge Minor PUD, Nick Lelack .~r~/e~
5:00. 5:30 B. 510 Park Circle Minor PUD- Amendment, Nick Lelack
V. INFORMATION ITEM
A. Code amendments, Chris Bendon
VI. ADJOURN
Times are approximate. We recommend applicants arrive at least ~ hour prior to the scheduled time,
nvironmental protests against ski -
area development date back at least
to 1963, when Walt Disney tried to
build a ski resort at Mineral King, a
high basin in the southern Sierra.
With breathtaking arrogance, Disney
announced that it wanted to blast an
access road across a corner of Sequoia
National Park to reach its proposed
Mineral King resort. Disney simply mis-
understood the almost sacred character
of National Parks. The Sierra Club came
to the defense of this precious American
turf, and the rest was history —a bad
history of court battles, PR battles, grow-
ing and lasting mistrust. Disney finally
relented, but the die was cast. Mineral
King was never built, and a tradition of
misunderstanding and bitter opposition
between ski -area developers and envi-
ronmentalists had been established.
Misunderstanding and opposition we
are all still suffering from today, because
no one, really, is getting what they want
in this endless series of confrontations.
In some ways, though, the arena of
concern and confrontation has shifted.
Skiing —and its inevitable infrastructure
of lifts, on -mountain eateries, and logged
ski runs —is a relatively minor ecological
degradation of National Forest land,
compared with the endless square miles
of clear -cutting, the destructive road
building, and other extractive excesses
that roll on unchecked on public land.
Today a different environmental drama
is being played out on private land in the
valleys beneath the snowy peaks of ski
areas —a drama of rampant resort growth
that resembles everyday suburban
sprawl imported whole into once pristine
mountain settings. It's not just environ-
mentalists who are panicked; long-time
residents of mountain -resort communi-
ties are waking up to the fact that their
beautiful hideaways are threatened by
mile after mile of strip developments
radiating out from even the most attrac-
tive resort centers.
Ultimately, no one is happy. Residents
and resort operators are caught on the
treadmill of "highest -use" thinking, afraid
not to develop every possible square foot
for fear that the gravy train of mountain
FIR, MANY
SI�I[I R I r�l�ilRDi'I—
MEPaTAL1S1S,
ETREE
IS ONE TOO MANY.
development will leave them behind.
But they are also acutely aware that with
each new condo project, each new shop-
ping complex, each mini -industrial park,
their mountain environment —their
biggest draw —is losing its charm and
cachet. The image of killing the goose
that laid the golden egg is uncomfortably
apropos.
o one, yet, has come up with a
truly workable strategy to tame
runaway mountain -town develop-
ment. Environmental activists
wind up targeting ski -area improve-
ment and expansion with a stunningly
creative array of legal maneuvers, in
large measure because they feel they
have no other point of leverage. Develop-
ment on National Forest land is tightly
regulated by federal law, whereas there is
almost no way to oppose commercial
development on already zoned private
lands. But environmentalists have also
focused on slowing or stopping ski -area
growth because they have long assumed
that growth in ski towns is driven by the
growth and expansion of ski facilities.
This is no longer a given.
For some people, skiing today is not
the overwhelming, life -consuming enthu-
siasm that it once was. For them, it has
really become just another resort amenity,
one more attraction in a diverse four -
season resort scene —like golf; trail rides,
tennis, or mountain biking. One more
activity that city dwellers can enjoy when
they get away from it all for a weekend or
a holiday. It would seem, perhaps, that a
getting away from it all, getting away o
from the stress, the noise, and the insecu-
rity of city life, has become the major
engine driving the mountain -resort econ- o
omy, whether in the Rockies, New �-
England, or the Far West.
150! S K I I N G december 1999
i
014'.Md M. "N", NO �ffi
here is another relatively new
factor that is accelerating resort
expansion —a factor that thoughtful
: , environmental activists have been
quick to point out. That factor is
- Wall Street. Conventional wisdom holds
that publicly traded companies —which
include multi -ski -area corporations Vail
Resorts, Intrawest, and. the American
Skiing Company -need a substantial
annual growth in revenues just to main-
tain the value of their, stock in a growth
market. Yet skier numbers have been flat
for so long that such growth can only
come in four -season resort development
(real estate, lodging, restaurants, resort
retail) rather than from increased lift -
ticket dollars This is the business side of
the resort growin CqudLIWI UICLL, W 1lCll
coupled with urban flight on the demand
side, is doing a lot more to fuel the
rampant expansion of mountain commu-
nities than faster lifts and widened
ski trails.
With the market pushing these large
ski -area corporations toward a strategy
of maximum growth, it would seem
unrealistic to expect these companies to
act solely out of loyalty to local mountain
communities or local environmental
needs and not to stockholders. This, at
least, is the analysis of a number of vehe-
ment anti -ski -area -expansion groups.
And it's hard to refute.
Jeff Berman is head of one . such
group, Colorado Wild. Jeff himself
IT'S A DRAMA
OF RAMPANT
RESORT GROWTH
THAT RESEMBLES
EVERYDAY SUBUR-
BAN SPRAWL
IMPORTED WHOLE
INTO UNIE PRIS-
TINE MOUNTAIN
SETTINGS.
Snowmaking is a
critical insurance poli-
cy for Eastern resorts;
likewise, water is a
critical point of attack
for the green team.
doesn't look particularly wild. He's a
young man with curly almost auburn
hair who speaks calmly but passionately
about why he thinks most ski -area -
expansion is unjustified. He quotes from
a Vail Resorts' annual report: "To facili-,
tate real estate development, VRDC [Vail
Resorts Development Company] invests
significant capital for on -mountain
improvements, such as ski lifts, trails,_-
and snowmaking...." Ski -area expan- _.
sions do, indeed, make the overall ski
experience better. But the argument 0
that in a flat skiing market; ski -area °
expansion may have goals beyond }
simply offering more and better public- W
recreation opportunities on public lands = .
is a persuasive one.
152 i S K 11 N G december 1999
Mountain passes like
Snoqualmie are not, by
nature, designed for
Manha t n t ffic jams.
ail, the largest and arguably most
successful ski resort in the United
States, is a natural and symbolic
target for environmental protests of
all kinds. The arson that blackened
lifts on top of Vail mountain in the fall of
'98 was clearly the work of some
unhinged monkey wrenchers, an irra-
tional and counterproductive protest that
only generated sympathy for the ski
area. Such actions are. simply aberra-
tions, a far cry from the serious legal
challenges lodged against Vail and other
expanding ski areas by thoughtful envi-
ronmental organizations. At Vail, for
example, recent challenges to ski -area
expansion have focused on the threat to
critical habitat- for the lynx, nearly
extinct in Colorado —a debate that hinges
more on science and research than on
angry protest.
Legal challenges to every step in the
Forest Service permitting process have,
in fact, become the norm. A genuine
activist like Jeff Berman views the future
of ski -area expansion as an almost end-
less series of pitched battles, legal battles
to be sure, designed to hold ski compa-
nies to the exact letter and to the spirit of
every possible environmental regulation.
Designed as well to question the necessi-
ty and logic of every new lift, every new
run, every new mountain restaurant.
Interestingly, Vail's Category III
expansion into bowls beyond the Back
Bowls could well produce a maximum of
skiing with a minimum of tree cutting —a
rarity in Colorado. But for many sincere
environmentalists, even one tree is one
too many. For them, there seems no room
for compromise because, as a strategy,
the less they compromise, the more wild
land they'll be able to save from bulldoz-
ers and from cash registers.
pposition to ski -area expansion is
not just a Rocky Mountain phenom-
enon. In . New England, ski areas
and preservationists have ' been at
loggerheads for decades. In New
England, though, the battles tend to have
a somewhat different look and feel from
those in the West.
Water, more than wilderness and
wildlife habitat, tends to be the critical
factor used to oppose New England ski -
area expansion —above all, water for
snowmaking. In the East, where snow-
making is a ski area's lifeblood in a low -
snow year, ski -resort operators are
unwilling to undertake major expansions
without the semiguarantee of good con-
ditions that snowmaking provides. As a
result, many of the sharpest opponents
of Eastern ski -area growth have zeroed in
on water as the weak link in these expan-
sion plans.
A key issue in a major expansion plan
at Stowe is water. An obvious source for
new snowmaking water is the West
AS LAST-DIT[H
ENVIRONMENTAL
BATTLES KEEP
RAISING THE ANTE,
THE LOST Of ENIOY-
IN6 THE MOUN-
TAIN -RESORT LIFE
KEEPS ES[ALATINfi.
Branch of the Little River, but it has
already failed to meet state standards for
sufficient flow levels. So far, every alter-
native proposal (like building an eight -
mile pipeline to pump reservoir water
into a snowmaking pond) has met with
equally confounding snags.
Expansion schemes aren't lacking in
New England, where the proximity to
major urban centers makes upcountry
resorts look like the promised land (or so
developers hope). The long-range growth
plan .for Killington, for example, would
turn this resort into the second biggest
city in Vermont, after Burlington —a
prospect that sends preservation -minded
Vermonters into orbit. Like Stowe,
expansion at Killington also involves
water issues.
Vermont has one of the toughest (or
most progressive, depending on your
stance) development rules of any state
in the union. Public officials in the
Rockies and the Far West drool with
envy over Vermont's Act 250, which
makes all major developers, ski areas
included, answer a complex set of
impact questions before their projects Z
can get off the ground, and the first of
these involves water quality. But
Vermont environmentalists nonetheless
worry about the cumulative impact of o
multiple projects. In the absence of a L
mechanism to control that impact, envi- o
ronmental activists and their lawyers 0
154I S K I I N G december 1999
uvww.skinet.com /skiing
Green VS. Grovulb
are looking for any levers to apply the
brakes. In the East, water is clearly one
such lever.
lthough nonstop legal challenges to
ski -resort expansion have become
the accepted and expected strategy
for concerned environmentalists, it
is an expensive strategy, for both
sides and for the public. As last-ditch envi-
ronmental battles keep raising the ante,
the cost of enjoying the mountain -resort
life keeps escalating. Skiing, in case you
hadn't noticed, isn't getting any cheaper.
Is there another way? Maybe. Given
the recent shifts in mountain -resort
development and use patterns, it's hardly
surprising that some of the most involved
players seem ready to think, and talk, in
new terms. Talk is cheap. In this case, a
lot cheaper than lawsuits. Terry Minger,
president of the Center for Resource
Management, had a vision of dialogue
rather than deadlock when he organized
Wanna go skiing in Colorado'? Then you wanna go to
the internet's one —stop -shopping site for Colorado destination skiers.
airlines ground transportation accommodations
dining last-minute packages we've got it all
IN . ColoradoSkiing.com
the Sustainable Summits conference last
spring in Vail.
Just getting the conference off the
drawing board and the 80-odd invitees
into a meeting room was a remarkable
achievement. Ski -company executives,
local ski -town government representa-
tives, Forest Service. decision makers
and, of course, environmentalists of all
stripes were brought together. There was
a predictable mix of goodwill, genuine
hopes for the future, and a good measure
of mutual incomprehension. Still, begin-
nings are beginnings.
One tangible result of the Sustainable
Summits conference has been a commit-
ment on the part of the National. Ski
Areas Association to draft an environ-
mental code of ethics that ski areas can
and should live by. "It's amazing that such
a simple step has taken so long," Pat
O'Donnell, head of the Aspen Skiing
MANY OF THE
SHARPEST OPPO-
NENTS OF EASTERN
SKI -AREA GROWTH
HAVE ZEROED IN
ON WATER AS THE
WEAK LINK I-N
EXPANSION PLANS. -
Company and one of the conference par-
ticipants, said afterward. O'Donnell is
particularly well placed to understand
both sides of the debate. He used to run
the Yosemite Institute, an environmental -
education foundation, before heading up
major ski companies like Whistler and
now Aspen. "It's going to take time to get
past this legacy of conflict and create an
environmentally responsible ski industry
that even skeptics can trust. We have to
create a process strictly through actions —
forget rhetoric...," he said. O'Donnell has
vi
put his finger on what environmental
activists often call "greenwash," the ten-
dency to talk an environmental game as
a smokescreen for less than environ-
mentally friendly activities.
Ed Marston, publisher of the High
Country News, another attendee at the
conference and a perceptive observer of
the mountain scene, put it this way: "The
environmentalists have already won ... at
least conceptually. Who today dares to
say they're not in favor of environmental
protection?" So, in a way, everyone is
talking the same game. And this is a kind
of progress. But clearly it isn't enough.
What's up for grabs is the future of
ski -area and mountain -resort develop-
ment in this country. It's a brand new
world with changing patterns of resort
ownership, changing styles of leisure
activity, and even changing attitudes on
the part of federal regulators. O'Donnell
talks of a clean break with the traditional
thinking of the ski industry: "The old atti-
tude about ski -area facilities was 'build it
and they will come.' I don't think that
holds true any longer. The era of big cap-
ital expenditures is coming to an end.
Competition between ski areas and
resorts in the future will be more a matter
of service, of people, than of stuff, of ski-
able acres and faster lifts. And I think
that ski areas with a visible, meaningful
environmental ethic will be able to
attract better employees, because of
what they stand for."
Clearly, not every ski -area executive
is able to rejoice at the prospect of a
future where environmental considera-
tions carry even more weight than they
.do today. And for that matter, it's going to
be next to impossible for many environ-
mentalists ever to accept ski areas as
allies rather than enemies. The fault lines
run too deep; the psychological split is
too profound. For some opponents of ski -
area expansion, the very idea of making
a profit, any profit, by exploiting public
land is simply obscene. And this, even
though ski areas actually put dollars
back into the public coffers —unlike log-
ging on' our National Forests, which is
heavily subsidized by taxpayers.
But despite the intensity of feelings
that ski -area expansion arouses, talking,
enough talking, can sometimes do won-
ders. It would be a stunning achievement
if even a fraction of today's environmental
battles over ski -area expansion could be
defused and resolved by bringing the
stake holders to the table before the first
construction permit was ever applied for.
INhat next? There will almost
certainly be relatively few
major ski -area expansions in
the future, but lots of minor
improvements, polishing a pretty
good resort product without changing
it significantly. Ski areas lucky enough to
have an approved master plan in place
will race toward build -out, but only
those that really involve local communi-
ties and local environmental groups
in fine-tuning these master plans, and
mitigating their impacts, will get there
without expensive knock -down -drag -out
court battles. A few ski areas and
resorts will wind up on the side of the
angels, from the environmental point
of view, and they will certainly wind
up advertising, publicizing, and, yes,
profiting from their pro -environmental
policies. And inevitably, a few die-hard
environmentalists will insist they can't
afford to give up a single tree, and fight
on, and on, and on.... . !!�-
YOur head says 60
but your quads say W01
A Vectra multi -station gym in your home will help you prepare for
the season. Be in 16mid-season condition" when the snow flies.
SIN
V�g Consumed
19 Di9est
"if you are
looking for
top quality at
any price,
STOP HERE."
-Consumers Digest
Sept./Oct.'98
"RECOMMENDED"
-1999 ConsumerGuide
The On-line 3800
Squats — one of
the best "ski -prep"
exercises
The On -Line 1800 The On -Line 4800
Industry leading Vectra gyms are designed and built to rival even the best health club
equipment! Each upper and lower body exercise is performed in the correct position, with
a full range of motion, and with the appropriate body support. Better conditioning for
skiing is just one of the many benefits of training with Vectra. Weight lifting strengthens
bones, muscles and ligaments, aiding in injury prevention. Check out our 6 world -Mass
gyms. Call today to find your nearest Vectra dealer.
Vectr
15135 N.
Redman
Call 1-800-2-VECTRA or visit us at www.vectrafitness.com for more information.
va
a Fitness, Inc. .�- I-800-283-28n
E. 90th StreetEC
= 425-867-1500
d, WA 98052V TRAI !:= Fax 425-861-0506
U.S.A. Technically Superior Multi -Station Gyms
december logo SKIING i 157
NOV-12-1999 FRI 05:18 PM
F AX NO,
P, 04
County of Pitidn
� sse
State of Colorado }
A,FF7DAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION
SECTION 26.304.060 (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 26.304,060 (E) of the aspen nand IJsc Regulations ir+ the
following ma=er:
1, By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid
U3, Mail to all owners of property with three- hundred (300) f t of the subject
property, as indicated on the attached List, on the 3� of '`� �� o�A � '�'
� Y e , I9�1(which isTTF
days prior to the public hearing elate off Z'7-
2, By posting a Sign in a, conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen
from tshe nearest public gray) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously
1 ."A
from the day of !,-?� ;1 99f? ('Must be posted fcr at least ten 10 full
days before the hearingg date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
Signature
Signed before the this da,y
c=,a, 1 993 by
i
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My con unission expires:/,2
gV
_4011�vI-P e-ffl
Kota` Y pudic
Notary P611c's Signature
.-,�o
Aye
goo
�.. P �'
•• C�
y do per.. _ : O
4
�TF•OF C��'
M 0 t L A-( G -f,5-5v�
FROM : KRIZMANICH PHONE NO. : 970 927 4263 Dec. 08 1999 09:00AM P2
ASPEN CLINIC BUILDING ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 1248
MAIN ST A MICHIGAN LTD PARTNERSHIP ASPEN CO 81612
CO 81611 250 MARTIN ST STE #100
BIRMINGHAM MI 48009
ASPENS MOLLY GIBSON LODGE LLC BACON SHIRLEY R BARZELL WINSTON
101 W MAIN ST 3 GROVE ISLE DR #1608 7360 POINT OF ROCKS RD
ASPEN CO 81611 COCONUT GROVE FL 33133 SARASOTA FL 34242
BEAVER R HART AND JOAN S BERNSTEIN POLLY A BISHOP ALBERT & PEARL
937 WILLOW ST C/O STRAZZ 202 S GARMISCH ST
PO BOX 1140 212 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN CO 81611
LEBANON PA ASPEN CO
BOWMAN AL BOYNTON FRANK E & ELIZABETH J BRENNAN JAMES C
3580 NW 10TH AVE 528 SAND BEND DR 417 ROYALE ST
OAKLAND PARK FL 33309 KERRVILLE TX 78028 NEW ORLEANS LA 70130
BROWN ANTHONY BROWN MICHAEL H BROWN MICHAEL HAYDEN
C/O FOX GRACE 250 MARTIN ST STE 100 PO BOX 25282
250 MARTIN ST STE #100 BIRMINGHAM MI WEST BLOOMFIELD MI 48325
BIRMINGHAM MI 48011
br.,, /dN MICHAEL HAYDEN 1t2 INT BROWN MICHAEL HAYDEN 2/3 BUCHHOLZ EARL H & MARILYN E
PO BOX 252582 250 MARTIN ST STE 100 4725 DAVIS RD
W BLOOMFIELD MI 48325 BIRMINGHAM MI MIAMI FL 33143
BUDINGER WILLIAM & PEYTON BUTT CYNTHIA W CARRICO WILLIAM N
2306 DELAWARE AVE 944 HARMAN AVE 25311 W FREMONT RD
WILMINGTON DE 19806 DAYTON OH 45419 LOS ALTOS CA 94022
CASSIDAY BENJAMIN B CHALET LISL PARTNERSHIP LTD CHISHOLM EOITH 1/2 INT
PO BOX 1262 100 E HYMAN AVE 205 W MAIN ST
ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611
CHRISTENSEN ROBERT M & CANDICE L CITY OF ASPEN COLES ELLIOT L
204 W HYMAN AVE 130 S GALENA ST 2920 E HARTFORD AVE
ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 MILWAUKEE WI 53211
iER J STUART JR CRAWFORD THOMAS B JR DACOSTA MAUREEN C
-,'OMMERCE SQUARE STE 2800 PO BOX 8110 PO BOX
TN 38103 HORSESHOE BAY TX 78654 ASPEN CO 81612
FROM KRIZMANICH PHONE NO. : 970 927 4263 Dec. 08 1999 09:01AM P3
DE TURRIS EMIL10 DEAN MARY EMMA DIMiT"RIUS RALLIHUEBNER-DIMITR(US JO-ELLAN
31 BRAMBLE LN PO BOX 8A35 200 S S(ERRA MADRE BLVO
VILLE NY 11747 ASPEN CO 81612 PASADENA CA 91109
DURANT AND ORIGINAL ASSOCIATES ERB JANE FABER ROBERT G & EUNICE N
INC PO BOX 3207 1921 BOULDER OR
PO BOX 7846 ASPEN CO 81612 ANN ARBOR MI 48104
ASPEN CO 81612
FOSTER FRANCES TRUSTEE 1/2 INT FRIEDLANDER & SINGER LTD FTG ASPEN LLC
2400 PRESIDENTIAL WAY #1503 SINGER & FRIEDLANDER 6735 TELEGRAPH RD #110
W PALM BEACH FL 33401 12-4 RIDGEWAY ST BLOOMFIELD HILLS MI
DOUGLAS ISLE OF MAN
HAAN R E TRUST HITE HENRY H & ANGELA R HOTEL ASPEN LTD
ATTN: DOUG DARLING PO BOX 155 C/O ASPEN GROUP
2001 UNION ST SUITE 340 WOODY CREEK CO 81656 415 E MAIN 4210
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94123 ASPEN CO 81611
HOTEL ASPEN LTD JDJ GROUP LLC KAPLAN WILLIAM M AND KATE
ASPEN HOTEL PARTNERS LTD C/O JOAN SPARLING TRUST/DANA PO BOX 406
250 MARTIN ST STE #100 DONAHUE MILFORD DE 19963
BIRMINGHAM MI 48009 14 CROSS TREES RD
BRICK NJ 8723
(JOHN KOENIG RAYMOND J AND LEE DAVID W
6476 MIMOSA LN TRAGGIS ELIZABETH G LEE DORA
DALLAS TX 75230 P O BOX 284 13562 CAMINITO CARMEL
NEW LONDON CT 6320 DEL MAR CA
LEWIS BRETT H LEWIS EILEEN LUBIN RICHARD G
548 FRANKLIN ST 108 W HYMAN AVE #9 1217 S FLAGLER DR 2ND FL FLAGLER
DENVER CO 80218 ASPEN CO 81611 PLAZA
WEST PALM BEACH FL 33401
MARCUS MARTIN L & FANNON JOHN H MARK CAROL KRAUSS MARKLE JUDY 70%
C/O LEFF MARILYN PO BOX 9283 C/O JUDY POOL
7660 BEVERLY BLVD APT #365 ASPEN CO 10 MEADOWVIEW LN
LOS ANGELES CA 90037 LITTLETON CO 80121
.MELTON DAVID NEWKAM CLAIRE M OLIVER WILLIAM THOMAS & ANN GARY
135 W MAIN ST PO BOX 2808 542 WARNER AVE
ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81612 LOS ANGELES CA 90024
�'ETRZAK 808 & SUE LLC PIETRZAK FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP PIETRZAK ROBERT J & SUSAN R
6 E SOPRIS CREEK RD COLORADO LTD PARTNERSHIP 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD
.SALT CO 81621 1796 E SOPRIS CREEK RD
BASALT CO 81621 BASALT CO 81623
FROM KRIZMANICH PHONE NO. : 970 927 4263 Dec. 08 1999 09:01AM P4
PRICE DOUGLAS
8611 MELWOOD RD
^4ESDA MD 20817
PRICE DOUGLAS S
8611 MELWOOD RD
BETHESDA MD 20817
PRICE DOUGLAS L
8611 MELWOOD
BETHESDA MD 20817
RANCE CAROL
FLAT 48 MOUNTAIN LODGE
44 MTKELLET RD
THE PEAK HONG KONG
SEGUIN JEFF W
SILVERSTEIN PHILIP
SEGUIN MADALYN B AS JOINT TENANTS
SILVERSTEIN ROSALYN
PO BOX 8852
25 KNOLLS CRESCENT
ASPEN CO 81612
BRONX NY. 10463
SPEARS NANCY M
530 MEANS ST 9405
ATLANTA GA 30318
VAUGHAN HEIDI 1996 TRUST
N2322 SYLVAN LN
LAKE GENEVA WI 54137
_LE O LOUIS & FRANCES LYNETTE
200 W MAIN ST
ASPEN CO 81611
STRAUCH ELAINE B
4327 $YOSEMITE CT
ENGLEWOOD CO 80110
WARSHAW MARTIN R & ALICE M
PO BOX 8976
ASPEN CO 81612
WINKELMAN WENDY L
108 W HYMAN AVE #8
ASPEN CO 81611
PRICE DOUGLAS L AND VALERIE
8611 MELWOOD RD
BETHESDA MD 20817
ROSS PAULINE
PO BOX 9969
ASPEN CO 81612
SLOVITER DAVID
1358 ROBIN HOOD RD
MEADOWBROOK PA 19046
TIPTON JOHN K FAMILY TRUST 112
6477 E MANOR DR
ENGLEWOOD CO 80111
WILKE JOHN H AND BONNIE K
TRUSTEES OF WILKE LIVING TRUST
153 S BEACHWOOD DR
LOS ANGELES CA 90004
FROM KRIZMANICH PHONE NO. 970 927 4263 Dec. 08 1999 09:02AM P5
r r
Sp
GO
/ -Co
Co31
Co
/
MA I/V
'!. - , 7
ro r /
/.:•.;Co
/ yOp tv l
i
CoI
/Co
a E
:./
� opk
:.. tom. 'i.�: /•�''. •��.•.. ^'. f'. r. i...:::':. /
UA
NqV�
l
/ ✓ V ^
. V ( 1.
•
l 1 coop
�R
cr
Co
/ Q
ON j
i
I -
MEE7
NAME OF PROJECT: Mo�Y �g�LD �
CITY CLERK: JAcvue Lc�-k4
STAFF: lAkcg, LjE1,Px*,e
WITNESSES: (1) FP-Pri,3 G S KRI atAAV4 IC4
(5)
EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report (✓j (Check If Applicable)
2 Affidavit of Notice (v� (Check If Applicable) A2.eAl ro+ar� M&4 ) I vt
3 Board Criteria Sheet ( ) (Check If Applicable)
4 jAV 1 I)
5
YES
ROBERT BLAICH
ROGER HUNT
ROGER HANEMAN
RON ERICKSON
*r-f q - 4V
�ymmw
�- - VAN
I v o
YES N O _
YES NO _
YES ZNIO _
YES NO
TIMOTHY MOONEY YES NO
STEVEN BUETTOW YES NO
YES NO
PZVOTE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Y Deputy Joyce Ohlson, De u Director-,J7
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner
RE: 510 Park Circle — Aspen Electric Subdivision, PUD Amendment - Public
Hearing
DATE: December 7, 1999
APPLICANT:Aw
Gregory Karaus _ d
k
i Y
REPRESENTATIVE:
x � y
Gregory Karaus w
LOCATION:
Aspen Electric Subdivision
510 Park Circle
ZONING:
AH-PUD
CURRENT LAND USE:
Deed restricted triplex
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Expanded deed restricted triplex
LOT SIZE:
8,060 square feet
FAR:
Existing: 3,264 sq. ft.
Allowable: 4,566 sq. ft.
Proposed: 3,731 sq. ft.
The proposed expansion would replace this deck and
continue around the back of the building.
SUMMARY:
This application is for a PUD amendment to increase
the size of an existing bedroom and add a new family
room on the top floor of an existing deed restricted
triplex located at 510 Park Circle.
1
STAFF COMMENTS:
Gregory Karaus, owner and applicant, has applied for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) amendment to expand the top floor of an existing 3-level condominium. The
condominium is part of a fully deed restricted triplex located in the Aspen Electric
Subdivision at 510 Park Circle. The expansion will add approximately 537 square feet to
the existing structure. Specifically, the proposed addition will increase the size of an
existing bedroom and add a family room to the unit. The addition will replace an existing
deck (shown on the photograph below) on the north side of the structure, partially located
on the retaining wall, and above a narrow grassy area on the west (back) side of the
structure.
The triplex consists of one 4-bedroom
unit (the subject unit), and two 2-
bedroom units. Currently, this 4-
bedroom unit consists of approximately
1,824 square feet, and will be increased
to 2,361 square feet if this amendment is
approved. Approximately 835 square
feet of FAR remains available for this
parcel if the other two units choose to
expand. The applicant has obtained the
approval of the other two (2) owners for
the proposed project.
The City Council approved the Aspen Electric Subdivision (AH-PUD) in 1992
(Ordinance No. 62, Series of 1992) because it found the proposal to not be in conflict
with any applicable portions of the Land Use Code, and consistent with many elements of
the Aspen Area Community Plan, compatible with the surrounding zone districts and land
uses, consistent and compatible with the community character, and in harmony with the
purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. This PUD amendment would not significantly
change the structure, and therefore would not significantly impact the community or
neighborhood.
The subdivision's approving ordinance required that 47.5% of the site remain open space.
Currently, 54% of the site is open space, and 52% of the site would remain open space if
this amendment is approved and the development completed.
Staff has reviewed the PUD amendment against all of the applicable criteria and finds the
project to be in substantial compliance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the Aspen Electric Subdivision/PUD amendment
with the following conditions:
1. A PUD Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City
Council and shall include the following:
7
a. The information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section
26.445.070(C).
2. A Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and shall include:
a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing easements,
encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical
improvements and parking spaces within City rights -of -way , location of utility
pedestals, and a note stating that a witness corner will be installed on the north east
corner of the property after completion of construction.
b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements,
landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved.
c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character.
d. A landscape plan.
3. The PUD amendment and the amended PUD Plans shall be recorded prior to an
application for a building permit may be accepted by the Building Department.
4. The building permit application shall include:
a. A copy of the recorded P&Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval
from the Parks Department Director for off -site replacement or mitigation of
removed trees.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director
stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood.
6. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines.
7. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and not within
public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets
Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide
by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the
contractor of this condition.
8. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the
hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
9. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning
Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza
Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this
fee to the City Clerk who will record the, resolution.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
• Planned Unit Development Amendment (One -Step Review). An amendment found to be
consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the
3
Community Development Department Director, but which does not meet the established
thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions,
or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing pursuant to
Section 26.445.030(C) Step 3. The action by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
be considered the final action, unless the decision is appealed.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the Aspen Electric Subdivision/PUD amendment for a 537 square foot
addition for an affordable housing unit, at 510 Park Circle, with conditions."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C -- Development Application
E
EXHIBIT A
ASPEN ELECTRIC SUBDIVISION/PUD AMENDMENT
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
26.445.050 Review Standards: PUD Amendment
A development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated Conceptual and Final, or
Minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited
issues associated with Conceptual Reviews and properties eligible for Minor PUD Review,
certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to
show the reasonableness of the development application, and its conformity to the standards
and procedures of this Chapter and this title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff Finding
The AACP supports the development of affordable housing and does not appear to
distinguish between creating new units or expanding existing affordable housing units. One
housing policy is to "work with landowners whose property is well suited and well located to
develop affordable housing projects." This project is an expansion of an existing affordable
housing unit in an established residential neighborhood which enhances the City's housing
stock. In addition, the property can accommodate the expansion.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing
land uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
The project is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. The Smuggler
neighborhood encompasses a variety of land uses. Multifamily development is prevalent as .
are duplex, triplex, and single family homes. The land uses vary in intensity and architectural
styles.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development
of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
The nature of the project will not in any way adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area because of its size and location on the side and back of an existing unit.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is
exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the
proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination
with, final PUD development plan review.
5
Staff Finding
The development is exempt from GMQS because it is a 100 percent affordable housing
proj ect.
R. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements
for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section
26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district
shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD.
During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with
surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized.
The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following:
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are
appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the
property:
a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future
y
land uses in the surrounding area.
b) Natural or man-made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area
such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and
the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian
circulation, parking, and historical resources.
Staff Finding
The applicant is not proposing any changes to the dimensional requirements for the subject
property, and the proposed development will have little impact on the character of and
compatibility with existing and future land uses in the surrounding area.
The site is set into a hillside with a large boulder retaining wall to the side and rear. The
proposed expansion is on the third level of the unit, and the development will expand this
third level to meet the existing slope at the top of the boulder wall. The proposed addition
will have little impact on the existing topography, natural characteristics of the property, and
man made characteristics of the property. The applicant is planning to remove 4 cottonwood
trees and plant 4 evergreen trees to mitigate for the removal. The applicant will also plant
two (2) aspen clumps on the hillside between the proposed expansion and the street.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and
quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the
character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
The Aspen Electric Subdivision's approving ordinance, Ordinance No. 62, Series of 1992,
required that 47.5% of the site remain open space. Currently, 54% of the site is open space.
0
If this amendment is approved and the development completed, then 52% of the site will
remain open space. A substantial portion of this development would replace an existing
deck, so there is little change to the amount of open space on the property. Therefore, this
proposal complies with the this criterion and the approving ordinance.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established
based on the following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common
parking is proposed.
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core
and general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding
The proposed expansion will not cause a need for increased parking spaces.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there
exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if.
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal,
and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding
There are no infrastructure capacity issues that would prohibit the amount of development
being considered. Staff does not recommend any reductions in the development being
proposed.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there
exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the
maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of
ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or
avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the
natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and
consequent water pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality
in the surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain
or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
7
Staff Finding
The proposed expansion will be developed to, but not encroaching on, an existing utility and
pedestrian easement.
The applicant shall clean existing dry wells to improve their operating efficiency and
capacity to accommodate additional run-off from the structure; the City Engineer has
approved this proposal.
The land appears to be suitable for the development given that the proposal is to extend the
living room to the top of a large boulder retaining wall. The retaining wall provides slope
stabilization at the rear of the property. No natural hazards, critical wildlife habitat or
endangered vegetation exist on the site.
The applicant will apply for a tree removal permit to remove 4 cottonwood trees. He has
already discussed his proposal with the City Parks Department about mitigating for the trees;
the mitigation plan will include planting 4 evergreens and two clumps of aspen trees.
For these reasons, staff does not recommend any reductions to the proposed development
based on this standard.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there
exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase
and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding
development patterns and with the site's physical constraints.
Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific
area plan to which the property is subject.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density
and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as
identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be
avoided, or those characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics.
Staff Finding
The applicant is not requesting an increase in density beyond what is allowed within the PUD
although a significant community goal — affordable housing — is being expanded through this
development. In addition, the site's physical capabilities can accommodate the additional
density, and the development pattern is compatible with and complimentary to the area.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
H
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development
shall comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique,
provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to
the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate
manner.
Staff Finding
The proposed development complies with the man-made features on the site and does not
detract from the site's natural features or visual interest. The only portion of the addition that
will be visible from Park Circle is the replacement of an existing deck with a family room.
The applicant shall plant two (2) clumps of aspen trees in front of the addition to preserve
site's visual interest by partially shielding the room from the street.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open
spaces and vistas.
Staff Finding
The subdivision's approving ordinance, Ordinance No. 62, Series of 1992, required that
47.5% of the site remain open space. To achieve this goal, a 3-level triplex was constructed,
which preserved 54% of the site as open space. If this amendment is approved and the
development completed, only 2% of additional open space would be consumed leaving 52%
of the site as open space.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the
urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest
and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Staff Finding
The structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, and two (2) clumps of aspen trees
will partially shield the structure from Park Circle. The neighborhood already has a variety
of architectural styles and this addition will add to the diversity of styles in the area.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow
emergency and service vehicle access.
Staff Finding
This standard is not applicable because the proposal will not affect emergency and/or service
vehicle access; the proposed expansion is to the side and rear of the property.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding
The nature of this project will not in any way impact pedestrian and handicapped access to
this or other properties.
9
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a
practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact
surrounding properties.
Staff Finding
The applicant has proposed and the City Engineer approved a plan to clean out existing dry
wells on the property to improve their operating efficiency and capacity.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with
the use.
Staff Finding
This is a residential land use, so this standard is not applicable.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape
with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing
and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior
spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample
quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen
area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other
landscape features is appropriate.
Staff Finding
The applicant will need a tree removal permit for the 4 cottonwood trees that are planned to
be removed. He plans to replace the trees with 4 evergreens with Parks Department approval.
In addition, the applicant plans to plant two (2) clumps of aspen trees to partially shield the
addition from Park Circle. No critical wildlife habitat or endangered vegetation exist on the
site, and very little existing vegetation will be disturbed.
E. Architectural Character.
It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest, variety,
character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City
while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon
the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the
building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and
other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly
represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as
part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which
10
adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed
architecture of the development shall:
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city,
appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property,
represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and
respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources.
Staff Finding
The architecture of the proposed expansion will be similar to the existing structure. It iwll
consist ofa gabled roof to match the existing with trim details, finishes and materails
consistent with the existing structure. Because the addition will be to the side and rear of the
triplex, it will have a very minimal impact on the site, neighborhood, and community.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use
of non- or less -intensive mechanical systems.
Staff Finding
The expansion includes windows on all three sides, thereby incorporating natural heating by
taking advantage of the property's solar access. It will take advantage of natural cooling by
the planting of aspen and evergreen trees.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe
and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding
The roof pitch on the proposed addition will prevent the shedding of snow, ice, and water
from falling on or accumulating on the pedestrian easement to the north of the property,
where a walkway exists, or in front of the unit's entrance, and will not require significant
maintenance.
F. Lighting.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general
aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous
interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site
features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate
manner.
2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting
Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD
documents. Up -lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and
lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for
residential development.
11
Staff Finding
All new lighting for the proposed addition will be down directional and in compliance with
the City's lighting code and Uniform Building Code for safety. The new lighting will be
designed to minimize glare onto adjacent properties.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation
area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following
criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open
space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed
development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural
landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's
built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses
and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation
areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or
dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar
manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for
the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas,
and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future
residential, commercial, or industrial development.
Staff Finding
The subdivision's approving ordinance, Ordinance No. 62, Series of 1992, required that
47.5% of the site remain open space. Currently, 54% of the site is open space. If this
amendment is approved and the development completed, then 52% of the site will remain
open space. A substantial portion of this `development would replace an existing deck, so
there is little change to the amount of open space on the property. Therefore, this proposal
complies with the this criterion and the approving Ordinance. In addition, the applicant shall
plant two clumps of Aspen trees in front of the expansion to partially shield the addition from
the street.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an
undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not
incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities
associated with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the
development.
Staff Finding
The proposed expansion will not require additional public infrastructure. The proposal is for
an enlarged bedroom and new family room.
12
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be
mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Finding
This standard is not applicable because there will not be any adverse impacts on public
infrastructure.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for
the additional improvement.
Staff Finding
No oversized utility stubs were requested to be installed with this development.
L Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD
applications)
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible,
does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate
pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates.
The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following
criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access
to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking
arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the
proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be
improved to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding
The proposed addition will not impact access and circulation to, in, or around the PUD or
neighborhood. Therefore, this standard is not applicable.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications)
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create
an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts
of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development
plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD
development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a
complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent
practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later
phases.
13
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate
improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -
lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the
PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any
mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective
impacts associated with the phase.
Staff Finding
This standard is not applicable because there will only be one phase to construct the
proposed expanded bedroom and new family room.
14
RESOLUTION N0. L
(SERIES OF 1999)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISION APROVING THE ASPEN ELECTRIC SUBDIVISION AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, AT 510 PARK
CIRCLE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel Number 2737-074-217-03
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Gregory Karaus, owner, for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment to construct a
537 square foot addition to the third level of a fully deed restricted triplex located at 510 Park
Circle, in the Aspen Electric Subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property, Parcel Number 2737-074-217-03, is located in the
Affordable Housing — PUD Zone District, and the lot size is approximately 8,058 square feet;
and,
WHEREAS, the Fire Marshall, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City
Engineering, City Parks Department, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and the
Community Development Department reviewed the Project and recommended approval with
conditions; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission may approve a PUD amendment during a duly noticed public
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, has reviewed and considered the applicable referral agencies, and has taken
and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the
development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen
Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 7, 1999, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved, by a to vote, approval of the Aspen Electric
Subdivision/PUD amendment, with conditions contained herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows. -
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Aspen Electric Subdivision/Planned Unit Development amendment, consisting of a 537 square
15
foot expansion to the third level of a fully deed restricted triplex located at 510 Park Circle, is
approved subject to the conditions of approval described hereinafter.
Conditions of Approval:
1. A PUD Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City
Council and shall include the following:
b. The information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section
26.445.070(C).
2. A Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and shall include:
e. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing easements,
encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical
improvements and parking spaces within City rights -of -way , location of utility
pedestals, and a note stating that a witness corner will be installed on the north east
corner of the property after completion of construction.
f. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements,
landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved.
g. A drawing representing the project's architectural character.
h. A landscape plan.
3. The PUD amendment and the amended PUD Plans shall be recorded prior to an
application for a building permit may be accepted by the Building Department.
4. The building permit application shall include:
d. A copy of the recorded P&Z Resolution.
e. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
f. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval
from the Parks Department Director for off -site replacement or mitigation of
removed trees.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
b. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director
stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood.
6. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines.
7. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and not within
public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets
Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide
by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the
contractor of this condition.
8. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the
hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
16
9. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning
Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza
Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this
fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby
incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if
fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 7t' day of December,
1999.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on December 7, 1999.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
CA\home\Active Cases\510 Park Circle\510Parkmemo.doc
Robert Blaich, Chair
17
a'
To: Nick Lelack, Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer 0,Je
Referenced DRC Caseload Coordinator
Date: November 22, 1999
Re: 510 Park Circle Aspen Electric PUD Amendment No. 1
The Development Review Committee had initially reviewed the above referenced application at
their October 20, 1999 meeting, and had voiced the following comments:
General
(1) Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe that the
submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. These comments
must be carried forward exactly as written to ensure the clear intent of the responses without
alteration. This is to halt complaints related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit", and
to avoid misinterpretation by readers.
(2) R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public right-of-way, the
encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements.
Site Review
(1) Purpose of this Review: The applicant is requesting a minor PUD amendment in order to
increase the size of existing rooms. No bathroom or other water consuming features will be added.
(2) Drainage & Erosion Control: The drywells need to extend below the frost line and need
to have adequate capacity to accept the existing plus additional runoff. The applicant needs to
provide assurance that these conditions are met prior to applying for a building permit.
The applicant has stated that the drywells are in need of maintenance and cleaning, which
he will perform. This needs to be done prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and
perpetually thereafter.
0
November 16, 1999 DRC Response
510 Park Circle
Page 2
(3) Encroachment over Easement — The applicant was informed that a portion of an existing
deck projects over the utility easement. This poses a restriction and has created a problem for
future utility work in the easement. During a telephone conversation with the applicant, he reported
that the deck will be removed when the addition is constructed.
(4) Open Space: The applicant will have to secure a tree removal permit for the trees that are
planned to be removed and a right-of-way permit if the new trees proposed for the front of the
house are in the public right-of-way.
(5) Fire Protection: The Fire Marshal stated that the proposed development will not need fire
protection mitigation.
(6) Utilities:
-WATER:
City Water Department
The Water Director reported that the property has two water service lines crossing it in the
utility easement which serve two homes on Sesame Street. The Water Department has met
with the homeowner on site, and at that time he indicated that he planned to relocate the lines
in order to provide adequate clearance for the proposed building expansion. The site plan
shows a 20 foot easement, and the building expansion has been designed to accommodate
the easement free from restrictions.
-WASTEWATER:
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
The Collection Superintendent stated that the applicant needs to call that District office in
order to determine if any fees will be charged.
-FLOOD CONTROL: No response!
(7) Transportation:
-CONSTRUCTION:
2
November 16, 1999 DRC Response
510 Park Circle
Page 3
Work in the Public Right-of-way
Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -
way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows:
APPR OV AT .'.q
(1) Engineering: The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-
5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within
public rights -of -way.
(2) Parks: Parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species and for public
trail disturbance.
(3) Streets: Streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes , streets and alley.
(4) Permits: Obtain permits for any work or development, including street cuts,
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the city community
development department.
DRC Attendees
Staff: Karma Borgquist Applicant: Greg Karaus
Ed Van Walraven
Joyce Ohlson
John Krueger
Nick Lelack
Stephanie Levesque
Tom Bracewell
Chuck Roth
99M168
k
OCT 19 A99 04:45PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
P.1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Nick Leiack, Community Development Department
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: October 19,1999
RE: 510 Park Circle Aspen Electric PU D
Parcel ID No.
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval to expand the top floor of an existing three -
level condominium. The expansion will add approximately 537 square feet of living space
to the existing structure.
BACKGROUND: The unit is a deed restricted unit constructed under the AH zone
district. There is available FAR for the project to expand this unit.
RECQMMENDATION: There is no restriction to prevent the applicant from expanding his
unit. He has received approval for this expansion from his direct neighbors, therefore,
staff would recommend approval of this expansion.
dah\word\referraR51 Opc,mit
Aspen Consolidated sanitation District
Sy Kelly * Chairman John Keleher
Paul Smith * Treas Frantz Loushin
Michael Kelly * Secy Bruce Matherly, Mgr
October 19, 1999
Nick Lelack OCT
Community Development
ASHEN / P1 rv„
130 S. Galena�v'=-''OPEA7
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 510 Park Circle Aspen Electric PUD
Dear Nick:
It appears from the application that all that is being added is additional decking. If that is all that's
involved we have no concerns.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
565 N. Mill St. Aspen, CO 81611 /- (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060 (E)
I,- n e L� 0 A `f Ai 4A-(-t "� , being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the
following manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid
U.S. Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet of the subject
property, as indicated on the attached list, on the o20 day ofAI/ , 199_?(which is
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 the 17'7-ly day of , 19W (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)
ignature
Signed before me this day
,199Zby
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My c ission expires: MY Commission Expires
B •
,��'•Notary Public
p
TARY',�s
v��� LLz2
cc : rG NO
Notary Public's Signature
��, : 0 z
y � e
PF �•�•.�
svp°'Mt 111111104
li I-- � 1�
EPLER ACC OI E
PAULIDES HERBERT B & CAROLYN F
MOUNTAIN STATES COMMUNICATIONS
PO BOX 785
160 CONCORD RD
INC
ASPEN CO 81612
LONGMEADOW MA 1106
A COLORADO CORPORATION
310 E MAIN ST
ASPEN CO 81611
D STONE AND
RUSSELL LYNN C
PENDLETON MARGOT ROSE
NARAT BENJAPORN
PO BOX 8904
424 PARK CIR TH-3
PO BOX 4906
ASPEN CO 81612
ASPEN CO 81611
ASPEN CO 81612
FLUG DEBORAH
BERNARD RANDY
HUA VINH
616 E HYMAN
100 HARKNESS RD
PO BOX 8513
ASPEN CO 81611
PELHAM MA
ASPEN CO 81612
BOWLES KATHRYN BRIGHT GALEN PIERCE ROBERT KING
424 PARK CIRCLE #TH-5 PO BOX 1848 PO BOX 3118
ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612
SINGER DAVID J B BURG H ROBERT & JOCELYN MILLER DAVID & LESLIE
409 PARK CIR #4 524 CONGAREE 628 BINNACLE DR
ASPEN CO COLUMBIA SC 29205 NAPLES FL
r `NARD LOUISE
MOYER MARY
ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING
>X 11354
424 PARK CIR #6
AUTHORITY
t.N CO 81612
ASPEN CO 81611
530 E MAIN ST
ASPEN CO 81611
MERZBACH NINA
EISENBERG NORTON AND JANET
ERB MARY ANN
PO BOX 3465
407 PARK AVE #A
8401 GREENWOOD DR
ASPEN CO 81612
ASPEN CO 81611
LONGMONT CO 80503
HANCOCK LISA K & JAMES D
BASALT RIVERVIEW LTD
GARTON SARA B
407 PARK AVE #B
WERNING JOHN R & STENGER
ASPEN CO 81611
FRIEDERIKE
00101 MIDLAND PARK PL
905 E HOPKINS
ASPEN CO 81611
ASPEN CO 81611
VALLEY DOUGLAS J
WILSON FREDRICK C
NICHOLS SCOTT A
111 MIDLAND PARK PL #A11
100 S SPRING ST STE 2
PO BOX 3035
ASPEN CO
ASPEN CO
ASPEN CO 81612
ANSON DAVID G BIRACH KAREN HOUBEN CYNTHIA MICHELE
P'' "OX 11948 122 MIDLAND PARK PL PO BOX 9616
J CO 81612 ASPEN CO ASPEN CO 81612
PITKIN COUNTY
SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB
CITY OF ASPEN
530 E MAIN ST STE 302
PO BOX 8788
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN CO 81611
ASPEN CO 81612
ASPEN CO 81611
HICKMAN DELMAR R & CONSTANCE S
WAGAR RICHARD H
ROWARS CHARLES M
298 DEER RUN
601 E HYMAN AVE
4990 SW 52ND STE201
CARBONDALE CO
ASPEN CO 81611
DAVIE FL 33314
WALDRON K. BRENT SALTONSTALL ANDREW C CARSON BARBARA
COATES REID & WALDRON C/O CO 81611 AVE PO BOX 9802 PO BOX 10298
ASPEN CO
720E ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612
DEGRAEVE ALAIN DAY ISABEL T & ESTER T GLOOR JOHN L
PO BOX 7975 PO BOX 8556 500 PARK CIR
ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611
HIGHT NORTON F & JOAN P SMITH KATHLEEN M MOUNTAIN STATES COMMUNICATIONS
PO BOX 7696 1023 WILLITS LN INC
ASPEN CO 81612 BASALT CO 81621 PO BOX E
ASPEN CO 81612
EL BARRY & SHARON L FISHER CONSTANCE A BENTLEY CARL F
SESAME ST HC 75 BOX 204 427 PARK CIR
ASPEN CO 81611 GALISTEO NM 87540 ASPEN CO 81611
DAY ANN C LUU TONG KHON KRIEBEL KATHLEEN
PO BOX 3815 435 E MAIN ST PO BOX 910
ASPEN CO ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81612
MOUNTAIN STATES COMMUNICATIONS MORK HALBERT L FAMILY TRUST COOKMAN WILLIAM THOMAS
INC 77 ASPEN WAY 508 PARK CIR
310 E MAIN ST ROLLING HILLS CA 90274 ASPEN CO 81611
ASPEN CO 81611
SPECK KIM JENNIFER PAULIDES BROOKE A KARAUS LINDA MARIE & GREGORY
PO BOX 9912 PO BOX 11023 DONALD
ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 510 PARK CIR
ASPEN CO 81611
SMISEK LINDA L E BRIGHT GALEN DUNAWAY WILLIAM R
PARK CIR C-3 PO BOX 1848 DUNAWAY BARBARA ALLEN
EN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81612 PO BOX E
ASPEN CO 81612
ROSS MATTHEW N HAGEN CATHERINE ANNE FUENTES KATHERINE D
212 MIDLAND PARK PLACE 210 MIDLAND PARK PL B-10 FUENTES DAVID AS JOINT TENANTS
ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 213 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN CO
DODINGTON SUSAN M
221 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN CO 81611
GASSMAN PAMELA
302 MIDLAND PARK PL C-2
ASPEN CO 81611
FORNELL PETER J
402 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN CO 81611
CUNNINGHAM PAMELA M
502 MIDLAND PK PL
ASPEN CO 81611
)EN TODD E & DEBORAH C
MIDLAND PARK PL #E3
ASPEN CO 81611
SPONAR ANTON K AND JUDY
222 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN CO
BOYLAN THOMAS
303 MIDLAND PK #C 3
ASPEN CO 81611
KOCH KATHRYN S & JOHN F
304 MIDLAND PARK PL C-4
ASPEN CO 81611
MAC CRACKEN SCOTT R & MARISA
POST
PO BOX 10821
ASPEN CO 81612
GRIFFITHS THOMAS W
504 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN CO 81611
ROSEN JANE CALK LAURA E
PO BOX 9853 WILLCOX DENNIS AS JOINT TENANTS
ASPEN CO 81612 722 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN CO
PERSIKO DEBORAH & FREDERICK JT
TENANTS
710 MIDLAN PARK PL
ASPEN CO 81611
RITTER JEANNE MARIE
811 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN CO 81611
")HNSON SHAEL UND 80% INT
30X 3549
tN CO 81612
SULLIVAN ANNE T & COLSON JOHN D
ASPEN TIMES C/O
PO BOX E
ASPEN CO 81612
HECK JAMES C
PO BOX 8416
ASPEN CO 81612
WEBSTER DAVID H
PO BOX 10362
ASPEN CO 81612
STRAUB GRETCHEN A
BESTIC JEFFREY B
PO BOX 2267
ASPEN CO 81612
MCPHEE JAMES MICHAEL
401 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN CO 81611
KOLBERG JUDITH A
501 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN CO 81611
CHAUNER RONALD M & JACKIE L
SHEFFER
PO BOX 8782
ASPEN CO 81612
WELLS JOSEPH EDWARD
602 MIDLAND PARK PL F-2
ASPEN CO 81611
PATTEN DAVID N
810 MIDLAND PARK PL
ASPEN CO 81611
ALLEN TERRY S
PO BOX 9768
ASPEN CO 81612
BOYD SHAWNN
PO BOX 2204
ASPEN CO 81612
MEETING DATE:
NAME OF PROJECT: 5/0 PA-PK
CITY CLERK: ��G�C-(,�" LpT'ti1^f'--4
STAFF: IyN LIG �—�Z--��-
WITNESSES: (1) '2.6)Q`-�
(2)
(3)
(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
VOTE: YES NO
ROBERT BLAICH YES O _
ROGER HUNT YES NO _
ROGER HANEMAN YES Z NO
RON ERICKSON YES V"NO
JASMINE TYGRE YES V//NO
TIMOTHY MOONEY YES V NO
STEVEN BUETTOW YES V NO
YES NO
PZVOTE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
' J
1 i
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Land Use Code Amendments — Information Item
DATE: December 7, 1999
SUMMARY:
On November 16, 1999, staff discussed the process for amending the land use code
with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Pursuant to this discussion, staff will
schedule small user group discussions to review the land use code. Staff would like
to include representatives from the P&Z, HPC, Housing Board, and City Council as
well as area Architects, planners, attorneys, developers, and interested citizens. These
group sessions will be approximately two hours in duration with 4-6 members
participating.
Staff believes this process of small group discussion will more effectively concentrate
on the areas of the code which should be amended. At present, staff has scheduled
three session times:
• Thursday January 13 to 9 -11 a.m.
• Thursday January 13 th 1-3 p.m.
• Friday January 14"' 1-3 P.M.
On December 14, 1999, staff will ask for 2-4 P&Z members to participate ir: these
small group discussions and commit to one of the sessions.
1