Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19990413ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 1999 Jasmine Tygre, Vice-Chairperson, opened the special Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:30 p.m. with Steve Buettow, Tim Mooney, Ron Erickson, Roger Hunt and Tim Semrau (4:40 p.m.) present. Bob Blaich was excused. Staffin attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Mitch Haas, Joyce Ohlson, Julie Ann Woods, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roger Hunt stated the Engineering Department had the plats for the trail easement along the ACES fence by the Post Office; the trail easement was through the Post office property. Steve Buettow asked if the pick-up with a for sale sign on it was the new use of space where the newspaper boxes were previously located. Tim Mooney said there should be a traffic plan to eliminate the bottleneck with the circulation from the back of the building. Jasmine Tygre stated the City P&Z Commission felt strongly that a parking mitigation plan should be made and the newspaper boxes should be replaced. Ron Erickson said that at the lunch work session with Housing last Thursday; P&Z asked that all applicants have the same level of review. He asked the other commissioners to attend next week's lunch. Julie Ann Woods noted the meeting on April 21 st reviewing the AACP. There was discussion about the participation by the housing board voting on projects. Joyce Ohlson said issues needed to be discussed involving how to make communication work. She distributed a list of items brought up at prior meetings to bring closure. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Steve Buettow stepped down on the Bavarian Conceptual PUD. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (04/06/99): 855 BAY STREET - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE- ADU and VARIANCES FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Jasmine Tygre, vice-chair, opened the continued public hearing. David Hoefer stated the proof of notice was provided and the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. He provided a review criteria sheet. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 1999 Mitch Haas stated the applicant requested a stream margin review, conditional use review for an ADU and two design review standard variance requests; garage placement and the volume standard. The application included demolition of the existing single family residence and re-development of the site with a single family residence and an ADU. The ADU would be located below a detached garage with no FAR bonus requested. The 543 square foot ADU would be deed restricted with it's own access and parking space. Haas said the stream margin review was outside of the 100-year floodplain with an existing trail, fisherman's easement and pedestrian/riverine easement. There were conditions requesting a new plat for this property with a dedicated trail easement. The engineering department reviewed the top of slope and agreed with it as well as the building envelope placement. Haas noted the garage placement standard required the garage structure to be a minimum of ten feet recessed behind the front facade of the residence. He said this variance request more effectively addressed the standard. Haas stated the proposed volume variance regarding the "no window" zone between 9'-12' above a finished floor did not meet any of the standards. Staff recommended denial of this variance request because an alternate design was included that complied with the standard. David Muckenhirn, architect for applicant, stated the ADU was a very nice unit with it's own entrance. Ron Erickson asked what the FAR was on the site. Muckenhirn replied it was 6100 square feet. Steve Buettow asked what was the use of the space on the upper floor plan above the garage. He commented that the ADU would have worked well above the garage. Muckenhim replied the plans showed the elevation from a previous design with the ADU located above the garage, but the owner wanted to have a garage larger than the footprint of the ADU at 450 square feet. The commissioners requested clarification. Haas stated to obtain the FAR bonus without a mandatory occupancy deed restriction, the ADU must be detached and separated by 10 feet, above grade and the footprint of the structure had to be 450 square feet or less. He said there was no way, with a two-car garage, to have a 450 sfADU above the two-car garage. Buettow inquired if that review was within the P&Z's purview. Haas answered that was not one of the conditions under conditional use that could be varied. Erickson asked if the measurement of the 450 sfwas inside or outside. Haas responded it was the outside wall; other projects have accomplished the FAR bonus for an ADU with a one car garage and storage. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 1999 Tim Mooney asked if there was a floor plan to the second floor of the garage. Haas responded the second floor was only open space. Tim Semrau asked about the trail encroachment. Muckenhim replied it would become a trail easement. Haas noted the memo contained incorrect numbering and would be re-labeled on the revised Resolution and reflected in the motion. No public comments. Erickson stated that he was in favor of the project except for the ADU because it was not livable being below grade. Roger Hunt said that a publicly beneficial ADU would be his preference also; placing the ADU above the garage would be a good use of the space. Buettow said the square footage above the garage could be made to conform for an ADU by adding a deck and storage. Haas stated that city council could over-turn the interpretation made by staff to allow the ADU above the garage, but the owner could have added 300 sfto the ADU having the same footprint as the garage. Staff reviewed the ADU as proposed, not as what it could be. He said the owner could have removed 300 sf from the main residence, but chose not to do that. Semrau stated that he did not agree with the volume variance. He said there was a second option, which kept with the character of the code. Mooney agreed that the option for the volume should be taken without a variance. Tygre noted there were several elements of this proposal and there were no comments on the stream margin review or the variance for the garage standard. The commissioners concurred. She noted the residential design standard volume variance was problematic, as was the sub-grade ADU. Hoefer suggested that separate motions would be appropriate. Buettow asked if the ADU was turned down tonight, what recourse did the applicant have in the future. Hoefer replied that if the ADU was turned down tonight, that was a denial of the application and they would have to start over. He said they could appeal from the criteria on the sheet. Muckenhim asked if everything but the ADU could be approved tonight. He said then the ADU could be mitigated, appealed or something else. Haas responded that continuing the ADU portion of the hearing would be the best option. Hoefer noted that a date certain would be provided to continue the ADU portion of the hearing. Staff's memo was re-numbered and re-worded to reflect the changes. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 1999 MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the stream margin review and a variance from the "garage placement" provision of the residential design standards for lot one of the Creektree Subdivision, 855 Bay Street, provided the review criteria have been met, including the following conditions: 1. Prior to City acceptance of a building permit application, the applicant shall prepare for recordation an amended Final Plat for Lot 1 of the Creektree Subdivision; this final plat shall: a. delineate a "designated building envelope" where the southerly extent of said building envelope corresponds with (is identical to) the northern edge of the fifteen (15) foot no-build zone (stream margin setback); b. delineate the top of slope and the fifteen (15) foot "no-build zone;" c. dedicate and delineate a legally described as- built trail easement (without the words "trail encroachment") of at least twenty (20) feet in width (ten (10) feet on each side of the built trail's centerline); d. include a "Site Section" showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, the no-build zone, pertinent elevations above sea level, and the progressive height limitation set by a line drawn at a forty- five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope to the point of intersection with the height limitation of the underlying R-30/PUD zone district; d. delineate any and all existing wetlands areas as determined to exist through a wetlands delineation conducted in the Spring of 1999 by a qualified botanist or other wetlands expert and approved by the City Parks Department; f. be reviewed for approval by the Parks, Engineering, and Community Development Departments prior to recording (by the applicant) with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 2. The Building Permit application shall: a. include a signed and recorded copy of the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution outlining the granted approvals and conditions, and on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction, the language of any and all conditions of approval; b. include a signed and notarized letter from the contractor indicating that all conditions of approval are known to and understood by him/her; c. include a copy of the recorded Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision plat described above in condition 1; d. include a $50 fee in lieu of digital submission requirements; e. include a survey entitled "Improvement Survey" which clearly states that "all easements of record as indicated on Title Policy Number __, dated __ [within the past 12 months] are shown hereon." f. include a drainage report and mitigation plan (24" x 36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado, and the provisions of this plan are required to meet the runoff design standards of Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f); g. include a permanent erosion control plan, and a temporary sediment control and contaminant plan for the construction phase; h. indicate whether a ground injection or re-charge type drainage system is proposed (i.e., drywells), and if so, a soils report establishing percolation rates will need to be included; i..indicate that drywells will not be permitted within utility easements; j. demonstrate through the above-referenced drainage plans that foundation drainage systems will be detained on site; k. include an executed tree removal permit from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated (including scrub oaks of three (3) inches or greater); also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s). 1. include an executed copy of an agreement to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way; m. include working drawings to verify compliance with all applicable dimensional requirements; n. include a copy of an executed and recorded Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Agreement; o. a copy of an executed tap permit from the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit; p. include provisions and plans for the approval and installation of an automatic fire 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 1999 suppression system; and, q. include drawings that show all utility meter locations; utility meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. 3. Prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation, or building permits, the building envelope shall be delineated on-site by construction fencing incorporating sediment webbing from a point approximately thirty (30) feet back from the top of slope and around the river-side of the envelope to minimize the sedimentation potential along the two side yards and the river frontage. The barricades shall remain in place until the later of either the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or the completion and establishment of the landscaping. 4. If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not be directed toward the river or located down the river bank slope, nor will it cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down-directional, sharp cut-off fixtures, and those fixtures set along walkways (if any) shall be set at no more than eighteen (18) inches above finished grade. Outdoor flood lights are strictly prohibited. 5. The proposed design has been granted a variance from Section 26.58.040(F)(4)(c), Garage Placement, of the Residential Design Standards, Aspen Municipal Code. All other requirements of the Residential Design Standards shall be complied with. 6. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), the applicant shall permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. 7. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way; The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights-of-way. 8. If the proposed use, density, or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, grading, drainage, parking, or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation. 9. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 10. The applicant/owner shall provide the contractor(s) with copies of all Planning and Zoning Commission resolutions applicable to the 855 Bay Street Stream Margin Review approvals. 11. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Semrau, yes; Buettow, yes; Mooney, yes; Erickson, yes; Hunt, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing regarding the Conditional Use for an ADU at the James A. Morse residence, 855 Bay Street to May 18, 1999. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Erickson, yes; Mooney, yes; Semrau, yes; Buettow, yes; Hunt, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 1999 BAVARIAN INN CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre, Chair, opened the public hearing and requested proof of notice. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated John Sarpa provided the notice, which was sufficient to proceed. He asked if the sign was posted and the mailing was done 18 days prior to the hearing. Sarpa answered that was true. Hoefer introduced the proposal for the project; criteria review sheet; copy of the ballot language from 1990; letters from Polse, Eichner and Murray. Mitch Haas, staff, utilized a site map showing of the proposed location with the Bavarian Inn, which was actually 2 parcels of land. The site included the (Parcel 1) Bavarian Inn, out-buildings and (Parcel 2) the other side of the alley where there was a volleyball court, picnic table and single family home. The proposal was to stay within the zoning on Parcel 1 and re-zone Parcel 2 to RMF-PUD (the same as Parcel 1). The re-zoning would be done during the final approval and any approvals for the PUD would be conditioned upon the re-zoning approval. Haas stated the proposal for the existing Bavarian Inn included an interior remodel and paint with a new finish on the exterior. There would be 13 category two dormitory units, 1 two-bedroom apartment and 1 three-bedroom apartment. He said on Parcel 1, behind the Bavarian Inn, all the existing out-buildings would be demolished and replaced with a seven unit town home multi-family building. On the proposed Parcel 2 were five units facing 8th Street with temporary access to the 22 space parking area off the West Main Street extension. There would also be 2 one- story duplexes facing the street and facing the alley. All parking would access the alley; there would be mitigation for parking. This neighborhood had a parking problem. Haas stated some trees would be removed or re-located; some trees added as required and illustrated on the landscape plan. The parking area would be screened. Main Street was part of the historic district. He noted that a parking management plan was suggested. Haas said that Housing discussed converting the dormitory rooms into studios as for sale category units as opposed to rental units. He said that staff felt the architecture was appropriate with pitched roofs with a victorian character; the development proposal was suitable with density of just over 37 units to an acre. He said density was what we strive for in the urban area and this was one of the last buildable sites in the area with the exception of 7th and Main Street. Haas said that the Entrance To Aspen will be under construction at about the same time frame as this project. He said there were variance requests that would probably change if the project were redesigned prior to final PUD. The proposal 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 1999 met the Housing Guidelines as well as the other various plans. Haas stated staff recommended approval with the conditions as listed in the memo. John Sarpa, representative for Savannah, stated that they have worked with various staff over the years on this 100% privately funded affordable housing project. He said they continue to meet with the neighbors. Sunny Vann, Savannah Planner, said the primary issue was to provide a project suitable to the site, housing as many people as possible, and meeting the housing guidelines. He said the rental units would be reconsidered and possibly converted to for sale studio apartments. Vann stated the inadequate parking for the Villas, Bleeker Street and current Bavarian Inn seriously exacerbated the parking situation for the surrounding neighborhood. He said there were excellent transportation options for this site but the proposed parking plan was needed. Vann stated condition #2 was contrary to some of the issues identified from the neighborhood. He said there were neighbors in the audience to speak about some of these issues; most other areas of concern were basic site configurations. Richie Cohen, West Bleeker Place Townhouses, stated concern for the density and mass but a real concern was with staff's concept of the urban streetscape. He said living in this neighborhood did not have a very urban feeling with the surrounding one-story buildings and open space. He noted the new entry to Aspen from the tunnel across the bridge to a gable townhouse would seem harsh and out of place. He said the parking plan was critical. He said the height and mass needed to be reduced and a judicious replacement of trees may help. Bonnie Murray, 814 West Bleeker, said that she did write a letter (see exhibits) and stated support for employee housing; she thought this was a wonderful site. Murray noted concerns about the livability and safety of the complex with children due to the lack of open space. She said that she hoped the dormitory rooms would be reconsidered with the housing authority recommendation for studio and one- bedroom units. She voiced concern over the massing and retention of the current Bavarian Inn. Paul Murray, 814 West Bleeker, reiterated the traffic and parking problems on Bleeker, which would be added to with the new entrance to Aspen. He stated support for employee housing. Nancy Hendricks, Villas of Aspen, stated that the problems with cars were shared concerns. She said the housing was needed and expressed a desire for the dormitory units to be changed to studio for sale units. She agreed with the Murrays 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 1999 that the Bavarian INn should come down and noted the lack of open space not only for playing but where the snow would be stored after it was plowed. She hoped the berming would continue past Eighth Street for the new entrance. William Steward, Villas of Aspen, requested the heights be restricted for the livability of the neighborhood. He said there were concerns for the density and traffic impacts from the highway regardless of the entrance changes. Steward noted that he drove a city bus and witnessed more accidents than shown in the traffic study; the study did not rate this area safely. He said this would not make a bad situation worse but rather make a failed situation a death trap; this was not an exaggeration and asked for anyone to try and cross at Eighth Street. Steward said the alley entrance would make it a dangerous situation with the short comers and sight lines. He suggested the project entrance be moved to Bleeker Street to internalize the impacts and requested a total reduction of size, bulk and density. Herb Klein, neighbor, stated the developer has put the time in with the neighborhood and has tried to work within the constraints they were under. He reiterated the access and limited access problems in the area and cited the requirements for development from the code. He said the alley probably did not have adequate turning radius and was disappointed that staff did not filter out these problems prior to this conceptual stage. He noted the code did not make a distinction when re- zoning for affordable housing. Klein stated the traffic engineers gave the lowest possible mark for this intersection; the report shows only a few cars through the intersection onto Main Street because cars cannot get out of that intersection. He said the people of the neighborhood cannot use the intersection to get out onto Eighth but once the new highway is done there will not be that opportunity to come out of those streets because they will be closed. Klein noted no analysis for the traffic light added was done and with the Cemetery Lane traffic added, this light would cause Bleeker and the alley to be blocked. Klein stated the Bavarian INn was a dump but the people who lived there were very nice and considerate. He said there was no problem with affordable housing but the density and massing were problems and not suitable for the neighborhood. Klein said this was his back and side yard and he had NIMBY issues here. Klein stated there was a circulation problem and a wall of buildings with the current site plan. He said this was not part of the urban grid of town and there were places in town that had access to parking from Main Street through out town. Klein commented the trees must be retained, protected and not be trimmed to accommodate another building. He noted the alley was not 20' in width because of ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 1999 the trees in this area and this was a very dangerous intersection. Klein stated the issue with the intersection was afatalflaw and should not be glossed over. Klein stated the existing Bavarian cabins should be historic and would be acceptable in terms of the neighborhood with less density and less parking problems. He requested the commissioners do a site visit. Todd Bosart, West Bleeker Place, echoed the neighbors concerns and comments. He stated the Savannah gentlemen have been great but this was a dense neighborhood with a narrow street especially with snow. He noted there was more than one car per hour because he made at least that many trips with his neighbors. He said that loosing a few trees was an understatement; he encouraged the commission to look at the proposal and the foundation for it. Tygre requested the commission make a decision to extend the meeting past 7:00. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting until 7:25 p.m. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4-0. Tim Mooney stated sympathy for the developer and the neighborhood; this gets to the root of the question for a sustainable community without projects like this and without sacrifices from the neighborhood. He said this was a suitable location and density for a project like this; he agreed with the RMF-PUD zoning. Mooney stated he was not in favor of variances; he said everyone shouldfit into the box, but stated sympathy toward the height and open space variances to allow the project to move forward. Mooney said the affordable housing should allow the ability to move up through the "housing food chain"; this may be one situation where rental dorm rooms could work if properly controlled. He said the parking spaces should be assigned with limitations spelled out in the covenants. He questioned why underground parking and basements were not explored. Mooney agreed with Richie Cohen in dropping the height of the buildings and even by going down 3 feet to accommodate the density into other areas on the site. He said the trees were critical to the landscape plan. Ron Erickson stated that he did not agree with staff on the urban landscape. He felt the height of the project should be lowered by going below ground; he said the trees were being removed or relocated anyhow according to the site plan. He applauded the number of parking spaces because the area has a parking problem. Erickson said there was a problem with the access to the project and it needed to be solved. He thought that one bedrooms were a better use for employee housing. 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 1999 Roger Hunt stated the Main Street access should be kept and there were traffic figures that would support a better flow with the Main Street extension at 7th and Bleeker, he noted the flow may not be perfect but should be better. He said that he preferred the dorm idea to allow a balanced approach to affordable housing. Hunt said the gable roofs were preferred to flat roofs even if the buildings needed to be lowered to accommodate the project. He thought the density was okay. Hunt noted that ownership housing on site called for more parking to be provided on site. He mentioned the need for a parking storage facility outside of town for projects just like this one. Tim Semrau asked the height of the Main Street after the Entrance to Aspen was built. Haas replied that he did not think that was decided yet, but the assumption was the same as with parking on the north side of the street. He complimented the architecture and recommended changing the dorm units to studios. He stated the project was sound and it was time for creative solutions to some of the problems. Semrau said the height was 37' at the ridge; if the excavation went 8' instead of 4' there could be a step-down garden level or other space utilized with a height reduction. He said that access was a problem and solutions were needed with a possible parking restriction for permit parking in the west end. He said the access to Main Street from 7th could be utilized until the Entrance to Aspen was finished. Tygre summarized that a sense from the commission in favor of the density at this location but stated a need for solutions with regards to the dormitory units possibly being converted to studio or one-bedroom units; the over-all height being lowered; access and parking problems being solved. She suggested a partnership with the city on replacement of the Bavarian rather than remodel. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing for the Bavarian Inn Conceptual PUD to June 1, 1999. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 1999 COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 1 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 1 855 BAY STREET - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE- ADU AND VARIANCES FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS ................................................................................................ 1 BAVARIAN INN CONCEPTUAL PUD .............................................................................................................. 6 11 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 19999 4:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. PUBLIC HEARING A. 855 Bay Street: Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use for an ADU, Residential Design Variances (continued from 4/13), Mitch Haas B. Bavarian Inn Conceptual PUD, Mitch Haas V. ADJOURN CITE' AGENDAS 4/12 City Council (5:00) City Notice 3/23 Barbee Affordable Housing, Final PUD, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (JAW) 930 King, Lot Split and Grant, 211d Reading Public Hearing (AG) Nolan Lot Split, 308 North I" Street, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (CB) 4/13 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 3/23 Special Meeting Bavarian Inn Conceptual PUD, Public Hearing (MH) 855 Bay Street: Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use. for an ADU, Residential Design Variances, Public Hearing (continued from 4/6), (MH) 4/14 HPC (5:00) City Notice 3/23 2 Williams Way, Inventory, Public Hearing (SO) 134 W. Hopkins (continued from 3/24) 735 W. Bleeker, Amendment, Public Hearing 330 Lake, Work Session Stein Eriksen, Window Replacement 4/15 City Planning and Zoning/Housing Board (12:00) 4/19 City Council/City Planning and Zoning (4: 00) Lodge Preservation, Work Session 4/20 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 3/30 Joint Meeting with County P&Z AACP, Work Session Lighting Code Work Session 4/22 City Planning and Zoning/Housing Board (12:00) 4/26 City Council (5:00) City Notice 4/6 HPC Projects, Supplemental Request (AG/SO) HPC Design Guidelines, Contract Approval (AG) 4/27 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 4/6 Special Meeting Long Range Planning Meeting Truscott Housing/Golf Pro Shop, Work Session (CB) 4/28 HPC (5:00) City Notice 4/6 930 King Street, Amendment, Public Hearing (AG) 520 E. Durant, Minor 135 W. Hopkins, Conceptual, etc., Public Hearing (con't from 3/24) Aspen Plaza, Minor 710 North Third, Minor 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) 7t" & Main Affordable Housing, Work Session (BN) 135 West Hopkins, Landmark, Public Hearing (AG) Brien Conditional Use for an ADU, Lot 44 West Aspen Subdivision, Public Hearing (JO) 5/6 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) Joint Meeting County with CP&Z �' Adoption of AACP 5/10 City Council (5:00) City Notice 4/20 2 Williams Way, Inventory, 1st Reading (SO) 135 West Hopkins, Landmark, Ft Reading (AG) 5/12 HPC (5:00) City Notice 4/20 7t" and Main, Work Session 5/18 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 4/27 5/24 City Council (5:00) City Notice 5/4 Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, 1" Reading Action Item (CB) 5/26 HPC (5:00) City Notice 5/4 6/1 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) City Notice 5/11 6/8 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) Joint Meeting with County P&Z Buttermilk Master Plan 0 6/9 HPC City Notice 5/18 6/14 City Council (5:00) City Notice 5/25 2 Williams Way, Inventory, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (SO) Burlingame Ranch Rezoning, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (CB) 135 West Hopkins, Landmark, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (AG) 6/15 City Planning and 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 4/7/99 g:/planning/aspen/agendas/comingup. doc/ 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner RE: 855 Bay Street (Lot 1,Creektree Subdivision) Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and Variances from the Residential Design Standards. Parcel I.D. No. 2737-073-50001. DATE: April 13, 1999 (continued from April 6, 1999) SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval for a Stream Margin Review, a Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and two variances from the Residential Design Standards (garage placement and volume standards). The subject property is located at 855 Bay Street (Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision). The applicant seeks to demolish an existing single family house and redevelop the site with a new single-family residence and an ADU. The proposed ADU would be located beneath a detached two -car garage, with a linking pavilion (breezeway) connecting the structure to the corresponding, primary residence. The ADU is proposed as a means of obtaining a GMQS exemption; an FAR bonus is not requested. The applicant's Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use Application is attached as Exhibit A, and referral- comments from Engineering, Housing, Zoning, the Aspen - Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD), and Parks are included as Exhibit B. A vicinity map is attached as Exhibit C. Community Development Department staff recommends that the Stream Margin Review, and Conditional Use for the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at 855 Bay Street be- approved, subject to conditions. With regard to the Residential Design Standards, staff recommends approval of a "garage placement" variance, but denial of the requested "volume" variance. APPLICANT: James A. Morse, represented by Ventures West Architectural Design and Construction (David Muckenhirn). LOCATION: Lot I of the Creektree Subdivision is located at 855 Bay Street in the City of Aspen. The lot is bounded by Bay Street to the north, Lot 12, Block 2 of Oklahoma Flats to the west, and the Roaring Fork River and then a park to the south (See vicinity map attached as Exhibit Q. The surrounding uses are all residential in nature. ZONING: Low -Density Residential with a Planned Unit Development overlay (R-30/PUD) CURRENT LAND USE: Detached single-family residential. LOT SIZE: 1.469 acres (approximately 63,990 square feet). 1 N ALLOWABLE FAR: The allowable FAR on the subject lot is based on the Creektree Subdivision and PUD Agreement, and Ordinance Number 14, Series 1995. These approvals established an average lot area if 41,916 square feet for each of the four lots within the subdivision for purposes of calculating the allowable floor area. Thus, based on a 41,916 square foot lot in the R-30 zone district, the allowable floor area for a single family residence is 6,114 square feet. PROPOSED LAND USE: One detached single-family residence with a corresponding accessory dwelling unit below the detached garage. Detached residential dwellings are permitted uses on lots of 30,000 square feet or greater in the R-30 zone district. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) require conditional use approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. It is a one-step review that requires notification to be published, posted and mailed in accordance with Section 26.52.060(E). The Stream Margin Review is also a one-step processes; however, it requires only a public meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The difference lies in the fact that public meetings do not carry notice requirements or the need to take public comment. The following sections of the code are applicable to the review of the 855 Bay Street development application: Section 26.68.040, Stream Margin Review; Section 26.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Units; Section 26.28.080, Low -Density Residential (R-30); Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses; and, Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards. Pursuant to Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards, Community Development Department staff reviewed this proposal against the Residential Design Standards and found that the submitted development application violates the volume and garage placement standards. A discussion of the variance requests associated with these standards is provided below. BACKGROUND: The current proposal is for Stream Margin Review approval as well as Conditional Use approval of an ADU. The ADU would be detached from the primary residence (but connected by a linking pavilion), below the two -car garage. As proposed, the ADU would contain approximately 543± square feet of net livable area and would have its own kitchen, bathroom, and access, as required by code. A surface parking space alongside the two -car garage would provide the required off-street parking space (See Exhibit A). REFERRAL COMMENTS: The comments from the City Engineering, Housing, Zoning, and Parks Departments as well as the ACSD are attached as Exhibit B. STAFF COMMENTS: The criteria for Stream Margin Review and staffs responses to each criterion are attached as Exhibit "D." The criteria for Accessory Dwelling Units and Conditional Uses as well as staffs responses to each criterion are attached as Exhibit "E." 2 Exhibit "F," attached hereto, provides staff s review of the requested variances from the Residential Design Standards. As demonstrated in Exhibit "D," staff finds the proposal to comply with the criteria for Stream Margin Review, and recommends approval with conditions. Similarly and as demonstrated in Exhibit "E," staff finds the proposal to comply with the criteria for Accessory Dwelling Units as Conditional Uses in the R-30 zone district, and recommends approval with conditions. With regard to the requested variances from the Residential Design Standards, as explained in Exhibit "F," staff recommends approval of a "garage placement" variance but denial of the requested "volume" variance. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the proposed Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use for an ADU at 855 Bay Street, (Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision) with the following conditions: 1. Prior to City acceptance of a building permit application, the applicant shall prepare for recordation an amended Final Plat for Lot 1 of the Creektree Subdivision; this final plat shall: a. delineate a "designated building envelope where the southerly extent of said building envelope corresponds with (is identical to) the northern edge of the fifteen (15) foot no - build zone (stream margin setback); b. delineate the top of slope and the fifteen (15) foot "no -build zone;" c. dedicate and delineate a legally described as -built trail easement (without the words "trail encroachment") of at least twenty (20) feet in width (ten (10) feet on each side of the built trail's centerline); d. include a "Site Section" showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, the no -build zone, pertinent elevations above sea level, and the progressive height limitation set by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope to the point of intersection with the height limitation of the underlying R- 30/PUD zone district; e. delineate any and all existing wetlands areas as determined to exist through a wetlands delineation conducted in the Spring of 1999 by a qualified botanist or other wetlands expert and approved by the City Parks Department; f. be reviewed for approval by the Parks, Engineering, and Community Development Departments prior to recording (by the applicant) with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 2. The Building Permit application shall: a. include a signed and recorded copy of the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution monumentalizing the granted approvals and conditions, and on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction, the language of any and all conditions of approval; b. include a signed and notarized letter from the contractor indicating that all conditions of approval are known to and understood by him/her; c. include a copy of the recorded Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision plat described above in condition 1; d. include a $50 fee in lieu of digital submission requirements; 3 e. include a survey entitled "Improvement Survey" which clearly states that "all easements of record as indicated on Title Policy Number , dated [within the past 12 months] are shown hereon." f. include a drainage report and mitigation plan (24" x 36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado, and the provisions of this plan are required to meet the runoff design standards of Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f); g. include a permanent erosion control plan, and a temporary sediment control and contaminant plan for the construction phase; h. indicate whether a ground injection or re -charge type drainage system is proposed (i.e., drywells), and if so, a soils report establishing percolation rates will need to be included; i. indicate that drywells will not be permitted within utility easements; j. demonstrate through the above -referenced drainage plans that foundation drainage systems will be detained on site; f. include an executed tree removal permit from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated (including scrub oaks of three (3) inches or greater); also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s). g. include verification from the Housing Office that the Accessory Dwelling Unit will contain between 300 and 700 square feet of net livable area; h. include verification from the Housing Office that the ADU will contain a kitchen having a minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer; i. include a signed and recorded Deed Restriction, a copy of which must be obtained from the Housing Office; j. clearly identify the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on building permit plans as a separate one -bedroom unit; k. clearly indicate the provision of at least of one (1) off-street parking space for the ADU, and said space(s) shall be shown and designated on the final plans; 1. include an executed copy of an agreement to join any future improvement districts) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way; in. include working drawings to verify compliance with all applicable dimensional requirements; n. include a copy of an executed and recorded Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Agreement; o. a copy of an executed tap permit from the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit; p. include provisions and plansfor the approval and installation of an automatic fire suppression system; q. information needed to verify that the proposed plans for the ADU will comply with all UBC requirements including but not limited to those addressing natural light, sound attenuation, and ventilation standards; r. include drawings that show all utility meter locations; utility meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. 3. Prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation, or building permits, the building envelope shall be delineated on -site by construction fencing incorporating sediment webbing from a 4 point approximately thirty (30) feet back from the top of slope and around the river -side of the envelope to minimize the sedimentation potential along the two side yards and the river frontage. The barricades shall remain in place until the later of either the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or the completion and establishment of the landscaping. 4. The applicant shall provide a roof overhang or other sufficient means of preventing snow from falling on both the stairway leading to the door and the area in front of the door to the ADU; sufficient means of preventing icing of the stairway is also required. 5. If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not be directed toward the river or located down the river bank slope, nor will it cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures, and those fixtures set along walkways (if any) shall be set at no more than eighteen (18) inches above finished grade. Outdoor flood lights are strictly prohibited. 6. The proposed design has been granted a variance from Section 26.58.040(F)(4)(c), Garage Placement, of the Residential Design Standards, Aspen Municipal Code. All other requirements of the Residential Design Standards shall be complied with. 7. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy -(CO), the applicant shall permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. 8. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: • The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way; • The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; • The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, • The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. 9. If the proposed use, density, or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, grading, drainage, parking, or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, A complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation. 10, Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 11. The applicant/owner shall provide the contractor(s) with copies of all Planning and Zoning Commission resolutions applicable to the 855 Bay Street Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use Review approvals. 12. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be 0 considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use request for an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 855 Bay Street (Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision) with the conditions recommended in the April 13, 1999 staff memorandum." EXHIBITS: "A" - Submitted Application "B" - Referral Comments "C" - Vicinity Map "D" - Stream Margin Review criteria and responses "E" - ADU/Conditional Use Review criteria and responses ' F" - Review of Residential Design Standards variance requests 6 P & Z Resolution 99-6 855 Bay Street RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON LOT ONE OF THE CREEKTREE SUBDIVISION, 855 BAY STREET, CITY OF ASPEN Resolution 99-00 WHEREAS, The Community Development Department received an application from David Muckenhirn of Ventures West on behalf of James A. Morse, owner, for Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use Review of a detached, below -grade Accessory Dwelling Unit having approximately five hundred forty-five (545) square feet of net livable area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.68.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Stream Margin Review applications may be approved at a public meeting by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.40.090 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Accessory Dwelling Units may be approved at a public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission as Conditional Uses in conformance with the requirements of said Section; and WHEREAS, the Housing Office, the City Engineering Department, the Parks Department, the City Zoning Officer, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, and the Community Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, a public meeting regarding the Stream Margin Review application was held by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 13, 1999 (continued from April 6, 1999), at which the Commission approved by a vote of to (_-� the Stream Margin Review for the 855 Bay Street reconstruction with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 13, 1999 (continued from April 6, 1999), at which the Commission approved by a to (_-� vote the Conditional Use for the 855 Bay Street residence's AccesaQrX Dwelling Unit with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: Reetinn (Ine. The proposed Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use for an ADU at 855 Bay Street (Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision) is hereby.approved with the following conditions: 1. Prior to City acceptance of a building permit application, the applicant shall prepare for recordation an amended Final Plat for Lot 1 of the Creektree Subdivision; this final plat shall: Page 1 of 4 P & Z Resolution 99- OS 855 Bay Street a. delineate a "designated building envelope" where the southerly extent of said building envelope corresponds with (is identical to) the northern edge of the fifteen (15) foot no - build zone (stream margin setback); b. delineate the top of slope and the fifteen (15) foot "no -build zone;" c. dedicate and delineate a legally described as -built trail easement (without the words "trail encroachment") of at least twenty (20) feet in width (ten (10) feet on each side of the built trail's centerline); d. include a "Site Section" showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top ofslope, the no -build zone, pertinent elevations above sea level, and the progressive height limitation set by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope to the point of intersection with the height limitation of the underlying R- 30/PUD zone district, e. delineate any and all existing wetlands areas as determined to exist through a wetlands delineation conducted in the Spring of 1999 by a qualified botanist or other wetlands expert and approved by the City Parks Department; f. be reviewed for approval by the Parks, Engineering, and Community Development Departments prior to recording (by the applicant) with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 2. The Building Permit application shall: a. include a signed and recorded copy of the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution outlining the granted approvals and conditions, and on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction, the language of any and all conditions of approval; b. include a signed and notarized letter from the contractor indicating that all conditions of approval are known to and understood by him/her; c. include a copy of the recorded Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision plat described above in condition 1; d. include a $50 fee in lieu of digital submission requirements; e. include a survey entitled "Improvement Survey" which clearly states that "all easements of record as indicated on Title Policy Number , dated [within the past 12 months] are shown hereon." f. include a drainage report and mitigation plan (24" x 36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado, and the provisions of this plan are required to meet the runoff design standards of Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f); g. include a permanent erosion control plan, and a temporary sediment control and contaminant plan for the construction phase; h. indicate whether a ground injection or re -charge type drainage system is proposed (i.e., drywells), and if so, a soils report establishing percolation rates will need to be included; i. indicate that drywells will not be permitted within utility easements; j. demonstrate through the above -referenced drainage plans that foundation drainage systems will be detained on site; f. include an executed tree removal permit from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated (including scrub oaks of three (3) inches or greater); also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s). g. include verification from the Housing Office that the Accessory Dwelling Unit will contain between 300 and 700 square feet of net livable area; Page 2 of 4 P & Z Resolution 99-QS 855 Bay Street h. include verification from the Housing Office that the ADU will contain a kitchen having a minimum` of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer; i. include a signed and recorded Deed Restriction, a copy of which must be obtained from the Housing Office; j. clearly identify the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on building permit plans as a separate one -bedroom unit; k. clearly indicate the provision of at least of one (1) off-street parking space for the ADU, and said space(s) shall be shown and designated on the final plans; 1. include an executed copy of an agreement to join any future improvement districts) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way; m. include working drawings to verify compliance with all applicable dimensional requirements; n. include a copy of an executed and recorded Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Agreement; o. a copy of an executed tap permit from the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit; p. include provisions and plans for the approval and installation of an automatic fire suppression system; q. information needed to verify that the proposed plans for the ADU will comply with all UBC requirements including but not limited to those addressing natural light, sound attenuation, and ventilation standards; r. include drawings that show all utility meter locations; utility meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. 3. Prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation, or building permits, the building envelope shall be delineated on -site by construction fencing incorporating sediment webbing from a point approximately thirty (30) feet back from the top of slope and around the river -side of the envelope to minimize the sedimentation potential along the two side yards and the river frontage. The barricades shall remain in place until the later of either the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or the completion and establishment of the landscaping. 4. The applicant shall provide a roof overhang or other sufficient means of preventing snow from falling on both the stairway leading to the door and the area in front of the door to the ADU; sufficient means of preventing icing of the stairway is also required. 5. If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not be directed toward the river or located down the river bank slope, nor will it cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures, and those fixtures set along walkways (if any) shall be set at no more than eighteen (18) inches above finished Trade. Outdoor flood lights are strictly prohibited. 6. The proposed design has been granted a variance from Section 26.58.040(F)(4)(c), Garage Placement, of the Residential Design Standards, Aspen Municipal Code. All other requirements of the Residential Design Standards shall be complied with. Page 3 of 4 P & Z Resolution 99- o 855 Bay Street 7. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), the applicant shall permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. 8. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: • The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way; • The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; • The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, • The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way. 9. If the proposed use, density, or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, grading, drainage, parking, or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation. 10. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 11. The applicant/owner shall provide the contractor(s) with copies of all Planning and Zoning Commission resolutions applicable to the 855 Bay Street Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use Review approvals. 12. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 13, 1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Attest: Planning and Zoning Commission: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Robert Blaich, Chairperson Page 4 of 4 MORSE CHATEAU APPLICATION FOR STREAM MARGIN, CONDITIONAL USE AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW This is an application for Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the Morse Chateau with respect to the City of Aspen's 1) Stream Margin Review criteria; 2) Conditional Use criteria, and; 3) Residential Design criteria. The Morse Chateau is a single family residence proposed for construction at 855 Bay Street, Aspen, Colorado (Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado) which is zoned R30/PUD. The owner, James Morse, seeks to demolish the existing "60's" single family home and construct a new residence with an ADU. The lot, which abuts the Roaring Fork River, contains approximately 41,916 square feet and has an allowable FAR of 6,115 square feet. The combined minimum submission items required for the three reviews follow immediately. Specific responses to each review are then presented. LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name:b Location: 85 S -BA -n)T ,A -:5 Pam 6to _T t eeaE:KTREa t,0Z:P1V) (Indicate street address. lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) APPLICANT; Name: Address: p 1 C_ 2 trS Ulf l4 x- Phone #: 95 -- ? j .19 REPRESENTATIVE: Nanic: 7- 2 c 5 �AV I Address: C>Y, 63S2— (4:0 12.. Phone #: 9 �- o T\ /T P- r- A !1 n / . /1 A T. /\ \ 9. / 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 I r rc vr- r-NrrLMom i Aviv. WlcuJC lllGu& (ill M L dIJPlY): © Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt. ❑ Special Review ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt. GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation ® ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use ❑ Other: ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) e 60 h `a F- A I14 ( L �'�SID�NGc. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) TC> _D6-M o L IS 14 EX (5, � T►eU�Tz.J 2C A N D Co u 5 rrzv CT A Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S Pre -Application Conference Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form ❑ Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents ❑ Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents ❑ Response to Attachment 95, Review Standards for Your Application Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM ,i i !I i (-a s c;?. F= r (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: N /A NUMber ofresidential units: 1s"Uylilig._I_ 1'1-o1)o.ti•ec1_•_ ( __- Number of bedrooms: Exi,s•ling: 3 Proposed: * 5 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing. SLa Allowable: f 1 Proposed. - Principal bldg. height: Existing. ig , r Allowable.- Proposed: ? q Access. bldg. height: Existing: ll(ot4 Er Allowable: ` Proposed: ,�F 3 On -Site parking: Existing. Required. 3 Proposed: Q % Site coverage: Existing: Required.- N 1A, Proposed.• % Open Space: Existing: Required: 14 JA Proposed. - Front Setback: 1 Existing.- Z Required: ? 5' ' Proposed.- /{ S Rear Setback: Existing.-` �� -Required.- IS/ Proposed. - Combined F/R: Existing: --= Required: N D N. Er Proposed. - Side Setback: Existing. _ Z Required: f D 1 Proposed: 4[ 1 Side Setback: Existing:_Regt�ired: � j O Proposed: r (9� Combined Sides: Existing. Required: N 0 N G -Proposed.- Existing non -conformities or encroachments: KI FE Variations requested: VoLuma James A. Morse 107 Sinclair Drive Muskegon, Michigan 49441 616-798-2149 December, 29, 1998 Did Muokenhirn of V= ures West Enterprises, Inc. is hereby authorized to act as any agent and represenbr ivc in aU matters regarding the application for a Stream IV =Min Review, a CondJitionat Use Review for an ADU and a Residential Design Review of the proposed development of my prageM located at 955 Bay Street Aspen, Colorado (aka Lot I Crocktree Subdivision, Aspen, Co orado)- es A. Mores Owner 855 Day Street Aspe4 Colorado ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees (Please Print Clearly) CITY OF ASPEN hereinafter CITY and JAmas Moa5E- (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for l �'�` M OW-5 E C+4 A Tom, A Q (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996) establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 6=which is for hours of Planning staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director City of Aspen Signatl Printed Nai Mailing Address: CO C\l Q a .� � U LO c a con CL C:) U C:) I IU 0 U cc) C,) < LU ex CL U < uj Z (n ui to .2 0 �O CO Cl. c CD CD CD E c3 CD co 0" LO 0 C. co C) In C3 I l-, Z LU (D I CL < 0 a. C-4 LO co to 0 -J: Q. 0 E H U -v a -rU - 0 0 0 0 00000000 CA -� C�x�oc• *" WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made this 16 day of JANUARY 1998, between NELIGH C. COATES, JR. OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO GRANTOR, AND JAMES A. MORSE, TRUSTEE OF THE JAMES A. MORSE TRUST DATED JANUARY 15, 1997 GRANTEE whose legal address is 107 SINCL.AIR DRIVE, MUSKEGON, MI 49441 COUNTY OF MUSKEGON , STATE OF MI WITNESSETH, That for and in consideration of Ten Dollars and other good and a valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey and confirm unto the grantee, its successors and assigns forever, all the real ZK1 property together with improvements, if any, situate and lying and being in the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described as follows: LOT 1, CREEKTREE SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof recorded February 14, 1978 in Plat Book 6 at Page B3 and the First Amended Plat Creektree Subdivision, recorded June 21, 1995 in Plat Book 37 at Page 54. ro 111111111111 HIM111111111111111111111111111111111 II I ('r 412832 01/16/1998 02:41P WD DAMS SILVI v 1 of 2 R 11.00 D 200.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO /n�LJ TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the w a� estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor 2 -9 either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. 13 R To HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, t with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, its successors and assigns forever. to And the Grantor, for himself, his heirs and personal representatives, does _ covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, its successors (� and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing delivery of the presents, he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, a - absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except those matters as set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above bargained �+o premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, its successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the co whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of gender shall be applicable to all MIN cfenders . EXHIBIT "A" 1. Taxes for the year 1998 not yet due or payable. 2. Reservations and exceptions as contained in Patent recorded in Book 39 at Page 136. 3. Terms and conditions of easements granted in documents recorded in Book 244 at Page 683 and in Book 244 at Page 686, 4. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Subdivision Improvements Agreement recorded February 14, 1978 in Book 343 at Page 534. S. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plats of subject property recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 83 and Plat Book 37 at Page 54. 6. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Amendment to Development Agreement recorded June 21, 1995 in Book 784 at Page 123. 7. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Grant of Fishing Easement recorded June 21, 1995 in Book 784 at Page 128. S. Any question, dispute or adverse claim as to any loss or gain of land as a result of any change in the river bed location by other than natural causes, or alteration through accretion, reliction, erosion or avulsion of the center thread, bank, channel or flow of waters in the -Roaring Fork River lying within subject land; and any question as to the location of such center thread, bed, bank, bed or channel as a legal description monument or marker for the purposes of describing or locating subject lands. NOTE: There are no documents in the land records of the Office of the Clerk and Recorded of Pitkin County, Colorado accurately locating past or present location(s) of the center thread, bank, bed, or channel of the above River or indicating any alterations of the same as from time to time may have occured. 9 Any rights, interest or easements in favor of the riparian owners, the State of Colorado, The United States of America, or the general public, which exist, have existed, or are claimed to exist in and over the waters and present and past bed and banks of the Roaring Fork River. I �aii nnine m iii iiuiii uWD ni iinii iiiuniiigi qiiiii a of z a 11.ee n zee.eex a.ee m:x cwx.r co Mtn i Laurel: 3"'' Ct'...,t �,� `c � �e�re� ,.'•� of ^,;, +( co jV r J F 0 JQ i(BM , d c cil ijCD Cps 3 'sy t_ , a `mow y Q .%�s," Q tip. a f� pow vie !� W �S so ��fl t d o c4 11 Gti .J' n c f 9 Jy< c°Q Cl� �` .6'pue/p�W <Ct L U et Ln cc U �) ces- ��r » ✓ vc `off t 1!d Jed -� LaG Vr° ap/S�aci' aantdS IS- 3nute/Y1:4 � _ WW f J .. pvd;�s. 4� ��cQ, �'��� a � > ,rPJ� 1 � ;•!+x..;r� ��i Jsr/eulB�6, 1� ,;, b 0 NJs{1Su`Q �ti�P PH ulalupoW Pad of� 1 aluhH �o (Q jiver Queen �;, ' gd� /.tt m Q � r•�''M ..._.,r•--• --��,, r'���JS.Gondola 1014 a u�as �✓,, aa� �5 ��"' .. Q � fed--'� 3 .:fin ayl t �0 5rZ Q m E cn VA et jtz, It .� r _ Z�vV` 0. o a t/ J a°' r v j o 3' ` 0n) ` 'rri' ; Q / m« t..^' �Fm C�� �0�15'�/.. Jsyl� _ a )r,--^B,`tor� _ f e� _ 6 or o� y_IQ Now peaw ro RiverC Cr Ne�rO i. Cestlep Ct �O vap�oH J �JJsZ�`� 7r 'i m c 3 y emeteN t� P� Q• r-i ' G 0st Marolt CeeK $=ci t f c > tie r ;0 Qyl� ✓ .��� . �a v' ao t a6Plhl u IMl :vir000 a' POW Mese Cr ���y�� 4��� f �a POOMopeaW S u7 0..,"G�ioq.a F- `° co c G09 Qj /4 c o o ��.) C Q rtf 1 / 1 \ t) ( \ 1 \ h DI r 1 ---- _ i 1 ' - -- ------------------------- �1 _ o 1. RESPONSE TO THE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW STANDARDS (Attachment 4). Because the proposed development is within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork River, a Stream Margin Review is required. 1. As none of the proposed development is within the Special Flood Hazard area, this item is not applicable. 2. The applicant agrees to preserve the existing easement for the public trail and also the fisherman's easement which are recorded and are reflected on the attached survey. 3. The applicant is working with the Parks Department to ensure compliance with the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan. 4. The applicant agrees not to remove or damage any vegetation or to alter the grade between the designated building envelope and the river. Additionally, the applicant agrees to barricade the river side of the building envelope prior to any demolition, excavation or building permits and to maintain this barricade until the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. A plan to accommodate the increased site drainage shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. This and the barricade shall ensure that the proposed development will not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river. 6. This item is not applicable, as none of the proposed development is within the 100 year flood plain. 7. This item is not applicable, as none of the proposed development is within the 100 year flood plain. 8. This item is not applicable, as none of the proposed development is within the 100 year flood plain. 9. The applicant agrees not to remove or damage any vegetation or alter the grade between the designated building envelope and the river. 10. Please see the attached "Site Section" illustrating the top of slope, the 15 foot "no build" set -back and the 45 degree angle progressive height limit. 11. Please refer to the site plan for the proposed landscaping. No new plantings are proposed outside of the building envelope. 12. Applicant agrees not to direct any exterior lighting toward the river or to locate any lighting down the river bank slope. 13. Please refer to the "Site Section" included on the survey showing the proposed site elements, the top of slope and the river elevation and profile. 14. Please refer to the attached letter from NatureTech Consultant Services Corp. IVATURETECH CONSULTANT SERVICES CORP. 2128 Railroad Ave., Ste. 201, Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625-8553 • FAX 625-8073 • Email: NTCS1@sopris.net City of Aspen Planning Department Mr. Mitch Haas, Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO. 81611 February 17, 1998 Dear Sir: This letter shall serve as a statement of opinion for David Muckenhirn to comply with the City of Aspen Stream Margin Review for his project. Due to field site conditions, the delineation base on the U.S. Army Cops of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual was not completed. However, based on a field site review completed on 12 February 1999, it is my opinion that development associated with the application submittal will not impact the riparian zone along the Roaring Fork River. The Roaring Fork River through this stretch is incised approximately 10 feet from the top of slope. In addition, many of the woody species associated with riparian areas at this elevation [i.e., yellow willow, (Salix lutea), red -osier dogwood, (Cornus stolonifera spp sericea) and narrow -leaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia)] are rooting well below the top of slope. Furthermore, the majority of the building envelope appears to be dominated by lawn grass such as kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) which is a non indicator plant species. Due to the inability of the site to meet the vegetation criteria needed for a jurisdictional wetland determination, the wetland line is expected to occur below the top of slope. The applicant has agreed to place the building envelope approximately 15 feet from the top of slope. By maintaining this buffer, any concerns associated with encroachment in the riparian zone should be alleviated. Should a formal delineation be needed for the processing of this permit, it is necessary for the ground to be free of snow cover and vegetation in a growth state that is easily identifiable. Please call me if you have questions regarding these comments. Sincere y, I`�C,� Michael J. illa NatureTech Consultant Services Corp. President 2. RESPONSE TO THE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW STANDARDS (Attachment 4), AND TO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (Aspen Code Section 26.40.090). In response to the Conditional Use Reviews Standards (Attachment 4) and the ADU criteria in Section 26.40.090, the applicant submits the following: A. Replacement of a demolished residence requires an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System. The Accessory Dwelling Unit proposed is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan and qualifies as an exemption from the GMQS. ADU's are allowed as a Conditional Use in the R30 Zone District and must be between 300 and 700 "net - livable" square feet in size. The proposed ADU is a large studio ADU containing 543 "net liveable" square feet. It features a full size kitchen, comfortable space for a king size bed, a luxury bath with two lavatorys and large light wells for ample light and ventilation. An electrical panel is located in the ADU for easy tenant access. There is no direct access from the main house. The roof above the stairwell has heat tape, gutters and a snow fence to eliminate dripping on the stairwell. Additionally, the stairwell will have steel grated treads for positive traction. One parking space is designated for the ADU and is shown on the site plan. The applicant agrees to meet the Housing Authority's guidelines for resident -occupied units and to deed restrict the ADU to limit rental periods to not less than six months in duration. Owners of the property shall have the right to select a qualified employee(s) for ADU tenants. B. The surrounding residences in the Oklahoma Flats area are single family residences, many with existing ADU's. Consequently, the Conditional Use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. The ADU is compatible and subordinate in character to the primary residence. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimize adverse impact of the development on the surrounding properties. As this development is located at the end of Bay Street, its impact by its location is minimized. A loop drive is provided to enhance vehicular circulation and the parking requirements are exceeded. D. Adequate public facilities exist to serve the conditional use. There is a public park immediately across the river. City roads, water, sewer, police, fire protection, schools and medical services are all available. E. The conditional use itself mitigates the requirement for affordable housing. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all of the City of Aspen dimensional, zoning and building codes and design standards with the exception of the volume design standard for which the applicant is seeking a variance. U CU co U U a t 4 ON a cc 2 d m z a1 C O .0 z a) 7S d s V N L d .ti z a) U cc a O O (p N i M r r T O M M N T T T T T T r T T N T r T N O N T N r N N N tD O N T r r r T N T r T 1 6 m i (D w 1 (� N r T r r r CO O r r N r r O N T r T N T r r N O N T r r M (D (D (D N d' (D M M (D (D M M r (D (D N o (D m M (0 (D m O O r (D (D r O CD (D r (D M (D (D N (D M r CO M M Ln M CO M M M CO M M M CO M M M CD M m CO 00 m U') r*- (D CO CO CO r CO CO r- CO CO CO CO t'- CO CO O O O> J O O O O O O O J O lo O O a 1=� O O O O O z X w O O J >- O O a 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 z U U U U- U U U U U U U LL U U U U U U U U� F- z U U LL Z U U J U U U U f— U U 1 w W Z H Z F CC Y cc O IL 0 Z z z Q CcW Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z W CC O z z z z Z CL n- O a Z Z— Z z> Z z Z Z< Z Z S Q W m W m W d Q w w W W W W W J W W> W (Q) W W W W W z S a W W W W w W W W W J w w U (n (n (n O w cA (D (n w w 0 Q w 0 W F- S 0 w ❑ w d w d 0 m w W O� U)(1)W n a Q 0 a w tY S (1 w w w tl 0 J a a 0 W (1) U)a Q m Q a a Q a Q a z¢ a o Q U Q a a a Q z S O a <121zl< Q W a a a a o Q a w O O `n > W Q z (j U) Z U) z LO 0� W F_ U) z a- U 0)Y W F-J W O v M N -1 CC d w m w m m W 2 2 U') O1^ YJ O U O (D C) N S z W I (v o S w O O [` r W ° (00 J z -t F- zW Q w Z o v w U) tt > Q o o O o O m S U) S CC -j J F- I- f- W `y W cc Q a CC F- (/) m Y U ir O O Q U (n N N Q (� N cn w m cr z (Qj w t` C3 z a Q a a J d *- J m W Y W( Y j z z a U� F- W z m z m (� U) F- J --j Q S Y 0 S �- Q S O W W W M W a U) c(0 co T r J S U W t W N O FS- O (,� U) W X W O F- p Z (n Cl) p z w S U 0 (Y w J Q r a Q a J J CL W S r r W m (n J Q W J m M N J C r Cl) (O 00 z Q Q J C) Q J CLCL 00 r OU M z 00 Y U W= Q Z O U X O (/) Q) (13 (13 X O Q v X 0 X 0(n Q m U) X O a X 0 O CL (n O O u O Q X z X X Q X Nw LL(n m ZWmm m m m �� wz m m U WCC2O m JO0Oz2o m m m m to W z O O O O (n (D O O O O N ('7 N ('7 t` co M O O U7 p O r r N Q M m cn J aO p N c} r O �- a Y CD U /�/�� LJ NO^ N a- .N+ V M T M r M r CL LL r r LOO T �L /O I..L CO T tC) M MO M 1 N T ^� 1I. - OO T CL 1- N tl- LO O N U (D T lf) CO r T ^O M Y 0- p O /O CL N T p m CL N J z a J U)U Z W W w Z OJ z = CC U z (n U Z LO o U 2 Q Q O F- CL J W J W z Fa- -j aC U a Y z a Z w z U) z 2 >- (D W z S U W cn Q 0 0 U) O C!i S W W a D J W O � < O J Y LL J=� CL d m } m<— CZ5 0 _cr > z ~ S Q U z f- J Z m U S F- [[ W m J o6 W F- Q S a2S 'd S — w _! J C-6 — U) d w W w c) � ►L 2 Q w~ H W olf m o o2S J J Q Z Q f- Z fr Z a "� W m Q W w 2 W S Z Z �- W d (Z U Z Q J m> °� U) O= Z Z Z Q -t >- p> a _, m J m (n S W O W W W o L11 Q Y F- >- LL F- oC Q N w W -' F- w -L O r_ O O -i i z w W U m U a a !] W S U S F- W dm w W a. Q F- > Q p Q >- Q Q S (r O J H O F- 0 U' 0 O w J ,� J w J (n U Z z J m F- U S Q F- F- W O J z S (n w (n U CC W Q S> J H U_ w a z Q z _ S _J a CC z 2 W m w Z w w= Q (4 J W J cr CC 0 0= O Q F_ < Z aC Q a Q m S H (� J (n Q H S O z 2 w F- W w m O O g Q u' m a 0 z O w m S Q F- Y I- zazU�Zo O Y Z LL OOO�000 LL LL w J O LL a`�z u- Z z m WS(naz (n p -J N W 0 1 QmwNt-(q�Lzw� J U C) S U) O iC (q W W J U) w U tZ _) z a 0 >- >- >- Z X O Z> cc w W o U) Q m J z w O m z m cr S z J m- O D U Z) CO a J J Q w w m m�� 0 0 a Q U J z x w 0 0 m m z a O z 0 D Q a w z 0 0 0 w a Q Q m m m m m U U U U U 0101010 W W w LL 0 1010 0 UI 0 S S S S J J J O O CD C17 N O r M N N N tC) M M N tf) O N (D O N M r M M t\ d' r "d.�-. r 00 l t M m M M 00 d I'llfl_ U) t,- M m O M M M t` M m t- w 1- t` O m CO N (0M M 00 N LO T rv' r O T O O T T T T O O O r O T O r T r O r r O T T O T T r r O O O T r O O O O O S O S O S O m O m O m O m O m O m O m O m O 2 O 2i O 2 O x O OC O m O OC O tr O CY O tY O x O Cc Im O O m O m O m O m O m O T- O m O m O CC O x O 2 Ir O tZ O O m O tz O 2 O r N 'It O T r r (D 't 0 0 M 0 r 0 r U7 T M r M N r N r r 0 r - N O r O M O N O r O M O to O M O U) O t� O r O N O N O M O r r M O 0 r M O M O N N M (D O 0 CD r t,- 0 *- M M *- O 1 O 1 O 1 O 1 O , O i O 1 O 1 M 1 M , M 1 O i r i r 1 r 1 0 1 0 1 0 i 0 1 0 1 M , O i O i r O 0 0 N O 0 0 r t- O O N r O 0 , 0 , r i CD N CD N O O O O O CD CD N r r (p 0 O CD M CD O O CD N O M O M O M M r O T (D N r r M M O M CD N M O 1 O M 1 CO N 1 r r i M t� 1 O M 1 O W 1 (D N 1 m N 1 O O i O O i O (D i O O 1 O M i O O 1 6 N O W O O O M O i O 1 O O CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C)O O O O O O O O O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (V 1 (p 1 1 r 1 T 1 T 1 T 1 T 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 � I � 1 T CD T (D T (D T T O CI M * M M T O T M M M It (0(D T T N O r M (D T (D T (D T (D T (D T (D T (D T (D T (D T (D T (D T It (D O N ct (D T- oo m M a0 t It m M N M m m M O M c0 m M M m m m cD m p O N Lo 00 O OP O 0 0 O X/Q O O O O O 0/ O 0 O 0 0 0 O O ►-Xz 0 ( U U � U U UP U U U U U U U c U U Z U) z Z 0 Z Q Z W O z -� 0 z Z Z U W 0 W (D W Z Z Q 2 -' j Z Z � W U W F- z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z (r O u- O F- n. W Z W W W J Y Y Cl) W CL W CL IL Q J W CL W> 0- z z W m W m W m W m W m W m W a_ W a_ W CL W CL W CL - U) z Z W CL (n Cn Cn F_- = z (n UJ = w C� W O U) UJ C!i C� (n Cn Cn Cn (n (A (!) O Cn Q Q Q J Q Q U 2 Q Q o Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q c) _ Q O O W W W Q W Q O a Q O W Q O Z F- o z Q U) Y Xm D m X U) p -� (7 O m z O N LO M 0 CL ,M co T N N N N (D Q U) T W Q O o < rtn 0 WQ U S w Z CC w CC W o CC I-- U)Q (DQ Q �o W CC rL U W W Q O O C J U) m w W W� F- z U V M Z O CC CC W3: > Z U) jr O Z J F- W > I- Z I- W I- Z I- Z Ur Z = Q M Z J Z J Z J z z W Z Q z CC O m J J Y O W E- N J M< CL z CC � C[ m r M W W W W Cc W W O m 1 Q U U W d Q Q O Q D z CL = W X CL CL CL Q Q (n (� O W X O (n z z Q O X p d X p Q U U C] 2 0 o w LL O Q Q Q W o p cn g m U J W CLi M U) (n U M W Z m O W W W W Z u- W m 2i (D 2 2 z W `1 C'3 Ln Q O O M N O t� O !� T �t O O z O M> T w 00 T O M O O O M O co O O _/� O r c0 O O T Q Q O W 2 Lo J cQc G CL rI T T M N M Q CL T CC T r M v J T T T > > > J CO Z O F- O O O O Q W W w 0 w w U Z Q Q Q w U) Z�Q U) CC OOOO J� x Q a < U _z N CC f- > Z Z Z z z 2� off$ o z t-t- r Woz Cc WZ_UUUUcn (� O O O O- Oz m HZ D� zriQ E-ED wwwm QZZ rr -JCd = fr oC CC U m W U F H CL d d CL ►- J Q U O Q J= (¢ (n J z Q U) Q co -j U = W z Q CC (� W W Q Q z Q Z_ Q Z_ -� y m W 5 O O o W (� m Q a Y CC Q J W W W Z Q~ Q U _Z Y Y Y Y u O LL Q= J 5- DC Q Z W Z Q �- Q O= (� J Q W J Q -� Q 7 z w z W z O Z O z W o J CC Q CC Q CC Q cr Q M LL, CL Z (Y J CL M�= z C] U O= z } W= CC W W cc:Y Q U) Y w U _I CJ O CL 0 CL CL O w U- O U W m W W Q J CL M 0- CC J CC CC Y W W d (=j U_ Z_ W W w w W O M= Z O W Y U) CL W Q Q O O CL Q� W Q W W W>>>> W=_ - 2 O Q Q O W= J 2 2 j:E 12 12 1 z O O M CC .cc CC CC CC CC CC = U) U) U) U) U) U) U) > > 1> co O r N O p M N 0 N (D T O CD T m (- 0 NO M t p r 0 ct' 0 M 0 U-)M 0 0 't CD M wM N N N 0 O 'tM O CD w T O N 0 (D N M (D O M N c0 N O CD co Ct U-)V T Itr O M M 'tp (7 `- p r Lo ,t d -,t I� M d 't It 'tM T M M r M M 'i T 'tO CD M M co 0 'tO O O O O (D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O T O T O r O r O r O r O T O O O O O r O T O O O r O O O O O O O O CC _ cc CC cr Cc CC CC CC CC CC Ir CC = CC CC CC CC CC CC X CC f- O M r r O W O T O N O N M 'tT O O M M 't' r w T 0 O M O m r M T M T 'tT T O T LO N O CD T N M M O O T d O N O N O O M T O T i O O N O O O N O O T r O O O O O O O O O T O I T 1 r 1 O i O 1 O 1 O 1 O I O O i O O I M d i O M 1 O m 1 O T I O O i O M 1 M M I O O I O M I O M 1 T T I (D N 1 (D N 1 w N 1 (D N i (D N i M (-- I O O 1 M LO i 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 T M ct M I- O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O CD O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 M 1 M I M 1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M co r N N 3. RESPONSE TO TIE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. The applicant believes the design as defined in the attached drawings to be in compliance with all of the Aspen Residential Design Standards with the exception of the "Volume" Design Standard. The applicant requests a variance from this standard to allow the window design depicted in A-7. The Volume Standard refers to windows between nine and twelve feet above finished floors and doubles the floor area calculation of any room for which this condition exists. It is concerned with aesthetics. The applicant believes the design presented in A-7 to be more aesthetic and faithful to the architecture of the residence than the design shown in A-7 Option which complies with this standard. As such, the applicant submits that it better serves the community. Should the commission choose to deny this request for variance, the applicant requests approval of the design depicted in A-7 Option. L L I oe "0—.gz ,0—.9 L "O—,Z- L 0 > Cl) 00 Ul C/) a z cn 0 (A m m tz rrl 0 LI) z < m M 0 co cli M COC co 00 m Z: to M co z N V 7 moo- ;� � 2 ai ci n I L---- - - - I I LN-J - - - - - - - LNJ (00) (00) Ifl -v Cn U� z 00 n O Ln CY) m .� --i n T®cn < m 00 < CADITl _ v �j Vz o� ® �C�.. n I co z �o�z _ �, �z 0 0 0 0 St ZL 41XL1 „o-Itz �>I �15�11N l 1 6 0 19 LD II .o[ 4Zx91 m 4- 4, . da rater „9-,6Z TL 0 'tIZ ,6 L / F1 o 0 c 61 x 91 woos ONIAll o0 ------------------------------- °o Q tr'Z op Na �NINIQ NIOM�rar o rr --- --- - 6t g - -- --- O O 00 J o 00 o a � o O O „0-,Z —� „9-00 a -- oizi 4l0-,Jvz „o-,oz „0-,SZ „L l l o „� L- O L „9-.Z l NW aas D NV-1c� �00`1;� N furl -4 „0-,9Z 440-,-�Z 4ZxSZ 448—,61 „�—�L l „0—�SZ „0—,9 l „0—.61 n oo 6 Ul (-n Z a D c) o 00 j tzj o 0 0in x�yz < M a 12 �Z©co CD � b M C�7 Co co m ::E z cco p O M _ co — i 1�'c�1d ?.�DO�f � ?��1�0�1 ❑ ❑ „0—.6 1j OS 04 y, Z7 12 t 6Z „0-�V nav 3a n n u u 00 u u n n u n \ u u o\ ❑ n u S NQ 0 D 00 o un C/) z ao D C) O CY) m 0-3 0 0 C7 X D z MCo z 0 � + �C tv CO) C C.Abm coz�� o adz M _ M to — z NO1J-V/\D-1:3 H1 F- 10-10I t t T- ,A-,SZ D 00 V)Ul m z ao D C) -� 0 Oo CF) m a m � N Cm �< M — v :. .. I C b M C t� n CO co � m O � Z tTt = ao to — Z �i# �toildo) Noil'VA-717D Hi noG "0-,L „8-,02 atr-,9t .0-19Z 11 0-19l „6-.6 „0-,sz I � � N o cn Z 00 D n � � O U) oo 7 m --i 0 X o� CO < < m W m — v Nz co C ca �7 M n CO00 � z�� o�Z M� cn — � z �' H1�!40N 0-,L6 0-1801 3dVI IV3H (INV 8311no `30N3J MONS �c 0—,L l 6 NOI IV „0-,61 „0-,OZ ,9-� b 99121 ON11309 MU��3Vdv�a 31,SvljA 'Gos 1331S -9/S )j3NSO:) S,3NIlm 13S C. 0+16.5 7882 (a. I�f TOP OF BANK Cb 'y co 4* ................ Cv C,> C> 4 cv -bp c UD (1) rn rn M r- -4 Q. -4 --4 0 r Cs M > CA -4 rn r- vo rn ) Co© o Al CAF IA%v Iill ► C m m m rl --4 Z m co --f m m 0, 0 o mx X z < f- m (P 3* .0- 0 V r- = 0 0> --4 M 0'> > C> - m 0 (= m m c 4 a ;a ;D"v m m ;v m mzm Mf- < 0 m x > w 0 m Z w < ou C: m 0 tv M>O Z= to u) z m n M- -4 o -n w ;o CD m -4 :0 0 )> 0 x C X m m -4 - ;a (7) V co m --4 --4 0 m > z 0 = IC7 -4 M 0 -4 M M m > n -0 --4 --4 ;lz = = m -4 M - 0 - m --f z -0 rn C> M ;v CD 0 --4 0 m = -< - M: m > -< m 0- V n (A M Mv m:10 0 r- V z aD > > X < m z z m z > 0 -4 (A CO >m *'> --4 r- C: C m — -n I:,. ;v V>o- V< 0 r z in m m rl 0 <p m -n IC7 -r ;v M Z IC7 z z rn -n U) :r ;o — -4 - M —m:r 0 m r- m z m C7 to C> cn Z IC7 Z - z -n m vomm(n m = 0 0 in -A-4 00 -n -4 -r M In > m m w >0 "o to v 0 to 0 0 z cn -v to D m omCDmo z 0 V -n C*/ OAC' n 190 ID I- 4C- A cop %�k 0 `�F4 A "N 1 '16<0 /Y/ 4/4 4JF *4 R Air )v 00• I 'I-00 on. a. =: c > -n o m z r- 0 0 > > c a z <Mrz --i m r- V M z m (1) 0 Atnr --4 -V O 0 X r 0()D 0 x => z - m ;v co C IC7 > X -4 M " V m m m m V rn Z M z ;v- m m 0 4i OD 0) >/ I �o /oaq 1r Aj rry .0 cr -q CO ti ty, *for CO 4 4 P, jav C 414, PA- a > z r- r- rn in m U) o rn z v rn —;v n rn 0 -" rn z rn 101. z m -4 M z 0 a fA P- Co 00 40 co C- O c m rn to co v 0$ CA rn r- -4 (A --4 0 tJt z m Co r- -4 W -0 'D -4 --f V -4 --4--4 WWCOOMV-4-4 (o X 4E M -4 Z r- v * t- > --4 > 0 (f) rn --4 — -4 -n o m m x (A --4 w(/Yco-n-v>> z o m — 0 m:r M m M m M c m > 0 w m 0 — m c rn > > x ;Dooxo 0 w — c = x z m C a > =cn= 0 0 r- z 0 L" x = — z -n m r- z z 0 --q fTl < " IC7 rn M -n m m rn w 0 C7 c — 0 0 -4 m = C7 --i w rn z 0 0 0 0 --1 z m - C7 V ;V w (p m rn mcmaz -rn 0 0 > > > -4 Dtn m -4 m v -4 M r- C) --4 C r- = 4c G> m rn -n <o jpo ge, > m > "TI m > 0') rn < V rn t> w< c *Zcwc--ioo m —(A--4 > :0 w - w V m Z V m* - - v-- MC mm M M = x V > -4 --4 -4 :0 -4 - (A M �a m xcoo-4 --1 -4 > 0 C M m Z > --4 C V ;a :0 W (A --q m <0 rn 0 -4MM - m -m <ow Z--rn (A m 0 0 M - <7 -4 rn r- Z b. - -a - --< <mC Z W M 3:-4n M > > --4 x n C ---- -m 0 > z ;D C7 0 -4 -n m 44* - z -< 0 > 0 Z 0 > * z (-) — c 0 > m wom - w 4G) z 0 Z M w > Mo— ZW(O wComr-roo o) 0 r- x 0 to co--0 - - r- -4 V). ;v --4--4 -4 0 7o > > --4 c r- C) z -4 w > --4 Z 0 X c --4 Cy -4 - CO-4--4--4- cm;o M>-- > ;a > (1) ;D 0 z IC7 m - to > m - > -C M z 0) . X --4 > v z > 0 m - > -V -4 = - mr- m w z X (i) w cD m - ;a Z -0 Z Z 0 ;v < v cA0ZDv Z- . W 0 CZ400--4m V m -4--0 --4 A -4 'n m 0 -4 M co w w C> n C r- M m - w (- f%J M -4 > > m > -TI --4 m -4 zo;v--4- z-- xi C, z - 0 -n (-) . Co - ;v # mm z 0 0 > m N mo M > m -0 - r- z V — > — V — -n < 4u) 0 -4 m 'W (A --1 -4 m z OS w m -4 " N 0 --4 0 ;D r- m to --4 <0 < -< 0 C) --4 -n 0 z IC7 m -0— G> 0 r- z 0 0 -0 rn --4 z x Q) c m x ICA )DI. z > Mr-3:0- Z-< -n — -0 —rn > > 0 0 --4 * --4 V 0 — = -0 - X U) <> V Z <0 z r- --i --< m > M m--4. w 4C7 m m 0 z 0 (1) r-rnmz > = Om r- --4 o V -4=OZXMW CD V Z — — r- >- >C ;0-4 c W >:rom >(AZM x m z -< m o< m(I)r-- 0 v > X z 0 — 4C:7 - -4 M M rn -4w -< a 0 Z Z > ;v --I z w - <0 ;o CD 0 0 -4 M M -4 -< m --4 - m w 0 0 "o ;v co > ;a 0 (o > 0 -4 M 0 z 0 00 ;v z > 40 rn 0 0 -4 ;x --I ;R m C7 <• C7 n -0 0 0 Up m 0 r- -4 c z m --4 0 , r. "n " 0 -0 c a) Z>-400D ;v > <0 -4 w m > - m V m C <0 --4 n ;D M X --i - m - > X C r- r b. z z r- --1 --4 --1 0 r- > -4 - or-c-mw :ID < ;a m 0 x ;v — 0 Z r- > r- x — > > Z Z mo;o -COO 0— 0>(AM 0 - (A X z M— > ;v --4 -4 V M < V 0 0 z c z rn <0 u) Ir- G) mz-- zoo z to -4 ;v Or W—mc) D > < z 0 0 > D(1) co z - :c co r- 0 - m 36 z C2 ;a - 0 m - x (AZ - 0 > to x --4 V C) z > - 0 (1) (A Z ;v m -4 IE Q -0 M 0 Z M - x m r- -4 to co z ta < -4 M --4 m > X G) 0 -4 -4 --4 - M X m --# -4-ZC -n C)rig -<(-)- -- 00 m;u 0 = :3E > — m w rn C) m - - 0 ;D -< x V 0 I-j ;v —m 1: m m oz zoo-n rn 00 Z. > -n Z tv mz > (-);Vo>m >> ;v -< 0 z 00 —m C co -n Z CP — -n --j CA 0 v c -4K7-nC0 --4 w m m a --4 -0 Z ;o CV D N 0 - z = m 0 w z 0- 0 z z _0 0 (n U) -4 0 - (D 0 - C -n :0 01) X > Z 0 r' m -4 -n .0 z CD 0 V 4- - :0 4" -4 m --4 m " w z c 0 -4 ;v (o --4 m w r- v m w co ;ID 7 * -< 0 r- m E 0 x -4 -< z -0 > = rn (rp -4 CO m 0 -4 w w o c:: rn z .0 > - ;D G) > m m > rn V "n Z 0 -4 z M-4 -4m> :;D M -a rn :X <o rn co (-) C :C M V Z ;ID --4 01-4 m z m = --4 --4 > CW-. 0 ;m -< 0 > r- 0 x r- z --4 0 z 0 -< m > mmo >0- o > rn< > 40 x G) > > r- C: c:r-=>>Z z :0 co z m m m O:X, v -n 0 :00 0 -4 C --4 z (o z 0 M-Z -0 - -4Z- to mr M-<ZM V O rl -4 -4 — <v< zmm M 0 0 -4 ;V V -0 * -4 - c 0 c -< v " > — Q):* — -4 -0 z -4 z co V C7 > — < -4 > M m 0 > > 0 m > c w :0 it — mo Z>mMOr<o m m U) 0 m 0 r- --I - 0 rl rn m --4 --4 --4 CD 0 - --4 m m 0 .16 rn -cAm -4v"xMm -or. x 0 -n a w Z * m z rn a * m -4 - (A _0 :0 m (in .. 4 z --4 > C7 =MMZ 0- m m 7z "n---4 -0 mmm- > — z 0 m V m z = m z:r CD m 0 M- 0-4 c >M- m 00 CAD DODN 0. tA>rn0--4 -4--4 a rn (o 0 :2E -4 < V -4 M 0 W M = w --I us 0MV(A -oz 0 m -4 10 = r- m 0 z X :0 0 7z -X 0 z > w wo -40> w m 0) < m •— > --4 co m 0 m --4 rn 0 -< (p z Dr -0 "n 00 ;v— z 0 m -n C7 --4 r- M > m > (of) > to M CY Z z z:c 0 0 ---1, m — 0 * x (A > -0 = . 0 -4 * c 0 > z z z m rn 0 r- ;v (0) r- (A -0 fj) m — -< --4 m 0 0 m <A oc - MO 0 --4 m* > 0 Z C V -4 In-M w -4 oo X > --4 --4 = V z m r- --1 --4 0 aE w m— G) 0> 3: M ;K M C> M-4Z--4 -nz X X G) 10 "n cv m x m cft 0 - V ;o x 0 rn Z-< :ro> -0 m w Z ;a 0) r- > m > -0 m ;D - MX 0 — rn C7 rn Or -v — --..j co -4 — 0 0 C7 m -n m "Z > >m>cn m-vor-> - > N co C Ch m "n --4 --4 (p Z- M - --4 (A W M X 0 N -" C - 0::D IC7 0 0 0. z -4 m > "n m -4 (A > -4 ;v m w - m r- C7 z :r M -40— > X C) 3: co m m r- z --1 > 0 --4 0 m 0 0 -n m --4 r-M >C - x r- 0 M-4Z 0-4m- -0 -4" -41:1. 46 m 00-4 - ;a r w o"n <> -4 W 0 v:r - m --4 0 m w -0 (v 3: < m — -0 z 0-0-4 3: co ;v V- - w M -4 0-s r- - -4 0 0 -< 0 4:7 > c 0 > ;Dzoc: m x v x — m M — 0 0 m z (-) 321. ZE CO 40:3E m 0 0 00 —moll rno= C7- z — (1) — T. 0 0 m m m z 0 — m z > (-) 0 * :0 -4 0 - r- z -4 " (A 0 -0 IV 0 z 0 > 0 w 0 m < 0 rn " Z--4 r- M -4 X m ;D 0 C7 z z w G) > r- --4 ;R z n m cn -4 <A - - - M X = m > )D* ;v G) z < z 0 > = 0-0 --1 C) m z x -4 V m >-<- Z. 0 w 0 0 m --i z --4 m 0 ;ID --I ;a )o'. m -C7< -4 un Jb. Z 0 0 * > --4 --4 M OMC("(') :0 z — IC7 0 > m < ;a oo -4 w r- f- (o --4 - v -4 - -< z Z = 0 - m -mo (or- M> (A > ;D Z "n -4 0 > 0 <4 -n z z v M (As :c m m - m a M 0 -4 M 0- -4 0 m m -4 m 0 > 0 0 c C> -4 Z :0 -4 > --4 > - Z -< ;ID a 0 n <A m > V W --4 m x (p mzzxm z 9) G) -m Z w ;v ;D X (-) -4 (.0 - -, co -4 0 C V *Mmommr- 4 0 X (/) --i C> rn IC7 M -4 U" >"n 0 Z > > mc -0 C> r- 0 -0 X =(A - < r. :0 > -0 Z n>m 0 N X m 70 IC7 - Z --4 > ;v > z --f -nm zo rl --4 mz z M M (0 M --4 CD -4 M > X r- = M -0 0 z <0 -4 0 (.7 --4 40 -4 -4 m M C7 0- D r- > -4 0 0 co co - 0 m z czmm X -< --4 > 0 m > -4-iv-0-4 -* V X 0 — > Ln - - (1) ;u 0 ;a x m c w -4 - 0 > -4 -OM-4M> 0 - -4 r. (7 -0 G) m:r CD z z 0 0 > c 0 > w z rn z r- 0 C m 0 m )XI Cl) > r- -n = (A :C -< mm >:00->C:o m V m > = -4 G) z 0 --4 x z z C> C7 -n G) — > ;a C7'n :0 z V z m - > m m --4 M 0 -4 - r- z 0 -< 0 ;a 0 -0 m o 0 C: m U) v r- --4 -0 --4 -0 < r- r- "o > V -0 m z C: 0 X -< z z > z --4-4 co :r m m 0 <0 -n z 0) X: -4 z -40 -4-CD M 0 -0 0 x -4 < m 0 C7 -4 m -0 r- - r G) Z-4- 0- mooto 0 0 M M -4 > --4 W (A --4 M 0 (1) rl 0 0 m - - (/> -" - z m 0 z X --4 > -ox 000 ;v 3> w m - D z --4 :r Z M z = --q X 0 m - > 0 -0 z co 0 z -4 0 m ommo z m ZZ-n 0 cncnz 4u) C m m ..4 CD IC7 M M 0 Z -n 0 -4 -4 --4 m _C 0 -OD z Q -0 > (1) Z m;m -n -n * m -v --j z C: my G)m V ZE m;v 0 m z -0:011. 0 0 -n Dm Voc m 0-mo>(->(p cn Z > 0 Z m m C co ;v - r- z -0 :0 z -0 --4 > Q) ;v 0 C X M IC7 W, m -4 0 tn - 0 C -4 r- "Ti 0 z z r- m > z -0 O= C -n 0 -4 > 10 m m X -4 ZM> 0 cxzwzm= to r- --4 -4 m > z 0 0) z 0 -n m c 0 w >0- CIO -0 > z m 0 --4 z (f) (') a > 0 rn —< -n m 0 ;D -4 -4 z -4 m --4 r- z->= r-. (A. x -< -4 --1 0 -4 --1 c 40 m m --4 0-4 0 0 m---4 X > ow- 0)-4> >M coo. D m z x ;v M -4 M - z m M -4 -4 x - AE U) 0 M -4 0 ;PIZ 0 m O rn X G) Z m z G> C7 m M z ca z - r w- 4 z > 0 0 CD (ft (0 z m 3: - --4 qu z 0 C - c I_" 0 0 z -n m. m 0 > cn m 0 -4 M -4 0 --4 w O r > -n M M m r- Z m z m Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Sy Kelly * Chairman Paul Smith * Treas Michael Kelly * Secy March 9, 1999 Mitch Haas Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 855 Bay Street Dear Mitch: John Keleher Frantz. Loushin Bruce Matherly, Mgr The existing residence at 855 Bay Street is currently served by the District. The total connection fees for the project will be significant since a demolition of the existing structure is planned. Credit for previously paid connection fees is given in the exact amount previously paid. The total connection charges can be estimated once detailed plans are available and a tap permit is completed at our office. We would request, as a condition of approval, that the total connection fees be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. The final charges will be adjusted, if necessary, following a final inspection once the improvements are completed. The existing four inch cast iron service line may be used for the new construction if video inspection shows it to be in good condition. There are minor downstream constraints that will be eliminated through a prorated system of additional fees. Service to the new dwelling unit and ADU is contingent upon compliance with the District rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. Clearwater connections such as groundwater drains, foundation drains, roof drains, etc. are prohibited. Our records show that high groundwater levels were encountered when the existing residence was originally connected to the District system. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager 565 N. Mill St. Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537 Memorandum TO: Mitch Haas, Planner, Community Development THRU: Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director FROM: John D. Krueger, Trails Coordinator, Parks Department RE: Referral for 855 Bay Street Stream Margin Review And Conditional Use Review for an ADU DATE: March 25, 1999 The Parks Department has reviewed the 855 Bay Street application requesting approval of a Stream Margin Review and a Conditional Use for an ADU, and submits the following comments: TRAIL AND EASEMENT: The Parks Department has met several times to discuss the location of the existing trail and its relationship to the trail easement. The applicant feels that the trail is not in the trail easement and shows it as a "trail encroachment" on the site survey plan submitted with the application. Review of the Creektree Subdivision/PUD Plat with the City Attorney and Community Development staff, shows that the trail is not an "encroachment" but a trail that meets the requirements of the Plat Dedication as an as -built trail "closely approximating the location of the twenty (20) foot trail easement. " That is, the Plat dedication describes the trail easement as follows: 6. DO HEREBY AGREE TO GRANT TO 7HE CITY OF ASPEN FOR PUBLIC TRAIL PURPOSES AN AS -BUILT TRAIL EASEMENT CLOSELY APPROXWA77NG THE LOCA77ON OF THE TWENTY (20) FOOT TRAIL EASEMENT AS SHOWN AND NOTED HEREON. THE AS -BUILT TRAIL EASEMENT SHALL BE TWENTY (20) FEET WIDE, BEING 7-EN (10) FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE FINAL IMPROVEMENT. THIS GRANT OF TRAIL EASEMENT SHALL BE FOR NON -MOTORIZED USES ONLY, EXCEPT FOR MOTORIZED CONS7R UC770N AND MAINTENANCE VEHICLES. The Parks Department feels that the trail easement dedication on the Plat, as cited above, adequately describes the existing trail location and does not require any movement of the trail from its present location. As a condition of approval, the applicant needs to show the as -built trail easement as required by the Plat dedication — as a 20 foot wide trail easement, being 10 feet on each side of the centerline of the final improvement (existing trail) — on a recorded Site Specific Stream Margin Development Plan or plat. The "trail encroachment" language needs to be removed from this document when submitted for recordation. As a condition of aAAroval, the described as in the plat Dedication e applicant needs to submit an as -built survey of the trail Subdivision. and Planned Unit Development Agreement easement and said legal d The survey needs to include ' ment" g de and new to a legal description of the trail Margin Development -Plan. be included on the final plat o P r Site Specific Stream The Parks Department the trail. � had discussions with the a While the Parrs Department feels applicant about the trail, the Parks D there is no obligation or r possibility of realigning conditions are Department may entertain the idea o f real •irement to realign net: rent if at least the following the l • The relocation of the trail rna toth'cost'10'�fcarllnature t' thet�moirefulldesign and en ins2. ocatinThis cost would be borne solely prior to construction due applicant. g the trail on the applicant's Property rope win by the applicant. 3• The trail m' ill be borne solely by the must be designed and concrete, with 2 foot constcted t° current Ci 4. Any realignedsafety shoulders on each side). be scan (10 feet wide, colored trail on the applicant's property must trail. fully in, into the rest of the PEDESTRIAN AND RIVERS The applicant needs to RECREATION EASEMENT: southern edge be aware of the pedestrian and fie of the property, as refereed to • riverine recreation states: in the Creek�ee easement across Subdivision Plat Dedication which DO HEREBY GRAAIT TO AND THE pUBLIC FOR THE PURPOSES OF pORT7hpE'CREATION, AN EASEME PEDES S OFLOTS I AAD 2 L 'OVER `4ND ACROSS FORK RIVER AS SA1D RIVER NOW uIN' RIVER BED OFE THOSE HEREON. W EXISTS, AND AS SHOWN OARING NO7ED WETLANDS DELMATION: A wetland delineation as required b . on the recorded Site S Y the Stream Margin Review must be Pecific Stream Margin Development planperformed and shown TREE PE or final plat. 'The applicants li ��T�'�Il'TIGA�ON: PP cants have been workin pe However, a formalg with the city Forester on tree is No excavation rt 'tree Penh must be approved rior sues for the ro r storage of fill materials P to the application for a building Y. pals may occur within driplines. Permit. Attachment 111- County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E) I, J A U 1 V — 0 /9J . 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 ofwliicli is attaclied liercto, 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 100day of ARCC( , 1991 (which is 18 days prior to the public hearing date of ( L &o %1iw-n-). 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 ?A�ay of M AP1G K 199 to the G �da ofAPRI L- 199.9 Must be osted for at least �� y� ( r ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. oignature Signed before me this day of (' 1 \ , 199"., by -1- �r , 1 i <<Y��( 1A��.i �►� WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL--SEA-L,- My Commission expires j L Notary Public 1; PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 855 BAY STREET: REQUESTS FOR APPROVAL OF STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU), AND VARIANCES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April6, 1999 at a meeting to begin at 5:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by James Morse of 107 Sinclair Drive, Muskegon, MI 49441 (represented by David Muckenhirn of Ventures West), requesting approval of the proposed reconstruction of a single-family residence. As the proposal includes the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and the property is situated along the Roaring Fork River, the applicant is seeking Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use Review approval at this lieariiig. Variances from the Residential Desigii Standards are also requested. The property is located at 855 Bay Street, and is described as Lot 1, Creektree Subdivision. For further information, contact Nlitch Haas at the Aspeii/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095, or by email at mitchh@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Bub Blaich, Chair, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 20, 1999 City of Aspen Account APPLICANT: James Morse represented by David Muckenhirn LOCATION: 855 Bay Street ACTION: Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use for an ADU, Residential Design Variances STREAM MARGIN: Standards applicable to development within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams: A. No development shall be permitted in the floodway, with the exception of bridges or structures for irrigation, drainage, flood control or water diversion, which may be permitted by the City Engineer, provided plans and specifications are submitted to demonstrate that the structure is engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during peak flows and the Commission determines the proposed structure complies, to the extent practical, with all standards set forth below. B. No development shall be permitted within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the Special Flood Hazard Area where it extends beyond 100 feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards set forth below: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, but not limited to, proposed mitigation techniques on or off -site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development. 2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Community Plan, Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan Map, or areas of historic public use or access are dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. Dedications are necessitated by development's increased impacts to the City's recreation and trail facilities including public fishing access. EXHIBIT r 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practical. 4. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade (cut/fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. 5. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on - site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pool or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope. 6. Written notice s_h_all be provided to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits related to the work within the 100-year floodplain. 9. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. If any development is essential within this area, it may only be approved by special review pursuant to Section 26.64.040(D). 10. All development outside of the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. I 1. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications. 12. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no lights directed toward the river or located down the slope. 13. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top -of -slope, and pertinent elevation above sea level. 14. There has been accurate identification of wetland and riparian areas. SPECIAL REVIEW: No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below: 1. A unique condition exists on the site where adherence to the top of slope setback will create an unworkable design problem. 2. Any intrusion into the top of slope setback or height limit is minimized to the greatest extent possible. 3. Other parts of the structure or development on the site are located outside the top of slope setback line or height limit to the greatest extent possible. 4. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development in the setback from all adjoining properties. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL COra-DITIONAL USES: The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comianity Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, dr a:rlage systems, and schools. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this title:. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS: Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) square feet and no more than seven hundred (700) square feet of net livable area. The unit shall be deed restricted, meeting the Housing Authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the principle residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling unit. One (1) parking space shall be provided on -site for each studio unit, and for each bedroom within a one or two -bedroom accessory dwelling unit. An attached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to all other dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. A detached accessory dwelling unit shall only be permitted on parcels that have secondary and/or alley access, exempting parcels with existing structures to be converted to detached accessory dwelling units, detached garages or carports where an accessory dwelling unit is proposed above, attached to, or contained within such detached garage or carport. Detached accessory dwelling units are prohibited within the R-15B zone district. An attached accessory dwelling unit shall utilize alley access to the extent practical. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS: The proposed development shall be compatible with and subordinate in character to the primary residence located on the parcel as well as development located within the neighborhood, and assuming year- round occupancy, shall not create a density pattern inconsistent with the established neighborhood. Where the proposed development varies from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that such variation is more compatible in character with the primary residence than the development in accord with dimensional requirements. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission may exempt nonconforming structures, being converted to a detached accessory dwelling unit, provided the nonconformity is not increased. Conditional use review shall be granted pursuant to Section 26.60.040 standards applicable to all conditional uses. FAR FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principle use is residential, the following shall apply: the allowable floor area for an above -grade attached accessory dwelling unit shall be excluded to a maximum of 350 square feet of allowable floor area or fifty percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit, whichever is less. This floor area exclusion provision only applies to accessory dwelling units which are subject to review and approval by the P and Z pursuant to conditional use review and approval, Section 26.60.030 of this code, and the units must be deed restricted, registered with the housing office, and available for rental to an eligible working resident of Pitkin County. The owner retains the right to select the renter for the unit. An ADU separated from a principal structure by a distance of no less than ten feet with a maximum footprint of 450 square feet shall be calculated at 50 percent of the allowable floor area up to 700 square feet of Floor Area. Any element linking the principal structure to the accessory structure may be no more than one story tall, six feet wide, and ten feet long. i -41 ':!) 199 nuca)-4 -�'o m 4 1 t, (9 9 NAME OF PROJECT: L'I . A-D�A- 5i-oGA-t� mt I Z��— STAFF: M \"rC4 41o,�n WITNESSES: (1) Dfr--1/ IQ (2) (3) (4) (5) EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( (Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet (V� (Check If Applicable) 4 5 P7- tY7P!o=�j�;o MOTION: 21.-tY,Eizz I�i��i.� -jam PPPj22,jDVly, N A-b U C&LDO�'Dk) 44:4 VOTE: YES NO � C� —Ne — JASMINE TYGRE YES NO 07, ROGER HUNT YES NO _ TIMOTHY MOONEY YES AZNO STEVEN BUETTOW YES ZO _ RON ERICKSON YES 1NNO _ TIM SEMRAU YES ZNO MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner DATE: April 13, 1999 RE: Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual Planned Unit Development. Parcel I.D. No. 2735-123-08004. SUMMARY: The Community Development Department has received from Savanah Limited Partnership a request to redevelop the site of the Bavarian Inn with deed restricted housing consisting of thirteen (13) dormitory rooms and eighteen (18) affordable housing units. More specifically, the Parcel 1 (area north of the alley, see Site Development Plan, Sheet A 1.0 in Attachment 1) portion of the proposal involves renovating the existing Bavarian Inn structure to include thirteen (13) Category Two dormitory rooms with associated common facilities (kitchen, living area, laundry, storage, etc.), one (1) two - bedroom, lower -priced Category Three apartment, and one (1) three -bedroom Category Two apartment. To the west of the Bavarian Inn structure but still on Parcel 1, the existing out- buildings would be demolished and replaced with a seven -unit townhouse structure along West Bleeker Street that would consist of two (2) one -bedroom Category Two units, two (2) two -bedroom Category Two units, and three (3) three -bedroom Category Three units. (See Exhibit B, Development Program Summary Table.) On Parcel 2 (the portion of the property south of the alley, see Site Development Plan, Sheet A1.0 in Attachment 1), a townhouse structure of five (5) three -bedroom Category Four units would be built to front on Eighth Street (at the intersection of Eighth and Main in place of the existing single-family residence). The other proposed building would consist of two (2) one -bedroom, lower -priced Category Three units and two (2) two -bedroom, lower -priced Category Three units, and would front on West Main Street (appears on plans as two duplexes joined by a shared storage room). Between the two structures on Parcel 2, the proposal suggests locating a twenty-two vehicle parking area with access from both West Main Street and the alley. All other parking would be accessed via the alley with the exception of the six existing spaces to be maintained in front of the Bavarian Inn, on Seventh Street. (See Exhibit B, Development Program Summary Table.) Currently, Parcel 1 is zoned Residential Multi -Family with a Planned Unit Development overlay (R-MF/PUD) while Parcel 2 is zoned Moderate -Density Residential (R-15). If Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval is granted, the applicant's Final PUD application will include a request to rezone Parcel 2 in a manner that would be consistent with the R-MF/PUD zoning of Parcel 1 and that would accommodate multi -family residential development. Similarly, the Final PUD application will include requests for Subdivision, Special Review of off-street parking requirements, and GMQS Exemption approvals. The proposed PUD includes variance requests regarding the R-MF zone district's �`.2Nr if maximum allowable height, minimum required open space, and minimum front and rear yard setbacks. Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) application with conditions, including but not limited to a requirement to revise the proposed layout (site plan) of the development as elaborated upon herein (below). APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Vann Associates, LLC. LOCATION: (See attached Vicinity Map, Exhibit C.) Parcel 1 of the subject site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Seventh Street and West Bleeker Street, and is legally described as Lots D through I, Block 11, City and Townsite of Aspen. Parcel 2 is located at the northeast corner of Eighth Street and West Main Street, and is legally described as Lots K through P, Block 12, City and Townsite of Aspen. Surrounding developments include the Klein duplex on the southeast corner of 8th and Bleeker (adjacent and contiguous to Parcel 1), the Villas at Aspen across 8th Street to the west and northwest, Bleeker Place condominiums across Bleeker Street to the north, single- family residences across 7th and Bleeker Streets to the northeast and east, the Christian Science Reading Room then the Hickory House restaurant across 7th Street to the east, the West Hopkins Affordable Housing to the southeast, and single-family residences across Main Street to the south. There is also an existing single-family residence on the northwest corner of 7th and Main, adjacent and contiguous to Parcel 2. EXISTING ZONING: • Parcel 1: Residential Multi -Family with a Planned Unit Development overlay. • Parcel 2: Moderate -Density Residential (R-15). PROPOSED ZONING: • Parcel 1: Residential Multi -Family with a Planned Unit Development overlay (no change). • Parcel 2: Residential Multi -Family with a Planned Unit Development overlay. LOT SIZE: The combined property contains a gross area of 36,100 square feet (0.829 acres), where Parcels 1 and 2 each contain 18,050 square feet. The property does not include any access easements, areas below high water line, or slopes in excess of twenty percent; therefore, there are no applicable lot area or density reductions. Nevertheless, these figures will be subject to further review and verification by the City Zoning Officer during review of building permit applications. FLOOR AREA: In the R-MF zone district, the maximum allowable external floor area ratio (FAR) for multi -family structures is 1: 1, which may be increased to 1.1:1 by Special Review (but no such request has been made). Since Parcel 1 is zoned R-MF/PUD and the proposed development consist only of multi -family structures, its maximum allowable external floor area is 18,050 square feet by right (l:l FAR). Under the proposed development of Parcel 1, the remodeled Bavarian Inn would contain 9,400 square feet and 2 the Bleeker Street structure would contain 7,630 square feet. Thus, a total of 17,030 square feet of floor area is proposed on Parcel 1 (1,020 square feet less than that permitted by right). Parcel 2 is currently zoned R-15. The R-15 zone district does not list multi -family dwellings as either a permitted or conditional use and, consequently, does not set a maximum external FAR for multi -family structures. For purposes of comparison, the maximum allowable floor area for a duplex (the highest density permitted on a single parcel) on an R-15 lot of 18,050 square feet would be 5,103 square feet. To carry this one step further, since a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet is required for the development of a duplex in the R-15 zone, only one duplex lot, and thus one duplex of up to 5,103 square feet, could be developed under Parcel 2's current zoning. Although not requested with the rezoning application but for informational purposes, it should be noted that the AH-1/PUD zone district would allow the same 1:1 FAR for multi -family structures as allowed under the R-MF zone district. With the proposal to rezone Parcel 2 to R-MF/PUD, its maximum allowable floor area would be the same as that of Parcel 1, 18,050 square feet. Under the proposed development of Parcel 2, the Eighth Street townhouse structure would contain 8,200 square feet and the Main Street structure would contain 5,050 square feet. Thus, a total of 13,250 square feet of floor area is proposed on Parcel 2 (4,800 square feet less than that which would be permitted by right). BACKGROUND: In the February of 1990 elections, the City of Aspen voters approved Savanah's construction of the Ritz -Carlton Hotel with the understanding (based on ballot language and campaign literature) that Savanah would submit a development application for the construction of an amount of affordable housing "suitable" to the Bavarian Inn property. Submission of an application "suitable to the sit. " was also a condition of Savanah's May, 1998, Section M. Amendment to the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. PROCEDURE: As a Conceptual Planned Unit Development application, a two-step process is required with public hearings before, first, the Planning and Zoning Commission and, second, City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission maintains final review authority over the Special Review, which does not require a public hearing. In contrast, the Planning and Zoning Commission acts in an advisory nature to the City Council with regard to the Subdivision, Rezoning, and PUD applications, including its requests for variances. The requested GMQS Exemption will be reviewed for recommendation by the Growth Management Commission prior to City Council's final decision on the matter. MAIN ISSUES: Based on the reviews carried out by Community Development Department staff and the various referral agencies, a few core issues remain unresolved and deserve special attention. While other issues exist, besides those addressed below, the core issues are outlined below and referred to elsewhere throughout this memorandum and associated exhibits. Other, less central issues are explained in the PUD review (Exhibit A). 3 Proposed Site Plan and Layout Staff feels strongly that the structure proposed along the alley should be relocated to front on Main Street between the portion of said building that already fronts on Main Street and the Eighth Street Townhomes. The displaced parking should be accommodated off the alley, where the building is now proposed to reside. If a reduction in parking would result, staff is prepared to support such a reduction through the Special Review process (also see Parking, below). There are many reasons for staff recommending this change, but perhaps the most significant of these is the desire to maintain an urban form where streets are lined by buildings, not parking lots. This is particularly important at the subject site due to its location as an integral part of the Entrance to Aspen, and since it is located across the street from the start of an Historic District (Main Street Historic District) that epitomizes the type of streetscape desired. The Main Street Historic District maintains a traditional rhythm of building -to -open area -to -building often referred to as a streetscape's "solid -to -void ratio." This traditional pattern does not include mid -block parking lots accessed directly off of Main Street. Relocating the structure as recommended by staff would help to maintain a close approximation of Main Street's solid -to -void ratio at the entrance to town. Besides the concerns regarding streetscape form and design, staff also feels the mid -block curb cut for the parking area would be inappropriate due to safety concerns involving vehicular turning movements into and out of the parking lot. Although the applicant proposes this curb cut on a "temporary" basis with its removal upon construction of the Entrance to Aspen, staff knows from experience how difficult it becomes to remove such conveniences after they have been in place for an extended period of time. In addition, the TDA study included herewith as Attachment 2 recommends (on page 22) that the east end connection of the alley to 7th Street be restricted to right turn -in and right turn -out only. The study explains that "left turns into the site from northbound 7th Street would be difficult due to the large volumes of southbound traffic. Left turns out of the alley could be problematic due to the heavy southbound traffic volumes and due to the short distance to the intersection at 7th Street/Main Street where large volumes of traffic are just completing their turn to the north and are approaching the alley exit," (page 22). The study goes on to explain on page 22 that "After Highway 82 has been realigned to Main Street and traffic volumes on 7th Street have decreased, it could be possible to allow left turns between the alley and 7th Street." These TDA recommendations are included in staff s recommended conditions of approval. For the reasons explained above, staff believes vehicular access to parking for the proposed development should be from the alley only, with the possible exception of the existing spaces accessed from Seventh Street, in front of the Bavarian Inn. With the recommended change, the proposed temporary curb cut would have to be eliminated, making all access to/from the alley, where Eighth Street to Main Street would serve as the primary vehicular route until Highway 82 is realigned; once realignment is complete, primary access to/from the alley would shift to Seventh Street. Also, by instituting this staff recommendation the 4. Main Street extension would maintain a traditional type of streetscape appropriate to the location at the Entrance to Aspen and the entrance to the Main Street Historic District. Parking As the proposed development consists solely of deed -restricted affordable housing units, its off-street parking requirements are established by Special Review. Savanah proposes to provide one (1) off-street parking space for each dormitory room and one -bedroom unit, and two (2) spaces per dwelling unit for two- and three -bedroom units. This proposal is consistent with the R-MF zone district's off-street parking requirements for similarly configured free market dwelling units, and results in a total of forty-five (45) spaces. Nineteen (19) spaces are proposed on Parcel 1, and twenty-six (26) spaces are proposed on Parcel 2, for a combined total of forty-five (45) off-street parking spaces. The surrounding neighborhood has a legitimate on -street parking shortage, and Savanah believes the provision of sufficient parking on -site will help to significantly reduce the demand placed on the limited supply of on -street parking. The City's Transportation Planner, Claude Morelli, is,concerned with the proposed parking ratios (see Exhibit D) as he finds them to be much too high. Claude explains that the Bavarian Inn site is one of the most transit, pedestrian, and bicycle friendly sites in town: current frequency of RFTA service to Rubey Park averages about one'bus every ten minutes; service to the AABC, Buttermilk, Highlands, and the Town of Snowmass Village averages about one bus every twenty minutes; a light rail stop is planned for the southeast corner of Main and Seventh Streets, and if lightrail becomes operational, service frequency to Rubey Park will likely remain at approximately today's level while frequency to points outside of Aspen will likely double; for pedestrians, the site is generally well connected via sidewalks and walkable side streets to the downtown core, points along Main Street, and the area around the post office; cyclists can easily access the site via designated bikeways on Hallam, Hopkins, and (in the future) Highway 82. Claude asks why, given the level of transit, pedestrian, and bicycle friendliness of the site, should we expect (or desire) Savanah to supply parking at levels normally associated with automobile -oriented suburban locations? He suggests that the City should be creating incentives for Bavarian residents to live without owning cars (or at least multiple cars), and that reducing the off-street parking supply would provide such an incentive and is entirely reasonable and justified given the excellent access to the downtown core and other locations via transit, foot, and bicycle. Claude's memo also points out that his assertions are supported by the fact ' that the Healthy Mountain Communities' Study of Local and Regional Travel Patterns, Volume 1, Figure 2.9 (pp.2-10), found that over 30% of adults and teenagers in Aspen and over the age of 16 do not have access to an automobile for personal use. Consequently, the City's Transportation Planner recommends the following off-street parking schedule: 5 TYPE1�T1VOINT. SPACS1NT ",`NO. -,.OF SPACES Dormitory Room --------------------- 13 ------------------------------ None ---------------------------------------- 0 ----------------------------------------- --- W-----B--e---d-room Flat ------------- One 4 1--.0 4 ---------------------------------------------------------- Two -Bedroom ------------------------------ 1 ------------------------------------------ 1.0 ------------------------------------------ 1 --------Flat -------------------------------------------------- Three -Bedroom Flat ------------------------------ 1 ------------------------------------------ 1.0 ------------------- ----------------------- 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- Two-Bedroom Townhouse ------------------------------ 4 ----------------------------------------- 1.0 ------------------------------------------- 4 --------------------------------------------------------- Three-Bedroom Townhouse ------------------------------ 8 ------------------------------------------ 1.0 ------------------------------------------- 8 TOTAL 31 N/A 18 Thus, according to the chart above, Claude is recommending a total of eighteen (18) off- street parking spaces with an additional number of spaces (perhaps five or six) that could be made available for short-term (i.e., up to two hours) parking for loading/unloading and guests. Along with these spaces, Claude recommends that spillover parking management strategies be required and implemented, including such possibilities as the establishment of a parking permit system, a prohibition against on -street parking, requiring landlord -tenant agreements to limit auto use, and the provision of long-term car storage off -site. Each of these potential strategies are elaborated upon in Claude's memorandum, attached with Exhibit D. Page 35 of the TDA, Inc., "Bavarian Inn Redevelopment Traffic & Parking Study" (see Attachment 2) explains that ITE parking generation rates indicate a peak parking demand for forty-one (41) spaces based on a peak year-round occupancy rate of approximately 90%. Staff of the Community Development Department supports a reduction in off-street parking, but wants to see a site plan with the revisions suggested above in the "Proposed Site Plan and Layout" section of this memorandum before deciding on a particular number of spaces to recommend. Staff agrees with the assessment of the Transportation Planner, but also recognizes the shortage of parking in the surrounding neighborhood as well as the fact that even the strongest disincentives (such as a lack of parking availability) do not fully eliminate vehicle ownership. Thus, Community Development Department staff supports a reduction in off-street parking, but feels that provision of just eighteen (18) spaces might be too drastic unless long-term, off -site car storage can be reliably provided (i.e., in the parking structure beneath the proposed hotel on Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD, at the Music School, at the Golf Course, at the airport park -and -ride lot, at Buttermilk, at the Brush Creek Road intercept lot, at some other location identified by the applicant, or at any combination of these or other acceptable locations). Since the Special Review of off-street parking requirements will occur concurrently with the Planning and. Zoning Commission's review of the Final PUD application, staff and the applicant would like to know, at this point in the process (during Conceptual Review), whether and the extent to which the Commission will support the revisions to the site plan suggested by staff, the reductions in parking that would result, and/or further reductions beyond those required by the recommended site plan revisions. 6 Rezoning and Site Suitability As mentioned in the "Background" section of this memorandum (above), in the February of 1990 elections, the City of Aspen voters approved Savanah's construction of the Ritz -Carlton Hotel with the understanding (based on ballot language and campaign literature) that Savanah would submit a development application for the construction of an amount of affordable housing suitable to the Bavarian Inn property. Submission of an application suitable to the site was also a condition of Savanah's May, 1998, Section M. Amendment to the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. Given that the development of affordable housing is required on the Bavarian site, and that said development is to occur in a manner "suitable to the site," a density greater than that allowed under the R-15 zoning has been anticipated by the voters and the Aspen City Council. The anticipation of a rezoning. request is evidenced in the fact that Section 26.92.030 of the Land Use Code requires that private applications for amendment to the City's official zone district map must be submitted by February 15 or August 15 of each year, and that these deadlines were implicitly waived in connection with the City Council's establishment of the September 15, 1998 submittal deadline for the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD application with the understanding that a rezoning request would be involved. The applicant proposes to develop Parcel 1 in a manner consistent with its existing zoning, which is considered "suitable" to the site. On the other hand, a rezoning request is proposed for Parcel 2 in order to accommodate the development of multi -family dwellings. Parcel 2 is currently zoned R-15. The R-15 zone district does not list multi -family dwellings as either a permitted or conditional use and, consequently, does not set a maximum external FAR for multi -family structures. For purposes of comparison, the maximum allowable floor area for a duplex (the highest density permitted on a single parcel) on an R-15 lot of 18,050 square feet would be 5,103 square feet. To carry this one step further, since a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet is required for the development of a duplex in the R-15 zone,, only one duplex lot, and thus one duplex of up to 5,103 square feet, could be developed under Parcel 2's current zoning (4.8 d.u./acre). Although not requested with the rezoning application but for informational purposes, it should be noted that the AH-1/PUD zone district would allow the same 1:1 FAR for multi -family structures as allowed under the R-MF zone district. The application proposes a residential density of 31 dwelling units on 36,100 square feet of land (37.4 d.u./acre) under the R-MF/PUD zoning designation. Broken down by parcel, the application proposes residential densities of 22 dwelling units on Parcel 1's 18,050 square feet of land (53.1 - d.u./acre), and 9 units on Parcel 2's 18,050 square feet of land (21.7 d.u./acre). The AH-1/PUD zone district would allow the same densities that are allowed under the R-MF/PUD zoning. With the proposal to rezone Parcel 2 to R-MF/PUD, its maximum allowable floor area would be the same as that of Parcel 1, 18,050 square feet. Under the proposed development of Parcel 2, the Eighth Street townhouse structure would contain 8,200 square feet and the Main Street structure would contain 5,050 square feet. Thus, a total of 13,250 square feet of floor 7 area is proposed on Parcel 2 (4,800 square feet less than that which would be permitted by right). The Table below provides a comparison between the dimensional requirements of the R-15 zone district (existing), the R-MF zone district (proposed), and the AH-1/PUD zone district (for purposes of comparison). All indicated dimensional requirements are for multi -family or residential dwellings, as appropriate, and where choices exist, those that would be most applicable to the subject proposal have been used. The figures indicate that the R-15 zone district would result in significantly fewer units than anticipated and considered "suitable" to the site, while the R-MF and AH-1/PUD zone districts have very similar dimensional requirements, which become even more similar when a PUD overlay is attached to the R-MF zoning. The PUD overlay with the R-MF zone district would be consistent with the existing zoning of Parcel 1 while allowing the same flexibility in dimensional requirements as allowed under an AH-1/PUD designation. Since no free market component is proposed, the applicant has decided not to pursue the AH- 1/PUD zoning designation, which is meant to provide an incentive of free . market development for private developers of affordable housing. Staff feels that the proposed zoning and densities are "suitable" to the site, and that increased densities would likely exacerbate the parking -related issues discussed above. Min. Lot Size* 15,000 sf 6,000 sf 1,500 sf Min. Lot Area per 15,000 sf • 300 sf/studio Same as Dwelling Unit* (for single-family or 400 sf/one-bedroom R-MF/PUD duplex; multi -family . 800 sf/two-bedroom 'not permitted) . 1,200 sf/three-bdrm. • 400 sf/bedroom for units of 4 or more bedrooms Min. Lot Width* 75 feet 60 feet Set by PUD Min. Front Setback` 25 feet 10 feet Set by PUD Min. Side Setback* 10 feet 5 feet (for MF) Set by PUD Min. Rear Setback* 10 feet 10 feet Set by PUD Max. Height* 25 feet 25 feet Set by PUD Min. Distance 10 feet 10 feet Set by PUD between Buildings* Min. Open Space* N/A 35% Set by PUD Max. External FAR See narrative above 1:1 1:1 Max. Internal FAR N/A N/A N/A Minimum • For Free market: 1 Same as R-15 Same as Off -Street Parking* space/studio or 1- R-15 bedroom; otherwise, 2/d.u. • For AH: set by Special Review = can ne vanea wun ruli ovenay 8 Entrance to Aspen The Entrance to Aspen Main Street Design Report, prepared by OTAK, November 3, 1997, concluded that light rail would be located on the south side of Main Street and that there is enough existing right-of-way to accommodate its construction. Thus, the only significant impacts of the Entrance to Aspen plan on the proposed Bavarian Inn project revolve around design, as explained above in the "Proposed Site Plan and Layout" section of this memorandum. Some of the statements and findings in The Entrance to Aspen Main Street Design Report relevant to the Bavarian Inn application include the following: • "The computerization and interconnection of new traffic signals at Seventh, Fifth, Third, and Garmisch with existing signals will allow for `platooning' of traffic along Main Street. This will improve traffic flow, disperse traffic along Main Street, and allow gaps between autos for cross street traffic and pedestrians." (page 6.) • "A south side single track alignment allows room for left turn lanes at the signalized intersections at Seventh, Fifth, Third, Garmisch, and Monarch." (page 6.) • "ADA requirements will necessitate partial or full sidewalk reconstruction along Main, Monarch, and Durant Streets." (page 6.) • "Driveway closures on Main Street can be accommodated by providing side street access and parking for affected homes and business." (page 6.) • "Eighth Street will be closed off and can be modified to accommodate much needed additional parking for the area." (page 11.) • "The south Seventh Street connection to Main Street will be closed off to vehicular traffic." (page 13.) • "The north side of Main Street at this [Seventh Street] stop could retain its parallel parking. Additional street tree and shrub planting should be designed to reinforce the street edge. This will provide increased separation from vehicular traffic on Main Street for a more secure pedestrian experience." (page 13.) These statements can be summarized to explain that the light rail would run along the south side of Main Street, and the Seventh and Main intersection will be signalized, helping to enhance vehicular traffic flows and turning movements, as well as pedestrian crossing movements. Appropriate crosswalks should be provided._ Parallel parking would be maintained along the north side of Main Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets, the Eighth Street connection to Main would be eliminated, and the resulting Eight Street dead- end would provide additional, much -needed on -street parking for the neighborhood. Driveways accessing Main Street should be closed, which leads staff to conclude that no new driveways should be permitted on Main Street (including the one proposed). The Main Street frontage of the subject site should have ADA complying sidewalks (minimum of five feet in width with appropriate grades) that are separated from the street by a planting strip with street trees. 0 Variances The proposed development complies with all of the dimensional requirements of the R-MF zone district with the exceptions of maximum allowable height, minimum required open space, and minimum front and rear setbacks (see Zoning referral memo, Exhibit D). The variances are requested as part of the PUD review process. Since the Parcel 2 portion of the property is currently zoned R-15, the applicant is relying upon approval of the request to rezone to the R-MF zone district. In general, since staff is requesting significant changes to the site plan and since the rezoning request will not be processed until it can be done concurrently with review of a Final PUD application, staff recommends that the Commission not conduct a formal review of the variance requests until such time as it reviews a Final PUD application, especially those requests associated with setbacks and open space requirements. The height variance requests are not expected to change, with the possible exception of the alley structure being redesigned if made to front on Main Street, as recommended by' staff.' Portions of the three new multi -family structures would exceed the district's maximum allowable height of twenty-five (25) feet by approximately four to five (4-5) feet. Savanah is requesting variances to allow a maximum height of approximately twenty-nine (29) feet for the Eighth Street structure and the alley portion of the Main Street structure (4 foot variance). Similarly, the proposed height of the Bleeker Street structure is 30.5 feet (a 5.5 foot variance). The variances are requested to permit the dwelling units located in the subject structures to be completely above grade. The Parks Department is supporting the height variance requests since, without the variances, the buildings would likely be sunken below grade which would involve extensive impacts to the existing trees --- trees the applicant is attempting to preserve (see Exhibit D). The Parks Department memo goes on to explain that at -grade foundations will allow for the protection of significant tree roots on many of the large, mature trees. Community Development Department staff would support the Parcel 2 height variance requests as well, based on agreement with the points and concerns of the Parks Department as well as a feeling that the variance requests are modest in scope, result in more attractive architectural designs, would result in more livable, better dwelling units, and would have little adverse impact on area residents or the community at large. On Parcel 1, however, Community Development Department staff is of the opinion that the townhouse structure should be made to comply with the twenty-five (25) foot height limit. As proposed, this structure would have a height of 30.5 feet at a point that is one-third (1/3) of the way between the eaves and the ridge of the roof. This would result in a building that is 37 feet, 7 inches (37' 7") tall at its highest point. Since most of the proposed density would be located on Parcel 1 (22 units, as opposed to 9 on Parcel 2), it can be assumed that the Bleeker Street neighbors would incur heavier impacts than would the neighbors across 7th, gth, or Main Streets. For reasons of fairness, staff feels the Bleeker Street neighbors should not also have their views compromised any more than the underlying zoning would permit. Thus, staff suggests that the roof form be modified and/or a garden level be 10 constructed on the Bleeker Street townhouse building so that the R-MF height limit can be met without removing any units. Compliance with the APCHA Housing Guidelines The application is set to be reviewed by the Housing Authority at its April 7, 1999 meeting. As this memo was completed prior to the Housing Board's review, their recommendations could not be included. Thus, staff will verbally present the recommendations of the Housing Board to the Commission. The proposed unit sizes and category mixes are shown on the Development Program Summary Table, attached as Exhibit B. The Housing Board will be addressing the proposed mix of units and income categories, the proposed dormitory units, and the issues of credit for occupancy and the ability of the applicant to use the proposed units for mitigation of future growth. Housing Office staff is recommending that the Housing Board forward a recommendation to City Council for approval of the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing, subject to the following conditions: • Detailed submission (Final PUD application) will include calculations of exact net livable square footage for all units, including dormitory units; • At detailed submission, the applicant will propose unit rents and prices to the extent that units will be rented or sold at levels below current maximums in the Housing Guidelines; • The units at the Bavarian shall not be used for mitigation of any unbuilt phase of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The referral memo from the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) estimates that the proposed development would create the demand for approximately twenty-nine (29) additional transit trips on an average winter day (see Exhibit D). The RFTA analysis goes on to state that. this demand could necessitate an annual subsidy of approximately $13,000, which is offset by an estimated $8,000 in annual RFTA sales tax revenue generated by forty- two (42) new employees. The result would be an annual shortfall of approximately $5,000 with the development of the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing PUD. The RFTA memo concludes this analysis by explaining that RFTA is currently struggling to identify sufficient resources to maintain existing service levels, replace obsolete vehicles, and maintain needed staffing levels. RFTA, therefore, recommends that the potential transit impacts of the Bavarian Inn development be borne by the developer, and since housing is RFTA's highest need at the current time, they recommend that one (1) of the housing units proposed be dedicated to RFTA employees to offset potential transit impacts. Unfortunately, Community Development Department staff feels that it must recommend against RFTA's suggestion. That is, if Savanah is willing to dedicate one unit to RFTA, then that is encouraged. However, RFTA is suggesting an exaction based on potential impacts, and staff is concerned with the legality of such an approach. First, the City has never adopted a transit impact fee or housing in -lieu ordinance, and recent court decisions have found that an exaction (even when part of a legally adopted regulatory scheme) must have a rational nexus to the impact generated, be roughly proportional to the costs associated with 11 offsetting the impacts generated, and be used to offset the actual impacts. The RFTA memo outlines "potential" impacts and suggests an exaction (one deed restricted dwelling unit in lieu of $5,000 worth of annual impacts) that might not meet the rational nexus test or be roughly proportional to the impacts generated, and probably would not offset the actual impacts. REFERRALS: Referral comments from Parks, Engineering, Transportation, RFTA, Zoning, Sanitation, Housing, and Environmental Health are attached as Exhibit D, and are referenced as appropriate throughout both this memorandum and Exhibit A. DISCUSSION: The review criteria for Planned Unit Development as well as staff s evaluation of the application relative to these criteria are provided in the attached Exhibit A. Section 26.84.030(B), Planned Unit Development Review Standards For a complete staff review of each PUD review standard, please refer to Exhibit A, attached hereto. Community Development staff is recommending approval of the proposed Conceptual PUD, with conditions. While staff is recommending Conceptual PUD approval, no recommendations with regard to the requested variances are included due to the potential for a conflict with the suggested requirement to change the site plan and layout of the proposed development. Rather, staff is recommending that the specific variance requests be evaluated during Final PUD review, with decisions rendered at that time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Conceptual PUD with the following conditions: 1. If the requested rezoning of Parcel 2 from R-15 to R-MF/PUD is not approved, this Conceptual PUD approval shall be rendered null and void. 2. For the Final PUD application, the proposed Site Development Plan shall be revised as follows: a. The structure proposed along the alley shall be relocated to front on Main Street between the portion of said building that already fronts on Main Street and the Eighth Street townhouse structure. b. Vehicular access to parking shall be from the alley only, with the one exception of the existing parking spaces accessed from Seventh Street, in front of the Bavarian Inn. The proposed temporary curb cut shall be eliminated. c. Turning movements at the east end connection of the alley to Seventh Street shall be restricted to right -in and right -out only. Once Highway 82 has been realigned to Main Street, the Seventh/Main Streets intersection has been signalized, and traffic volumes on Seventh have decreased, the right -in and right -out only restriction may be removed to allow left turn movements to and from the alley. 3. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to modify the design of the proposed Bleeker Street townhouse structure such that no units would be lost and the height would comply with the R-MF zone district's twenty-five (25) foot limitation. 4. The proposed landscape plan of the Final PUD shall be modified in accordance with the changes required pursuant to condition 2., above. In preparing the proposed landscape plan 12 for the Final PUD application, the applicant shall work cooperatively with the City Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree relocation, preservation, and removal requirements. The plan shall also demonstrate consistency with the recommendations of the "Entrance to Aspen Main Street Design Report." In association with the landscape plan, the applicant shall provide plans or documents describing provisions for the on -going maintenance of all common areas and for ensuring landscape success for a three-year period. 5. ! The Final PUD application shall include a detailed outdoor lighting plan, as well as the following written commitments: "If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Any and all outdoor lighting shall employ down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. Outdoor flood lights shall be prohibited. These lighting requirements shall be included in the covenants (or other documents of similar. affect) of the homeowners' association." 6. The Final PUD shall meet all requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District, including but not limited to the installation of approved fire sprinkler and alarm systems, and the maintenance of all fire department apparatus emergency access routes. Proposed snow storage areas shall be identified on the Final PUD Site Development Plan. 7. The Special Review application shall include a spillover parking management plan outlining specific strategies to limit the need for on -site parking. Such strategies might include but are in no way limited to the establishment of a parking permit system, a prohibition against on - street parking, requiring landlord -tenant agreements to limit auto use, and the provision of long-term auto storage off -site. 8. The Final PUD application shall include a detailed utility plan including proposed easements; a detailed stormwater drainage plan; a PM10 mitigation plan; a fugitive dust control plan and construction management plan; a report detailing the results of an asbestos inspection of the Bavarian Inn and its associated out -buildings as completed by a person licensed by the State of Colorado; a draft plat and Subdivision/PUD Improvements Agreement; and, any other reports identified by the City Engineer as necessary for a full evaluation of the proposed development. 9. 'The Final PUD application shall clarify whether the applicant intends for the Category units to be rented and sold pursuant to the applicable APCHA guidelines in effect at the time of building permit issuance, or whether they would be rented and sold based on the policy statements contained in APCHA's 1998 Affordable Housing Guidelines. 10. The applicant shall record (and pay the applicable fees) with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder the signed Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution that provides City Council with a recommendation regarding the proposed Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD. In the alternative, the applicant may be the recordation fee to the City C ierk, who will record the Resolution. 11. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD application with the conditions outlined in the Community Development staff memorandum dated April 13, 1999." 13 EXHIBITS: A - Staff analysis of the proposal relative to the PUD Review Standards B - Development Program Summary Table C - Vicinity Map D - Memos from referral agencies ATTACHMENTS: Attachment I - Application materials Attachment 2 — TDA, Inc., "Bavarian Inn Redevelopment Traffic & Parking Study" 14 EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD Staff Review of The Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application The applicant is requesting Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval pursuant to the regulations of Section 26.84.030(B) of the Land Use Code. As explained in the main body of this memorandum, Parcel 1 is presently zoned R-MF with a PUD overlay (R- MF/PUD, which requires PUD review for any proposal). In addition, Savanah proposes to rezone Parcel 2 from R-15 to R-MF/PUD to accommodate the proposed multi -family structures. Since the entire parcel does not currently have a PUD overlay, any Conceptual PUD approvals would have to be fully contingent/conditioned upon approval of the rezoning request. As part of the PUD application, Savanah is seeking variances from the minimum required open space, maximum height limit, and minimum front and rear yard setbacks associated with the R-MF zone district. While staff is recommending Conceptual PUD approval, no recommendations with regard to the requested variances are included due to the potential for a conflict with the suggested requirement to change'the site plan and layout of the proposed development. Rather, staff is recommending that the specific variance requests be evaluated during Final PUD review, with decisions on the variance requests rendered at that time. The review criteria for Planned Unit Development applications and staffs evaluation of the application relative to them are provided below. la The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. RESPONSE: Of the statements in the AACP that relate to the subject proposal, the preponderance lend support, especially those of the Growth Action Plan and the Housing Action Plan. Examples of such supporting statements found in the AACP include the following: • The Intent of the Housing Action Plan, as stated on page 30 of the AACP, is to "Create a housing environment which is dispersed, appropriately scaled to the neighborhoods and affordable." The proposed project would be appropriately scaled considering the mixed densities of housing found throughout the neighborhood. The policies listed on page 31 of the AACP also recommend continuing "the approach of dispersed mid -size to smaller projects throughout the Aspen metro area and upvalley of Aspen Village," and encouraging "infill development within the existing urban area ..." The proposed development is a mid -sized, infill project within the existing urban area. The Housing Action Plan also states that permanent resident housing should be located near desired activity centers, and the proposed deed restricted units would be just a few blocks from the Commercial Core. • It is recommended in the Housing Action Plan, that the City encourage "the purchase of existing structures to preserve them for resident housing in order to discourage displacement of local residents." Part of the proposal calls for renovating an existing structure, and deed restricting all of its units for occupancy by local residents at affordable rates. As indicated on the Exhibit B table, the proposed development would house approximately sixty-four (64) local residents/employees. A-1 EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD There are also other statements found in the AACP that support the proposed development plan. For instance, Page 32 of the AACP, Housing Action Plan, calls for private sector development of units that "benefit the character of the community' and are `family oriented for working residents." The proposed unit and category mixes would provide family - oriented units for working residents. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 98-11 adopted the "Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan" as an update to the Housing Element of the 1993 AACP. The Citizen Housing Plan set policies with regard to the locational philosophies and criteria for affordable housing developments by way of establishing priorities. Since the proposed development is within the Metro Area; is in close proximity to multiple mass transit options; is self-contained and surrounded by existing development; can be served by existing and available utilities and public services; would fit within the existing community fabric and character; does not propose under utilization of the site; and is consistent with the housing needs identified in the APCHA Guidelines, staff finds the proposal :o be consistent with the Housing Element of the AACP and the priorities of the Citizen Housing Plan. Overall, the preponderance of goals in the AACP lend support to the proposed PUD. Accordingly, Community Development staff finds that there is enough support in the AACP for the proposed PUD to satisfy this criterion. 1 b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. RESPONSE: Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Surrounding developments include: the Klein duplex on the southeast corner of 8th and Bleeker (adjacent and contiguous to Parcel 1); the Villas at Aspen across 8th Street to the west and northwest; Bleeker Place condominiums across Bleeker Street to the north; single-family residences across 7th and Bleeker Streets to the northeast and east; the Christian Science Reading Room then the Hickory House restaurant across 7th Street to the east; the West Hopkins Affordable Housing to the southeast; and, single-family residences across Main Street to the south. There is also an existing single- family residence (the Long residence) on the northwest corner of 7th and Main, adjacent and contiguous to Parcel 2. (See Vicinity Map attached as Exhibit C.) The Villas at Aspen and Bleeker Place are both multi -family condominium complexes, while the other surrounding uses include single-family homes and duplexes, as well as commercial/office uses. The proposal includes four multi -family residential structures of various sizes to be consistent and compatible with the existing single-family, duplex, and multi -family residences located on the adjacent properties. With staffs recommended changes to the site plan, the units would all be oriented and designed to have front porches face adjacent streets and contribute to the streetscape in a positive way. Each facade would be modulated in plan and elevation to create interest, scale, and massing which is compatible with the character of the surrounding residential uses. The site design would preserve significant tree clusters, maintain view corridors from some of the neighboring developments, and enhance the pedestrian experience along streets adjacent to the property. A-2 EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD 1 c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. RESPONSE: The project site represents one of the last significant development opportunities in the immediate area. As the area is essentially built -out, it is expected that the proposed re/development would have little, if any, affect on the future development potential of the surrounding area. In fact, positive affects on the potential for future redevelopment of the surrounding area might occur since utility upgrades completed by the applicant would serve to aid in and better facilitate the redevelopment of the surrounding neighborhood; for instance, there are downstream collection constraints associated with the area's sanitary sewer system that would be eliminated through a system of prorated additional connection charges. Id. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: A GMQS allocation is not required for the proposed development since it would be exempt from GMQS pursuant to Section 26.100.050(C)(3)(b) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations as a 100% affordable housing proposal provided it is found to comply with the applicable requirements of APCHA's affordable housing guidelines. The GMQS Exemption request will be processed concurrently with a Final PUD application and will require a recommendation from the Growth Management Commission' prior. to City Council's final decision. Conceptual PUD approval may be granted prior to the granting of the GMQS Exemption, but the GMQS Exemption must be granted prior to Final PUD approval. 2. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: A sub -section of the above -cited standard requires that the density of a PUD be reduced if the site contains areas with slopes in excess of' 20%; however, no such reduction is required as both Parcel 1 and 2 are essentially flat. Thus, the entire square footage of Parcels 1 and 2 is available for density calculation purposes. Under the R-MF zoning, the proposed development program for Parcel 1 requires a minimum lot area of 11,900 square feet while the Parcel 2 development would require a minimum lot area of 8,400 square feet. Both of these figures are significantly less than each parcel's available lot area of 18,050 square feet, meaning sufficient land area is available to accommodate the project's proposed density. Also, see the "Floor Area" and `'Rezoning and Site Suitability" sections in the main body of this memo. As mentioned earlier in this memorandum, Parcel 2 is not currently zoned R-MF/PUD, and the existing R-15 zoning would not permit the proposed density. Thus, if Conceptual PUD is to be granted, the approval would have to be fully contingent/conditioned upon approval of the rezoning request. 3. 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 roiv hoarse A-3 EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD configuration, but multi family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: The R-MF zone district lists multi -family units as a permitted use. Again, multi -family residential uses are not permitted under the existing R-15 zoning of Parcel 2; consequently, if Conceptual PUD is to be granted, the approval would have to be fully contingent/conditioned upon approval of the rezoning request. 4. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district; provided, that variations may be permitted in the following: a. Minimum distance benveen buildings; b. Maximum height (including viewplanes); c. Minimum front yard; d. 11inimum rear yard; e. 1Llinimum side yard; f. llllinimum lot width; g. Minimum lot area; h. Trash area access; i. Internal floor area ratio; and, j. Alfinimum percent open space. RESPONSE: The proposed development complies with all of the dimensional requirements of the R-N1F zone district with the exceptions of maximum allowable height, minimum required open space, and. minimum front and rear setbacks. Since the Parcel 2 portion of the property is currently zoned R-15, the applicant is relying upon approval of the request to rezone to the R-MF zone district. In general, since staff is requesting significant changes to the site plan and since the rezoning request will not be processed until it can be done concurrently with review of a Final PUD application, staff recommends that the Commission not conduct a formal review of the variance requests until such time as it reviews a Final PUD application, especially those requests associated with setbacks and open space requirements. The height variance requests are not expected to change, with the possible exception of the alley structure being redesigned if made to front on Main Street, as recommended by staff. Portions of the three new multi -family structures would exceed the district's maximum allowable height of twenty-five (25) feet by approximately four to five (4-5) feet. Savanah is requesting variances to allow a maximum height of approximately twenty-nine (29) feet for the Eighth Street structure and the alley portion of the Main Street structure (4 foot variance). Similarly, the proposed height of the Bleeker Street structure is 30.5 feet (a 5.5 foot variance).. The variances are requested to permit the dwelling units located in the subject structures to be completely above grade. The Parks Department is supporting the height variance requests since, without the variances, the buildings would likely be sunken below grade which would involve extensive impacts to the existing trees --- trees the applicant is attempting to preserve (see Exhibit D). The Parks Department memo goes on to explain that at -grade foundations will allow for the protection of significant tree roots on many of the large, mature trees. Community Development Department staff would support the Parcel 2 height variance requests as well, A-4 EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD based on agreement with the points and concerns of the Parks Department as well as a feeling that the variance requests are modest in scope, result in more attractive architectural designs, would result in more livable, better dwelling units, and would have little adverse impact on area residents or the community at large. On Parcel 1, however, Community Development Department staff is of the opinion that the townhouse structure should be made to comply with the twenty-five (25) foot height limit. As proposed, this structure would have a height of 30.5 feet at a point that is one-third (1/3) of the way between the eaves and the ridge of the roof. This would result in a building that is 37 feet, 7 inches (37' 7") tall at its highest point. Since most of the proposed density would be located on Parcel 1 (22 units, as opposed to 9 on Parcel 2), it can be assumed that the Bleeker Street neighbors would incur heavier impacts than would the neighbors across 7th, 8th, or Main Streets. For reasons of fairness, staff feels the Bleeker Street neighbors should not also have their views compromised any more than the underlying zoning would permit. Thus, stf^f suggests that the roof form be modified and/or a garden level be constructed on the Bleeker Street townhouse building so that the R-MF height limit can be met without removing any units. With regard to the setbacks, Savanah is requesting a variance of approximately four (4) feet from the ten (10) foot rear yard setback requirement to remove the nonconforming status of the existing Bavarian Inn structure (Parcel 1) where it is set only six (6) feet back from the alley. Similarly, a five (5) foot variance is requested from the required ten (10) foot front yard setback to accommodate the proposed multi -family structure that would front on Eighth Street (Parcel 2). All other proposed building setbacks would meet or exceed applicable requirements. The R/MF zone requires that a minimum of 35% of the site must remain as open space meeting the definition of "open space" as provided in Section 26.04.100 of the code. As both Parcels 1 and 2 contain 18,050 square feet of land, the zoning provides that approximately 6,320 square feet of each parcel be maintained as open space. Under the current plan, Parcel 1 would contain approximately 5,460 square feet of open space or 30.2% of the total site area (86% of that required, resulting in the need for a 5%, or 860 square foot variance). As proposed, Parcel 2 would contain approximately 4,510 square feet of open space or approximately 25% of the total site area (some 71% of that required, resulting in the need for an 11%, or 1,810 square foot variance). The proposed shortfalls are largely attributable to the way in which open space is measured/defined, and to the applicant's attempt to provide the same amount of parking that would be required were the proposed units of the free market variety. In addition, the areas located between the property lines and the curbs cannot be counted towards open space calculations, but to the viewer/passer-by/user will be indiscernible from a:..i contiguous to the front yards;. if this area were figured into the site, the percentage of open space provided would be significantly higher. In summary, since staff is requesting significant changes to the site plan and since the rezoning request will not be processed until it can be done concurrently with review of a A-5 EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD Final PUD application, staff recommends that the Commission not conduct a formal review of the variance requests until such time as it reviews a Final PUD application 5. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on ... [six enumerated] considerations. RESPONSE: The off-street parking requirements for the proposed development are to be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of the Special Review application that would be processed concurrently with the Final PUD application. See "Parking" section in the main body of this memorandum. 6. 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 planned unit development (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. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "response" to standard 4, above. 7. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designed 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. RESPONSE: See referral memo from the Parks Department, attached as Exhibit D. The submitted conceptual landscape plan identifies each of the site's existing trees that are proposed for preservation. The landscape plan provides for plantings including a mix of deciduous trees, coniferous trees, mixed shrubs, and groundcovers. The landscape plan commits to the planting of several new trees which will compensate for the trees that must be removed. The plan includes concentrations of plantings along the street frontages which will greatly aid in enhancing the pedestrian experience, and softening the views and street presence of the structures. With staff s recommended changes to the site plan and layout of the proposed Parcel 2 development, the landscape plan would have to be revised accordingly. A detailed landscape plan will be required in conjunction with the Final PUD application, and the applicant is encouraged to work cooperatively with the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable landscape plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree removal permit requirements. 8. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in 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 stied 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 the 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 =1 EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD disturbances to the natural terrain and max: inize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and.reduce soil erosion. RESPONSE: The application package includes a site plan as well as architectural elevations and perspectives (see Attachment 1). The proposed architecture complies with all provisions of the City's Residential Design Standards, Section 26.58.040. No changes to the exterior of the existing Bavarian Inn structure are proposed with the exception of new paint and finishes. Some people would like to see the exterior of the Bavarian Inn remodeled and made to be more compatible with the architecture of the proposed structures, but others feel that the existing architecture adds to the eclectic nature of Aspen's architectural tradition and should be retained. The proposed structures have been designed to be compatible with one another, but not identical or repetitive. The townhomes have principal windows facing the street and have been broken into primary and secondary masses by varying their textures and wall planes, and by employing dormers to vary the- roof forms in an effort to maximize consistency and compatibility with existing residential structures on adjacent parcels. For instance, the size of the proposed new multi -family building on Parcel 1 steps down as it approaches the adjacent Klein duplex, while the height of the easterly end of this structure approximates that of the adjacent Bavarian Inn structure. Similarly, the height of the easterly -most proposed structure on Parcel 2 is compatible with the height of the adjacent Long single-family residence. In general, the designs are of a contemporary nature yet compatible with each other and the visual character of the city. They use peaked roofs and gable forms while providing windows, decks and front porches. At Final, materials, colors, textures, and patterns will be selected to be appropriate to the alpine environment and consistent with those typically used throughout the City's history. This criterion states that "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." The development would be required to comply with the City's drainage standards, and many trees are proposed for preservation (see Parks Memo, Exhibit D). The need and desire to comply with this standard helps to support the requested height variances on Parcel 2. 9. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. RESPONSE: The applicant has committed . to meet this criterion. If the application is approved, staff would suggest the following condition(s) of approval: "If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Any and all outdoor lighting shall employ down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. Outdoor flood lights shall be prohibited. These requirements will be included in the covenants (or other documents of similar affect) of the homeowners' association." A detailed outdoor lighting plan should also be required as part of the Final PUD application. A-7 EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD 10. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. RESPONSE: Given that this criterion does not mandate clustering, but instead encourages it, staff feels that the spirit of the criterion is met with the proposed development plan. 11,. 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. RESPONSE: According to the referral memorandum from the Engineering Department (Exhibit D), "there is sufficient capacity in the utility systems to accommodate the increasing demands and loading which would be created by this development." Similarly, the memo from Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal, explains that "the project shall meet all of the requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but is not limited to the installation of approved fire sprinkler and alarm systems and the maintenance of all fire department apparatus emergency access routes." The application includes a conceptual engineering report prepared by Jay Hammond, P.E., of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., Consulting Engineers. Mr. Hammond's report indicates that existing utilities in the immediate site area are adequate to serve the proposed development. Existing utilities in the immediate site area include water, sewer, electric, telephone, natural gas and cable television. The submitted application represents that all costs associated with the installation or upgrading of required public facilities and utilities will be borne by Savanah, and that all utility extensions will be located underground with appropriate easements dedicated to the various public and private utilities, as required. Existing utility pedestals will be relocated from the alley right-of-way as will be required, and potential locations for new and/or relocated utility pedestals and electric transformers are identified on the proposed site development plan (see Attachment 1). Emergency vehicle access would be provided via the adjacent public street system and the alley. Fire hydrants are conveniently located at the northwest corner of Seventh and West Bleeker Streets, on the west side of Eighth Street near its intersection with West Main Street, and at the northwest corner of West Main and Seventh Streets. 12a.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. RESPONSE: Vehicular access to each dwelling unit would be available from the alley, West Main Street, Bleeker Street, Seventh Street, and Eighth Street. Pedestrian access is also provided from these rights -of -way. 12b.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. A-8 EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD RESPONSE: There are no minor streets within the PUD. The applicant, submitted'a TDA, Inc., "Bavarian Inn Redevelopment Traffic and Parking Study," included as Attachment 2. On page 25 of the TDA report, it is stated that, based on a 90% year-round occupancy rate, "Using ITE trip generation rates, we estimate that the proposed developments will result in a net increase of 10 trips." The TDA study concludes that: During the summer and winter p.m. peak hours, all study intersections operate at LOS [Level of Service] B or better under existing, background and . project conditions. Overall intersection operations remained unchanged between background and project conditions. Northbound left/through/right movements at 7th Street/.Main Street intersection degraded from LOS D to LOS E during•the summer p.m. peak hour with the project. Overall operations at this intersection remained at LOS A. The proposed project does not degrade any intersections to an unacceptable level of service, so no mitigation is proposed. The realignment of Highway 82 will substantially reduce traffic volumes on 7 th Street and Hallam Street and will improve LOS at the study intersections north of Nlain Street. The planned traffic signal at the 7th StreetliVain Street intersection will improve access to and from 7th Street to the north. In addition, the TDA study recommends (on page 22) that the east end connection of the alley to 7th Street be restricted to right turn -in and right turn -out only. The study explains that "left turns into the site from northbound 7th Street would be difficult due to the large volumes of southbound traffic. Left turns out of the alley could be problematic due to the hecr.y southbound traffic volumes and due to the short distance to the intersection at 7th Streetl-Wain Street where large volumes of traffic are just completing their turn to the north and are approaching the alley exit," (page 22). The study goes on to explain on page 22 that "After Highway 82 has been realigned to Hain Street and traffic volumes on 7th Street have decreased, it could be possible to allow left turns between the alley and ,7th Street." These TDA recommendations are included in staffs recommended conditions of approval. 12c. The proposed developtnent 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 or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected RESPONSE: Please refer to the "Response" to standard 12b., above. 12d. Every residential building shall be not farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. RESPONSE: As proposed, the development would comply with this. standard. 12e.All nonresidential land uses 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. RESPONSE: There are no nonresidential uses proposed within this PUD. A-9 EXHIBIT A Bavarian Conceptual PUD 12f. 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. RESPONSE: All relevant streets are already public rights -of -way, and comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. A-10 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE BAVARIAN INN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED ON LOTS D THROUGH I, BLOCK 11, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, AND LOTS K THROUGH P, BLOCK 12, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735.123.08.004 Resolution #99 - 0q. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Savanah Limited Partnership, owner, as represented by Vann Associates, LLC, for Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval of a 31 residential unit (18 apartments and 13 dormitory rooms) affordable housing development on two (2) parcels located between the intersections of State Highway 82, Seventh Street, Eighth Street, and Bleeker Street; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.84, Planned Unit Development, of the Aspen Municipal Code, designation of land Planned Unit Development and development of land designated Planned Unit Development may be granted Conceptual approval by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the appropriate referral agencies, and members of the general public; and, WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City Water Department, City Engineering, Parks Department, Environmental Health Department, the City Transportation Planner, the City Zoning Officer, the Roaring Fork Transit Agency, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and the Community Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a special meeting on April 13, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a to (_ to __) vote, that the Aspen City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development for the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Development with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That City Council should approve this Conceptual Planned Unit Development application for the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing project subject to the following conditions: 1. If the requested rezoning of Parcel 2 from R-15 to R-MF/PUD is not approved, this Conceptual PUD approval shall be rendered null and void. 2. For the Final PUD application, the proposed Site Development Plan shall be revised as follows: a. The structure proposed along the alley shall be relocated to front on Main Street between the portion of said building that already fronts on Main Street and the Eighth Street townhouse structure. b. Vehicular access to parking shall be from the alley only, with the one exception of the existing parking spaces accessed from Seventh Street, in front of the Bavarian Inn. The proposed temporary curb cut shall be eliminated. c. Turning movements at the east end connection of the alley to Seventh Street shall be restricted to right -in and right -out only. Once Highway 82 has been realigned to Main Street, the Seventh/Main Streets intersection has been signalized, and traffic volumes on Seventh have decreased, the right -in and right -out only restriction may be removed to allow left turn movements to and from the alley. 3. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to modify the design of the proposed Bleeker Street townhouse structure such that no units would be lost and the height would comply with the R-MF zone district's twenty-five (25) foot limitation. 4. The proposed landscape plan of the Final PUD shall be modified in accordance with the changes required pursuant to condition 2., above. In preparing the proposed landscape plan for the Final PUD application, the applicant shall work cooperatively with the City Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree relocation, preservation, and removal requirements. The plan shall also demonstrate consistency with the recommendations of the "Entrance to Aspen Main Street Design Report." In association with the landscape plan, the applicant shall provide plans or documents describing provisions for the on -going maintenance of all common areas and for ensuring landscape success for a three-year period. 5. The Final PUD application shall include a detailed outdoor lighting plan, as well as the following written commitments: "If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not cause glare or hazardous conditions. Any and all outdoor lighting shall employ down -directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. Outdoor flood lights shall be prohibited. These lighting requirements shall be included in the covenants (or other documents of similar affect) of the homeowners' association." 6. The Final PUD shall meet all requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District, including but not limited to the installation of approved fire sprinkler and alarm systems, and the maintenance of all fire department apparatus emergency access routes. Proposed snow storage areas shall be identified on the Final PUD Site Development Plan. 7. The Special Review application shall include a spillover parking management plan outlining specific strategies to limit the need for on -site parking. Such strategies might include but are in no way limited to the establishment of a parking permit system, a prohibition against on - street parking, requiring landlord -tenant agreements to limit auto use, and the provision of long-term auto storage off -site. The Final PUD application shall include a detailed utility plan including proposed easements; a detailed stormwater drainage plan; a PMIp mitigation plan; a fugitive dust control plan and construction management plan; a report detailing the results of an asbestos inspection of the Bavarian Inn and its associated out -buildings as completed by a person licensed by the State of Colorado; a draft plat and Subdivision/PUD Improvements Agreement; and, any other reports identified by the City Engineer as necessary for a full evaluation of the proposed development. 9. The Final PUD application shall clarify whether the applicant intends for the Category units to be rented and sold pursuant to the applicable APCHA guidelines in effect at the time of building permit issuance, or whether they would be rented and sold based on the policy statements contained in APCHA's 1998 Affordable Housing Guidelines. 10. The applicant shall record (and pay the applicable fees) with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder the signed Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution that provides City Council with a recommendation regarding the proposed Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD. In the alternative, the applicant may be the -recordation fee to the City Clerk, who will record the Resolution. 11. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on April 13, 1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk I' __ _: _�hl h 1 1► lei Robert Blaich, Chair Exhibit B Development Program Summary Table Amount of Bedrooms Net Livable Cumulative AH No. of Tenancy Units (per Unit) Area Net Livable Category Employees Type Area Housed' Remodeled Bavarian Inn Structure ---------------------------- 7 ----------------------------- dorm ----------------------------- 200 sf ---------------------------------------------------------- 1,400 sf Two --------------------------------------------------------. 7.00 rental 6 dorm 300 sf 1,800 sf Two 12.00 rental 1 2 1,100 sf 1,100 sf L.P. Three 2.25 rental 1 3 1,160 sf 1,160 sf Two 3.00 rental 15 5 + 13 N/A 5,460 sf N/A 24.25 N/A ---------------------------- ----------------------------- Bleeker ----------------------------- Street Building -------------------- ------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------- 2 1 650 sf 11300 sf Two 3.50 sale 2 2 900 sf 11800 sf Two 4.50 sale 3 3 1,200 sf 3,600 sf Three 9.00 sale 7 15 N/A 6,700 sf N/A 17.00 N/A Parcel 1 Totals ---------------------------- 22 ----------------------------- 20 + 13 -----'----------------------- N/A ---------------------------------------------------------- 12,160 sf N/A ----------------------------- --------------------------- 41.25 N/A Amount of Bedrooms Net Livable Cumulative AH No. of Tenancy Units (per Unit) Area Net Livable Category Employees Type Area Housed' Eighth Street Structure 5 3 1,200 sf 6 000 sf Four 15.00 sale Main Street Building ---------------------------- 2 ----------------------------- 1 -----`----------------------- 1,125 sf ----------------------------- 2,250 sf -----------`----------------- L.P. Three ----------------------------- 3.50 ---------------------------- sale 2 2 11000 sf 2,200 sf L.P. Three 4.50 sale 4 6 N/A 4,450 sf N/A 8.00 N/A Parcel 2 Totals ---------------------------- 9 ------------------------------ 21 --------=-------------------- N/A ----------------------------- 10,450 sf ----------------------------- N/A ----------------------------- 23.00 ---------------------------- N/A 1 = Based on APCHA Guidelines' Occupancy Rates M. Exhibit B Development Program Summary Table Combined Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 Totals: • 31 units (13 dorm + 18 regular) • 54 total bedrooms (41 in the 18 regular units + 13 dorm rooms) • 22,610 square feet of net livable area (12,160 on Parcel 1, and 10,450 on Parcel 2) 0 30,280 square feet of FAR (17,030 on Parcel 1, and 13,250 on Parcel 2) • 64.25 employees housed' • 18 Category Two units (13 dorm for rent; 2 one -bedrooms for sale; 2 two -bedrooms for sale; and, 1 three -bedroom for sale) • 5 "lower -priced" Category Three units (2 one -bedrooms for sale; and, 3 two -bedrooms, of which one would be for rent and two for sale) • 3 standard Category Three (all three -bedrooms for sale) • 5 Category Four (all three -bedrooms for sale) • Total of 15 rental units (13 of which are dorms), and 16 units for sale • 100% Affordable Housing, of which: • 58% would be Category Two 0 26% would be Category Three (of which 62.5%, or 5 of 8, are "lower -priced") • 16% Category Four • Approximately 36,100 square feet of land (18,050 on each parcel) • 45 Off -Street Parking- Spaces (19 on Parcel 1., and 26 on Parcel 2) 1 = Based on APCHA Guidelines' Occupancy Rates IM SIT ' ~\ � / - / \ ' \ / \ ' ' \ / ` E%�li8rr D MEMORANDUM To: Mitch Haas, Project Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From:- Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer Date: March 26, 1999 Re: Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing: Conceptual PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review for Parking, GMQS Exemption and Vested Property Rights Reviews Physical Address: 801 West Bleeker Street and 834 West Main Street, City of Aspen, CO Legal Description: Lots D through I, and K through P, Block 12, Aspen Original Townsite, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, CO. After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the comments made by the members of the DRC: Discussion: As a conceptual application, the applicant has addressed the major elements and requirements of the development and there are no apparent problems which would preclude the development as proposed. The major areas' of concern are the adequacy of the parking, the geometry and access to accommodate the vehicular traffic, and neighborhood drainage patterns. Given the future re -alignment of Highway 82 from N. 7th St. to W. Main St., it may be more appropriate to execute agreements for future construction of curbs, gutters and sidewalks and streetscapes rather than construct these before a design is available for the new highway alignment. If the proposed site plan is modified from the one presented in the application, as discussed in the DRC meeting, the Engineering Dept. should review the new site plan to verify that these comments are still pertinent to the development and to review the proposed design. No additional information is necessary at this time, although 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 February 15, 1999) 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. A draft copy of the Traffic & Parking Study, dated March 12, 1999, was also reviewed. The applicant will be required to complete the standard requirements and conditions associated with the several forms of development requested in the application. 1. Parking: This neighbor is relatively congested with vehicles typically parked the entire length of N. 8th St. and W. Bleeker St. due to the inadequate on -site parking at the Bleeker Place and Villas of Aspen. The final design and practical use of the site should dictate the number of parking spaces. As presented, the number of parking spaces and parking plan are reasonable. While the Aspen Municipal Code does not have a standard nor definition for semi -compact nor compact designated parking spaces, this may provide additional alternatives if standards for these types of parking spaces were developed. 1 OF 2 DRC71v10999.D0C Memo - Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing: Conceptual PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review for Parking, GMQS Exemption and Vested Property Rights Reviews When the re -alignment of the highway is completed, there may be a net loss of on -street parking around the block of this proposed development since the block is shorter in a north -south direction than in the east -west direction. Assuming that parking would be permitted on N 7th St. (200 ft less two driveways at the lodge) and not permitted on W. Main St., (170 ft less two driveways [one residential, one commercial]), there could be a net loss of probably two on -street parking spaces. The driveway locations along the N 7th St. frontage may be improved if the existing trees are removed and the entire length of the street frontage adjusted to best -fit the driveways and replacement trees. Given the space available for driveways, trees and a maneuverable parking arrangement, only minor improvements to the entrances appear to be feasible. 2. Parks Dept.: (See the separate memo from the Parks Dept.) These comments are conditioned upon a thorough evaluation of the conditions of the trees on the site, and any revisions to the site plan including the depth of the building foundations. Several trees may be recommended for removal or relocation on a case specific basis after further evaluation of the health of the trees. Other trees which are identified as being preserved in the application site plan may actually be impacted by the construction of the buildings due to the proximity of the buildings to the trees and the building foundation depths. 3. Electric Dept.: Refer to the comments provided in the previous review of this project. 4. Environmental Health: The project will need to address PM-10 mitigation which may be accomplished, in part or whole, through paving of the alley and parking area, and by financially participating in other off -site projects. 5. Utilities: No utility plan was provided in the application packet so there are no comments about this aspect of the proposed development. Generally there is sufficient capacity in the utility systems to accommodate the increased demands and loading which would be created by this development. The applicant/owner would need to fulfill the current standards of each utility provider for service at the time of development. 6. Public Street Improvements: The applicant/owner should install street lights, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and other typical street improvements as part of the development. Since the street alignment and configuration along the W. Main St. frontage has yet to be designed for the re -alignment of W. Main St. and the N. 7th St. frontage may be re -configured with the re -location of the Highway, it would be practical for the applicant to complete an improvement agreement for this portion of the public improvements. A condition should be included regarding the timing of the improvements in relation to the re -development of the public rights -of -way on these two street frontages. DRC Meeting Attendees: Applicant: Sonny Vann, John Sarpa Staff & Referral Agencies: Rebecca S., Ross S., Mitch H., Tom Bracewell, Phil O., John K. 2 OF 2 DRCM0999.DCC MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Haas FROM: Claude Morelli CC: Amv Margerum. Randv Readv, Julie Ann Woods DATE: 15 vovember 1998 RE: Bavarian Inn Proposal: Transportation Issues This memorandum responds to your request for comments on the Bavarian Inn PUD application recently submitted by Savanah Limited Partnership. Having carefully reviewed the application and its supporting materials, I offer the following thoughts and recommendations regarding the transportation aspects of this proposal. SITE ACCESSIBILITY The Bavarian Inn site is one of the most accessible in -the entire city for transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Current frequency of RFTA service to Rubey Park averages about one bus every ten minutes. Service to the AABC, Buttermilk, Highlands, and the Town of Snowmass Village averages about one bus every 20 to 30 minutes. A light rail stop is planned for the southeast corner of Main and Seventh. Streets. If and when light rail becomes operational, service frequency to Rubey Park will likely remain at approximately today's level, while frequency to points outside of Aspen will likely double. For pedestrians, the site is generally well connected via sidewalks and walkable side streets to the downtown core, points along Main Street, and the area around the post office. Cyclists can easily access the site via designated bikeways on Hallam, Hopkins, and (in the future) Highway 82. PARKING SUPPLY Redevelopment of the Bavarian Inn site carries the possibility that a parking spillover problem may arise in the future, particularly with regard to the neighboring Villas townhouse complex. Savanah has sought to avoid this problem by including abundant off-street parking in its proposal. More specifically, Savanah has proposed one Memo re Bavarian Inn Claude J. Morelli 11/17/98 space for each dormitory room and one -bedroom unit, and two spaces for each two- and three -bedroom unit.' This would produce a total of 45 spaces. As Savanah notes, supplying parking at this quantity is "consistent with the RMF zone district's off-street parking requirements for similarly configured free market dwelling units.'" I am very concerned by these ratios. I think thev are much too high. As I have already noted, the Bavarian Inn site is one of the most transit, pedestrian and bicycle - friendly in town. Given this fact. why should we expect (or desire) Savanah to supply parking at levels normally associated with automobile -oriented suburban locations? It seems to me that we should be creating incentives for Bavarian residents to live without owning cars (or without owning multiple cars), rather than the other way around. Reducing the off-street parking supply provides just such an incentive, and is entirely reasonable and justified given the excellent access to the downtown core and other, locations via transit, foot, and bicycle.' Another problem with the amount of proposed off-street parking relates to the quantity of land it would consume. The total developable area of the site is only about 36,000 square feet. Of this amount, parking would consume approximately 10,135 square feet, or over 28-percent. Wouldn't this land be put to better use as space for additional housing or a green area? Finally, under the current proposal, parking will virtually dominate views of the site from both Main Street and !th Street. Parking will consume about 40-percent of the view from Main, and about 50-percent of the view from 7th. If maintaining a continuous street wall on this site is at all desirable (as I think it is), these percentages are much too high. Parking Supply Recommendation. As an alternative to the parking ratios outlined in the existing proposal, I recommend the following off-street parking supply schedule: yp�:O VIIit: #_ unitS. ! .:. Spaces/UIIit: # Sj?a es Dormitory Room 13 none 0 One -Bedroom Flat 4 1.0 4 Two -Bedroom Flat 1 1.0 1 Three -Bedroom Flat 1 1.0 1 Two -Bedroom Townhouse 4 1.0 4 Three -Bedroom Townhouse 8 1.0 8 TOTAL 31 N/A 18 Application for Conceptual PUD Development Plan Approval (September 15, 1998), p. 19. Z Ibid. 3 It is worth noting that, currently in Aspen, over 30 percent of adults and teenagers over the age of 16 do not have access to an automobile for personal use. Healthy Mountain Communities, Study of Local and Regional Travel Patterns, Vol. 1. , Figure 2.9, page 2-10. C:\HONIE\MITCHHIINATTACHNBAVAR--VP.DOC 2 Memo re Bavarian fnn Claude J. Morelli 11/17/98 An additional number of spaces (perhaps five or six) could be made available as short-term (i.e., up to two hours) parking for guests and loading/unloading. These spaces should be designed for future conversion to additional housing once 7th Street is reconstructed (following the re-route of Highway 82 onto the modified direct alignment) to include on -street parking. PARKING SPILLOVER SOLUTIONS I believe that a solution to the parking spillover problem is achievable through a combination of parking management strategies. These include • Establishing a parking permit system. • Prohibitina on -street parking. • Requiring landlord -tenant agreements to limit auto use. • Providing long-term car storage off -site. Discussion of each of these strate?ies follows. Parking Permit System. In order to park off-street at the Bavarian, residents should be required to obtain parking permits. A substantial fee should be charged for these permits, and the fee should be separate from the rent for the housing. The total number of permits valid at any given time should be no greater than the total number of long-term parking spaces provided on -site. Only residents of the non -dormitory units should be entitled to receive permits from the housing management. The entitlement should consist, however, of only one permit per household. Each household should be free to sell its permit to the highest bidder in a private transaction. Thus, each non -dormitory household would be free to obtain more than one permit if it finds another household that is willing to give up its entitlement. Dormitory households should also be given the right to bid on the for -sale permits. All permit holders should be required to register with the housing management. Prohibition of On -Street Parkin;. Residents of the Bavarian should be prohibited from obtaining permits from- the City of Aspen for on -street residential -area parking. This would mean that any automobile owned by a Bavarian resident and parked in a residential area on a long-term basis would be ticketed and towed if necessary. A precedent for this type of arrangement is the agreement between the Red Brick and the City regarding parking availability for tenants of the building. The on -street parking prohibition could remain in effect either indefinitely or until Highway 82 is re-routed off 7th Street, and 7th Street is reconstructed with additional on - street parking. C:\HOME\MITCHH\1NATTACH\BAVAR--VP.DOC Memo re Bavarian Inn Claude J. Morelli 11/17/98 Landlord -Tenant Ag reementsIRemote Car Storage. Residents of the dormitory units should be required to sign an agreement with the housing management (and possibly with the Villas and the City as well) stating that they will either (a) not own or have regular access to automobiles while living at the Bavarian, (b) store automobiles only at designated locations off -site: or (c) park on -site only if they have managed to obtain a permit. Residents of non -dormitory households should be required to sign an agreement that (a) limits the number of automobiles owned or available to the number of permits possessed by the household; and (b) requires storage of any additional automobiles at one or more of the designated locations off -site. Off -site. Iona -term car. storage facilities might be established at anv one or more of the following locations: the Music School, the Golf Course, the airport park -and -ride lot, beneath the proposed hotel on Lot 5 of the aspen Mountain PUD, and the Brush Creek Road intercept lot. The city could require Savanah to lease a certain number of spaces at one or more of these locations. This number could be adjusted on an annual basis depending on the level of demand for spaces exhibited in the previous year. Savanah would be compensated for the lease payment through fees for parking it would charge to its tenants. WALKWAY INIPROVENiENT REC®MNZENDATIONS Sidewalk Location and Continuity. A continuous sidewalk should exist along all streets fronting the project. These include Main, Bleeker, Seventh and Eighth Streets. The parking lot in front of the old Bavarian Inn should be removed to make way for a sidewalk at that location, and for additional green space or housing units. Alley Treatment. The alley should be designed to calm traffic and permit its use as a safe walkway. Sidewalk Design. Sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet in width and be detached from the curb. The strip of ground between the sidewalks and curbs should be landscaped with appropriate street trees set twenty to thirty feet apart, on center. Crosswalks. Current conditions at the intersection of Main and Seventh Street do not permit easy crossing of the streets by pedestrians. Plans for the re -alignment of Highway 82 away from Seventh and the installation of a traffic signal at Main and Seventh will generally solve this problem, but only if adequate attention is given to the design of the crosswalks. Crosswalks should be well marked and include pedestrian signals. Curb Cut iWinimization. Because the existence of curb cuts introduces a level of discomfort for pedestrians walking along sidewalks, the number of curb cuts associated with the Bavarian project should be minimized. Thus, the temporary curb cut should not be permitted on Main Street, and the existing curb cuts in front of the old Bavarian Inn should be eliminated (along with the parking at this location). C:\HOME\MITCHH\INATTACH\BAVAR—VP.DOC 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Haas FROM: Sara Thomas, City Zoning Officer RE: Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing, Conceptual PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review, GMQS Exemption and Vested Property Ri - hts. DATE: March II, 1999 The following analysis is based on both Parcels 1 and 2 being zoned RM-F (Residential Multi -Family). The proposed project meets the dimensional requirements of the RM-F zone district with the following exceptions: Parcel 1: - Requires open space variance of 5% to allow for 30% open space. - Requires height variance of 4 feet to allow for a height of 29 feet. - Requires rear yard setback variance of 3.7 feet to allow for a 6'4" rear yard setback. Parcel 2: - Requires open space variance of 10% to allow for 25% open space. - Requires height variance of 4 feet for Main St. structure to allow for a height of 29 feet, and 5.5 foot height variance for Bleeker St. structure to allow for a height of 30.5 feet. - Requires 5 foot front yard variance on 81h St. to allow for a 5 foot front yard setback. - Requires 5 foot rear yard variance at alley to allow for a 5 foot rear yard setback. (* * Per Section 26.04.100 — Yards, Corner Lots — On a lot bordered on two (2) sides by intersecting streets, the owner shall have a choice as to which yard shall be considered as the front yard, and the chosen yard must the meet minimum setbacks for a front yard in that zone district. The remaining yard bordering a street may be reduced by one-third (1/3) of the required front yard setback distance. The rear yard must coincide with the rear alignment of neighboring lots, regardless of which yard is considered the front yard by the owner.) Floor area calculations cannot be verified at this time as inadequate information is available for that level of review. All dimensional requirements will be re -verified at time of building permit review. TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director DATE: March 18, 1999 RE: Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing - Conceptual PUD; Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review, GMQS Exemption, Vested Property Rights CC: Engineering Department We have reviewed the application submitted by Savannah Limited Partnership and offer the following comments: • The applicants have striven to preserve trees on the site to the greatest extent possible. There are two, possibly three (2-3) trees on Parcel 1 however, that we are requesting be relocated instead of removed. They are located on the alley side of Lot 1 and depicted as an 8" Spruce, an 8" Pine, and a 10" Pine. We would like to work with the developers as this project proceeds to determine the optimum survivability for these trees. There are also a few trees that we may recommend be removed and replaced as part of the overall landscape plan. In particular, the two to three (2-3) large Spruce trees in the Seventh Street right-of-way (R. O . W .) are in decline and are inappropriate trees for a R. 0. W . We would prefer Cottonwoods be re-established in this area along with an improved sidewalk situation, which may include reconfiguring the access to the parking lot. • We would also support the applicant's request for a height variance for the buildings. This is because sinking the buildings below existing grade would involve extensive impacts to the existing trees they are attempting to preserve. An at -grade foundation will allow for protecting significant tree roots on many of the trees. • The final comment is there are two (2) Aspen trees which no longer exist on Parcel 2, yet they are indicated on the Tree Removal Plan. It appears that they may have been removed recently (in the last year or two), however, no mitigation will be required for these trees. All other trees have been inspected on the two parcels, and all other trees must have a proper tree removal permit or will be counted for mitigation. To: Mitch Haas, Planner From: Aspen Fire Protection District Subject: Bavarian Inn Parcel, ID # 2735-123-08004 Date: February 26, 1999 Dear Mitch, This project shall meet all of the requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but is not limited to the installation of approved fire sprinkler and alarm systems and the maintenance of all fire department apparatus emergency access routes. Also, please note the five minute response time, as mentioned in Part IV Review Requirements subsection B # 6f, is no longer a criteria for determining fire sprinkler requirements. Please contact me if you have any comments or concerns. ZX?�k YOU, Ed Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Sy Kelly * CLainnan Paul Slmitla * Treas Michael Kelly* ' ecy March 9, 1999 Mitch Haas Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Bavarian Inn AH Dear 1/Iitch: John Keleher Frantz Loushin Bruce Ma.tkerly, 1VIgr The comments that we made on this application in October of 1998 remain accurate. We will need to review the utility, drainage and landscaping plans for the site. Shared service line agreements will be needed for multiple units served by a single service line. A grease interceptor will be required for the common kitchen provided for the dormitory units. New service lines for all of the proposed development will be needed. The existing service lines will need to be removed according to District specifications. Development built on grade may be able to be served by gravity. We would recommend that any common elements or improvements be specifically addressed though condominium or association regulations or covenants. There are downstream collection system constraints that will be eliminated through a system of prorated additional connection charges. The total connection charges for the development can be estimated once detailed plans are available and tap permit is completed at our office. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. Please call if ,you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager 565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537 MEMORANDUM to: Mitch Haas, Community Development Department Through: Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Director From: Nancy MacKenzie ,Environmental Health Specialist �- Date: November 17,1998 Re: Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing: Conceptual PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review, GMQS Exemption, and Vested Property Rights Parcel ID # The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental. Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal for the Bavarian Inn Property, which is located near the intersection of Main Street and North Seventh Street, under authority of the Municipal Code of the City 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. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle the increased flow for the project should be determined by the ACSD. The applicant must provide documentation that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development. 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 Department shall determine if adequate water is available for the project. The City of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water quality. A letter of agreement to serve the project must be provided. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 "For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply from injury 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." A 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". 1 The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project. 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. In order to do this, the applicant will need to determine the traffic increases generated by the project (using standard ITE trip generation rates), commit to a set of control measures, and show that the control measures offset the traffic or PM10 produced by the project. Standards used for trips generated by new development are the trip generation rates and reductions from the 'Pitkin County Road Standards' which are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, Fifth Edition.Free Market and Affordable Housing units use the trip generation rate for ITE Land Use code 210, which is 9.55 trips per day per unit. Rental apartments generated 6.47 trips/ day. Free -Market units located within one half mile of a transit stop are allowed a reduction of 1.5 trips per day and Affordable Housing units are allowed a reduction of 2.0 trips per day. We have calculated that the existing use, one single family house and 19 rental apartments, generates 14.2 Lbs of PM- 10 traffic emmissions per day. The proposed development of 31 affordable housing units will generate 32.6 lb of PM- 10 per day. 32.6 minus 14.2 =18.4 lbs of PM-10/ day increase in PM-10 that will be generated by this development. The applicant is required to mitigate the increase in PM-10 that will be generated:18.4 lbs of PNI-10/day ( the equivalent of 131 new vehicle trips per day.) The application does not address traffic impacts as related to PM-10 mitigation. The applicant needs to meet with the Environmental Health Department on this subject. The proposals to extend sidewalks to improve pedestrian circulation is one form of mitigation. Other accepted mitigations include offering tenants and owners the use of free bicycles, providing for lower homeowners' dues for those owning fewer cars or paving RFTA bus stops. 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 PN110 caused by the project. This plan should be approved prior to detailed submission or issuance of building permits. FIREPLACF,/WOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health 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 building. 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. ASBESTOS Commercial - Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. Environmental Health cannot sign any building permits until we get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, it must be removed by a licensed asbestos removal contractor. F WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE AB ATFMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a piesent 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. ROARWCOLORADO ENCY ASPE To: Mitch Haas, Community Development Department, City of Aspen From: Mike Davis, Roaring Fork Transit Agency Data: 03/12/1999 Re: Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Summary The Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) has conducted a review of the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD Application to estimate the potential impact upon the public transit system. In general, it is estimated that the development will create the demand for approximately 29 additional transit trips on an average winter day (Table A). This demand could require an annual subsidy of approximately $13,000 (Table B). This subsidy is offset by an estimated $8,000 in annual RFTA sales tax revenue generated by 42 new employees (Table C). Therefore, RFTA estimates an annual shortfall of approximately $5,000 with the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD Application. - RFTA is currently struggling to identify sufficient resources to maintain existing service levels, replace obsolete vehicles, and maintain needed staffing levels. RFTA, therefore, recommends that the potential transit impacts of the Bavarian Inn development be born by the developer. Since housing is RFTA's highest need at this time we recommend that one of the housing units proposed be dedicated to RFTA employees to offset potential transit impacts. 0 Page 1 Analysis Transit Trip Demand Based on the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's 1998 Affordable Housing Guidelines, the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing conceptual PUD application proposes a development that will house 64 employees. Since between 19 and 22 employees currently live at this. location, the development will create a minimum increase of 42 employees. The most accurate. means of estimating the number of transit passenger trips that would be generated by the Bavarian Inn development is to compare the land use quantities with similar quantities served by RFTA. The population of Aspen is estimated to be 5,524 (Colorado Division of Local Government, 1997). As shown in the top portion of Table A, the number of average daily transit trips made by Aspen area residents on RFTA (over both a peak summer and peak winter day) was divided by the estimated population to identify a daily transit trip rate of .58 transit trips per capita in the summer, and .68 transit trips per capita in the winter. Multiplying by the estimated increase in population of the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing (42), the estimated number of one-way transit trips generated by residents of development is identified as 24 over a summer day, and 29 over a winter day Annual ridership was estimated by applying the existing observed ratio of annual RFTA ridership on Aspen service to the average winter daily ridership. Using this ratio, the Bavarian Inn is estimated to generate approximately 6,823 RFTA passenger -trips per year. Impact on RFTA's Operating and Capital Costs The second part of the analysis estimated the annual RFTA operating and capital costs attributed to the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Development.. The Castle/Maroon bus route was used as the basis for this analysis, since this is one of two city routes which serves the development. This route also has the lowest cost per passenger of the two routes that would serve the Bavarian Inn Development. First, total projected ridership on the Castle/Maroon Route was calculated by taking existing projected ridership and adding the Bavarian Inn ridership. Using projected costs, a cost per passenger of $1.84 was calculated. This cost was then applied to the passenger trips created by the Bavarian Inn PUD. Therefore, there is a $12,500 transit operating cost attributable to the new Bavarian Inn employees. From the analysis, the Bavarian Inn will increase ridership on the Castle/Maroon bus route by about two percent. This percentage can then be applied to the annual 0 Page 2 Table A: Analysis of Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Impact on RFTA Ridership and Fleet Requirement Estimated Average Daily RFTA Ridership Residential Land Use Population Summer Winter Aspen 5,524 (1) 3,199 (2) 3,762 (2) Daily Transit Trip Generation Rate 0.58 0.68 (One-way Psgr-Trips per Capita) IBavarian Inn Affordable Housing 42 (3) 24 29 Conceptual PUD Application Ratio of Annual Ridership to Average Winter Daily Ridership on Aspen Service 239 (2) Estimated Transit Trips per Year 6,823 Note: 1 Demography Section, Colorado Division of Local Government, November, 1997 Note: 2 RFTA Counts Note: 3 Estimated Increase in population Table B: Impact on RFTA subsidy requirements Estimated Transit Trips Per Year For Bavarian Inn PUD (From Table A *A One Way Ridership on Castle/Maroon Route Total Projected Ridership With Bavarian Inn= Line A + Line B Percent Change in Ridership = (Line C - Line B)/Line B *100 *1999 Projected Net Total Cost of Castle/Maroon Service 1998 Net total cost per passenger.= Line E / Line B New Projected Net Total cost per Passenger-- Line E/Line C Total subsidy required for new passengers= Line A X Line H Estimated annual cost of buses on Castle/Maroon Percent of new bus attributed to new riders = Line I X Line D Total Annual Operating and Capital costs attributed to Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing = Line J + Line H * Note: RFTA Budget Dated Novemtzr 30, 1998 1999 Projected Numbers Used ^ Note: Castle Maroon Route Used Due To It's Low Cost Per Passenger Line 6,823 A 417,436 B 4241259 C 2% D $7781646 F $1.87 G $1.84 H $127522.31 1 $53,163 J $868.95 . K $13,391.26 L Table C: RFTA Estimated Sales Tax Generated From 42 New Employees In Aspenj * Estimated Average Annual Income For Employees $33,058 Asume 40% of Income Spent In Aspen $131223.20 Sales Tax Generated For RFTA $198.35 RFTA Sales Tax Generated By 42 People $8,330.62 * Based on RFTA's Average Annual Income For Year -Around Employees 0 l3' _ 7t capital costs of buses on the Castle/Maroon route. Therefore, $869 in annual capital costs can be attributed to the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing project. , If the operating and capital costs are combined, the annual total subsidy created by the Bavarian Inn PUD could be about $13,000. Sales Tax Revenue Generated The final part of the analysis concentrated on sales tax revenue generated for RFTA by the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing development. This analysis required two assumptions. First, the average annual income for the new 42 Bavarian employees is estimated to be $33,000 (the average income for RFTA year -around employees was used for this assumption). Second, 40%, of this income is spent in Aspen on taxable goods and services. With these two assumptions, RFTA could receive about $8,000 in tax revenue from the 42 employees housed by the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD. • Page 3 As the Ci /'s Housing Designee, the Housing Office is authorized to make recommendations to City Council regarding the impact of growth on housing, the appiropriateaess of a proposed rezoning for housing purposes, wd the use as mitigation of housing that is proposed. 1n addition, he City and die housing Board have been contacted by citizens concer .-d about the developex''3 obligation to provide this housing. StaJT has reviewed theNstory of this issue, through !he written record and staternents by citizens and representatives of the developer. We believe, based on our review, that the ballot question was conducted in a context that included, community concern about the, mount of affordable housing proposed as mitigation for the Phan I Hotel (Rhz Hotel). The ballet language approved by the voters appears to do two things: 1 _ It approves the PUD agreement that was previously mended and approved by :he City Council. The PUD agreement species the requirements for of fordable houw' .g in Phase I of the PUD, and specifically rewires xeview of affordable Dousing to be. provided in future phases. 2. It provides for the developer to submit a land use application for housing at the Bavarian Inn property, in addition to the PUD agreement 13 ased on the history} of the project and the cl= language of the ballot, staff believes that there is a clear housing interest at issue, and that it is approprate for the City's Housing Designee to take a position on tNs issue. Staff further b6eves that the developers obligation to provide housbag at the Bavarian .inn prnperty does not entitle the developer to use those units to roiti.Qate for azy future phase of the ripen Mountain PUD_ Recommendation: Staff recommends that the How Board forward a recommendation for approval of the Bav&ria.n Inn .fordable Housing, subject to the following: 1. Detailed submission will include calculations of =ct net livable square feet for aft units, including dormitory units. 2. ,fit detailed submission, the applicant will propose unit rents and pric4s to the. extent that units will be tented or sold at levels below anent rmxirnums in the Housing Guidelines. 3, The units at the Bavarian shall not be used for mitigation of any iwbullt phase of the Aspen Mountain PLO. MAR 19 ' 99 e4 . =;2-Fil RSPEI I H()US _ H1-- --IF,-- H.; To, Housing 0111ce Beard of Directors From: Dave Tolen, Executive Director Re: Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Bate: 18 March, 1999 Summary: The attached application for 100% affordable housing at zhe Bavarian Inn property has been submitted by Savannah Limited Partnership, as part of its obligation under the Aspen Mountain PUD .approved by Aspen voters in 1990. The application is for conceptual review, with a detailed or final review subsequent to conceptual approval. Background: In 1990, Aspen voters were, asked to choose between two alternatives for the Aspen Mountain PUD, which included the Ritzz Hotel. The option proposed by the project developer was favored by the voters over an option proposed by the Orf C=61. The option approved by the voters included the following language (tbe full ballot is attached): In addition, Developer shall, in goodfaith, process a land use application or affordable howing suitable for the 811Oths of an acres k7own as the Bavarian lean Property. The approval granted by the voters in 1990 did not include a requirement to house any spec number of employees, although the applicant at that time made certain representations about the number of ernplo ees to be housed. This application has been submitted in order to fulfill the obligation in the ballot. This memorandum addresses the following issues at the conceptual level: 1. The proposed minx of units and income categories 2. The proposed dormitory units. 3. Credit for occupancy and ability of the applicant to use these units for mitigation of future growth. I*IHK I*J ' `:` &t4- r-1::rc- I 'I 71t-d-i-) -1 P-I '-'F I- Vnits and Category Mx: The application proposes the following unit types and Categories- Darmitori Units-, 7 Units 6 Units Rental Apartments, Owner3hip Units-. One person occupancy Two person occupancy 3 bedroom apartment 2 bedroom a pa-rt=nt 2 1 bedroom flats 2 1 bedroom TH units 2 2 bedroom TH units 2 2 bedroorn TH units 3 3 bedroom TH units 5 3 bedroom TH units Cate -gory 2 Category 72 Category'12 Category 3 Category Z Category 3 Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 Category 4 All of the units meet high priorities for unit type and income. The average price of the units in the project is less than the midpoint between Category 3 and Category 4. The project proposes no R.C. units. All of the units meet or exceed the mini=n net livable size. Dormitory Units: The Housing Guidelines set out requirements for dormitory units. Occupancy of the proposed units is consistent with the requirement for 150 square fee per pemon. The building includes a large amount of common area and potential storage. Common lining areas are proposed, including a common kitchen, dinmig, lawdry, riving and storage areas. used on the conceptual application, these units meet the physical req=ements, of the Housing Guidelines. Rents for uni ts Ats are set by specW review. These milts are proposed at Category ., 2 levels. Rents for dormitory units have genera fly been set on a per person basis. For comparison, Category 1 units at Alpina House rent for approximately $270 per month, with single occupancy. Staff proposes rent levels at $300 per person, with qualification based on individual income. Credit for Occupancy: The application represents that the proposed units will house a total of 64,25 employees,, based on occupancy standards set, out in the Housing Wdelines- It is staffs understanding that the housing provided at the Bavarian project is required to satisfy the terms of the voters' approval of the Aspen Mountain 'LTD, and that these units may not be used for mitigation of any unbuilt portion of the PTJD. To some extent, this is a legal issue as to the iWerpretation of the ballot question. Units and Category Mix: The application proposes the following unit types and Categories: Dormitory Units; r 7 Units 6 Units Rental Apartments- 1 1 Ownership Units; One person occupancv Categor; Two person occupancy Category 3 bedreom apartment Category 2. 2 bedroom apartment Category 3 2 1 bedroom flats Category 2 2 1 bedroom TH units Category 3 2 2 bedroom TH units Category 2 2 2 bedroom TH unfits Category 3 3 3 bedroom TH units Category 3 5 3 bedroom TH units Category 4 All of the units meet high priorities for unit type and income. The average price of the units in the project is less than the midpoint between, Category 3 and Category 4. The project proposes no R.O. units. All of the units meet or exceed the net livable size. Dormitory Units: The Housing Guidelines set out requirements for dormitory units. Occupancy of the proposed units is consistent with the requirement for 150 square feet per person. The building includes a large amount of common area and potential storage. Common living areas are proposed, including a common Idtchen, dining, lxxxlry, living and storage areas. Based on the conceptual application, these units meet the physical requirements of the Housing Guidelines. Rents for dormitory units are set by special review. These units are proposed at Category 2 levels. Rents for dormitory units have generally been set on a per person basis. For comparison, Category 1 units at Alpina House rent for approN mately $270 per monih, with single occupancy. Staff proposes gent levels at $300 per person, with qualification based on individual income. Credit for Occupancy: The application represents that the proposed units will house a total of 64.25 employees, based on occupancy standards set out in the Housing Guidelines. It is staffs understanding that the housing provided at the Bavarian project is required to satisfy the terms of the voters' approval of the Aspen Mountain ?UD, and that these units may not be used for mitigation of any unbuilt portion of the PUD. To sore extent, this is a legal issue as to the interpretation of the ballot question. MAR 19 , 99 04 : 44FM HSPEN HOI-IS _ Ih1-- FFC. As the City's Housing Designee, the Housing Office is.3uthorized to make recommendations to City Council regarding the impact of growth oa housing, the appropriateness of a proposed rezoning for housing purposes, and the use as mitigation of housing that is proposed, in addition, he City and the housing Board have been contacted by cites zonce:-ned about the developer -'a obiigaticn to provide this housing. Staff has previewed the,y'istox- of t1misissue, through the written record. and statements by citizens and representatives of the developer. we believe, based on our review, that the ballot question was conducted in a context that included community concern about the amount of affordable housing proposed as mitigation for the Ph= I Hotel (Ritz Hotel), The ballot language approved by the corers appears to do two things: 1 _ It approves the PUD agreement that was previously =ended and approved by the City Council. The PUD agreement speaes the requirements for of brdable housing in Phase I of the PUD, .and ;specifically requires xeview of affordable housing to be. provided in future phases. 2. It provides for the developer to submit a land use application for housing at the Bavarian Inn property, in addition to the PUD agreement Based on the history of the project and the clear language of the ballet, staff believes that there is a clear Housing interest st issue, and that it is appropriate for the City's Housing Designee to take a position on +his issue. Staff further believes that the developer3 obligation to provide housix a at the Bavarian inn property does not entitle the developer to use those units to rohicate for a -ay future phase of the Aspen Mountain PUD. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Houses Board forward a recommendation for approval of the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing, subject to the following: 1. Detailed submission will include calculations of exact net livable square fect for all units, including dormitory units, 2. At deWled submission, the applicant will propose unit rents and prices to the extent that units will be rented os sold at levels below cment maximums in the Housing +Guidelines. 3. The units at the Bavarian shall not be used for mitigation of any unbat phase of the Aspen 4%untain P `D BAVARIAN INN REDEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC &PARKING STUDY Prepared for: Savanah Limited Partnership Prepared by: TDA Inc. 1' 111 O 11 #1939 March 12,1999 TDA EXHIBIT d 3 ORGANIZATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION STUDY In describing the impacts and mitigation for the proposed project, this study follows typical procedures of the transportation planning profession. This report is divided into three major sections. Existing Conditions - refers to today's traffic, parking, and transit conditions. Background Conditions - is a forecast of conditions in the future project completion year without construction of the project. This section takes into consideration such elements as changes in traffic volumes, road construction and other developments likely to be completed. It is referred to as "background" because these changes provide a background on which to apply the project. Project Conditions - examines conditions in the future year with the project completed. The section focuses on the impacts of the project and proposes actions to mitigate those impacts. Where appropriate, a figure or table illustrates each of the study's findings. These appear on the right facing page. On the left appears text which introduces and describes the findings shown in the illustration. Supplemental information, including a glossary, is contained in the Appendix. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 1 March 12, 1999 #19391rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. INTRODUCTION This report describes the traffic impacts associated with the Bavarian Inn redevelopment project. The project consists of two parcels, as described below: Parcel 1 Bavarian Inn lodge remodel to include: • 13 dormitory style rooms with communal support facilities • one 2-bedroom unit • one 3-bedroom unit New 7-unit multifamily structure to include: • three 3-bedroom townhouse units • two 2-bedroom townhouse units • two 1-bedroom flats Parcel 2 New 5-unit multifamily structure to include: • five 3-bedroom townhouse units New duplex structures to include: • two 1-bedroom flats • two 2-bedroom townhouse units Existing uses on Parcel 1 include the Bavarian Inn lodge, containing 13 lodge units (used for residential purposes), one 3-bedroom manager's apartment, and associated support facilities. Five additional lodge units are also located on Parcel 1. A single-family residence currently occupies Parcel 2. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed project and study intersections. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 2 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. Bavarian Inn Site Location ElBavarian Inn Highway 82 TDA#1939 • Study Intersections �UNC. 3/12/99 FIGURE EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway System and Classification The current alignment of Highway 82 (on 7' Street) borders the east side of the site and is classified as an arterial. Bleeker Streer to the north, 8' Street to the west and Main Street to the south are considered local/residential streets. Figure 2 shows the classification of roadways in the study area. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 4 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. 'Bavarian Inn Roadway Classification ElBavarian Inn Arterial TDA #1939 • Study Intersections Local Street FIGURE 2 �� INC. 3/12/99 Trafric Controls Six intersections were studied to determine project impacts. The site alley on 7' Street was also studied. All study intersections are along Highway 82 and are stop -controlled (unsignalized) intersections: • Eighth Street/Hallam Street • Seventh Street/Hallam Street • Seventh Street/Bleeker Street • Seventh Street/Main Street • Sixth Street/Main Street • Fifth Street/Main Street. Highway 82 has ninety degree turns at the intersections of Seventh Street/Hallam Street and Seventh Street/Main Street (these are called the "S" curves). The traffic movement along Highway 82 has priority at these intersections. Public Transportation The Roaring Fork Transportation Agency (RFTA) provides both city and downvalley transit service. City Routes - two routes serve the bus stop at 7' and Bleeker. The Cemetary Lane route runs twice an hour between Ruby Park and Red Butte Drive, serving West Main Street and the Rio Grande Trail. The Castle/Maroon route runs three times an hour serving Ruby Park, West Main Street, Aspen Valley Hospital, the Aspen Highlands Ski Area and other destinations. Valley Routes - three routes serve bus stops on Hallam Street and on Main Street near the Bavarian Inn site. Service between Aspen/Snowmass and El Jebel is available at least every 30 minutes. There are 13 departures per day to Snowmass and Aspen from Glenwood Springs and 13 departures per day on the return/outbound leg. There are 23 departures per day from Carbondale to Snowmass and Aspen (beginning at 4:35 a.m.) and 23 departures per day on the return/outbound leg. Seasonal Routes - several winter routes serve bus stops on Hallam Street and on Main Street near the Bavarian Inn site. These shuttle services operate between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and connect five area ski resorts, including The Little Nell, Snowmass, Two Creeks, the Aspen Highlands and Buttermilk. A tour to the Maroon Bells Scenic Area is operated during the summer months. Special service is provided for events (such as the Aspen Music Festival) throughout the summer In the Aspen area.' Other Transportation Facilities Sidewalks currently exist along most of 7`� Street between Bleeker Street and Main Street. Sidewalks do not currently exist on other streets on this block. On -street parking is not allowed on 7' Street. On -street parking on the other streets is controlled by a Residential Parking Permit program. Figure 3 provides information on existing sidewalk and on -street parking supply for the project frontage. ' Conversation with Mike Davis, RFTA, March 10, 1999 Bavarian Inn Redevelopme tit 6 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. BLEEKER STREET a ..................................................................... 5 spaces 8 s paces ..................................................................... ......................................■.■■.■■.■■..■■.......■■.■■...■■ 5 spaces 8 spaces ........................................■.■.■.......■■...■■■■..■■■■aa0a avarian Inn Bavarian Inn MAIN STREET Sidewalk and On -Street Parking TDA #1939 ......... Residential Permit Parking Only � INC. 3/12/99 Sidewalk FIGURE 3 Traffic Safety Figure 4 shows the average annual accidents at each location (mid -block and/or intersections). The data used to derive the annual rates was for the period June 1996 through January 1999. As shown in Figure 4, most of the accidents were concentrated along Highway 82, especially at the 8' Street/Hallam Street, 7' Street/Bleeker Street and 7' Street/Main Street intersections. According to the Entrance to Aspen FEIS, the S-curves section of Highway 82 has consistently had one of the highest accident rates of Colorado's state highway network. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 8 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl,ad TDA, Inc. Bavarian Inn Average Annual Accidents ElBavarian Inn XX Intersection TDA#1939 Study Intersections xx Mid -Block � INC. 3/12/99 FIGURE 4 Turning Movement Volumes Figure 5 shows the turning movement volumes at each of the study intersections during the summer p.m. peak hour. The counts were taken in winter and were factored up to reflect summer p.m. peak hour conditions based on a conversion factor comparing summer and winter traffic levels.' Volumes at all locations except 5' and 6' Streets are based on counts conducted in 1999. Volumes for the 5'b and 6' Street intersections were recorded in 1996 and were obtained from MK Centennial Engineering. 2 State Highway 82, Entrance to Aspen FEIS, Colorado Department of Transportation Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 10 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc, .r. +�+ Cu lei W Fir ++ CJ U Francis Street 22 5 L 7 32200 'm3 1220 j� 'r o6 HaIlam Street 24 1101� 25 .- �tr 1088 "4 1109 13 1 1 1102 5 t 6 �1L► �— o r 0 Bleeker Street o itr 011160 0 1102 Alm1116 .J1 20 2 12 108 L 1113 507 �. 16 505 1205 .._......_..._.:::: ��� $102 rMain 2 ,.11l., Street 17 y tr 998 y +Itr 1104 y 'Itr 0 -74 6110 5 ""4 303 6 2012 N Bavarian Inn Existing Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour El Bavarian Inn Summer TDA#1939 • Study Intersections �wc. 3/12/99 FIGURE 5 Figure 6 shows the turning movement volumes at each of the study intersections during the winter p.m. peak hour. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 12 March 12, 1999 #19391rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. cu (U aj (U (V CU 00 t Ln Francis Street 19 4 6 28170 3 1061 4-75 4-0 Hallam Street 21 ==J 13 957 -0* 2 -.0 Itr 946 ' 964111 1 958 4 t. 5 4-0 �1L► 0 Bleeker Street �- o�. IT n MOM:,I 0 970 0 0 958 1 Alle ..i 1 970 . ............ 17 2 10 946 L968 406 14 404 4-1048 . ...... . 1L, 5 r JIL 4— 958 7 2 7 A4 a, n Street Main 5 =10. �tr12 =wT 868 Itr 6 X —*' �tr 0 -7; 519 4 303 960 5 2010 (No Bavarian Inn Existing Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour Bavarian Inn Winter TDA #1939 • Study Intersections FIGURE 6 �� INC. 3/12/99 Intersection Operations Based on the proposed guidelines for traffic impact analysis, intersection operating conditions were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual Third Edition, updated 1994, and version 2.1G of Highway capacity Software for unsignalized intersections. The intersection and operating conditions are indicated by a level of service (LOS) letter designation. LOS provides a measure of delay ranging from LOS A (free flowing, minimal delay) to LOS F (extreme congestion, long delays). For signalized intersections, total delay is estimated. When volumes exceed capacity, the software indicates an incalculable result as "*". Although it is sometimes true that an intersection operates at LOS F when "*" appears, this is not always true. Additional information on LOS is provided in Appendix A. Table 1 shows the existing LOS for each of the study intersections during the summer and winter p.m. peak hours. All intersections operate with an overall LOS B or better under existing conditions. Due to the high volumes of traffic on Highway 82, left -turning or through movements from the side streets may be substantially delayed. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 14 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc, TABLE 1. EXISTING P.M. PEAK HOUR LOS - WINTER & SUMMER UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Existing Summer Existing Winter 7' Street (Highway 82)/Main Street LOS LOS NB left/through/right E C EB left/through/right B B WB left/through B B OVERALL A A 7' Street (Highway 82)/Bleeker Street EB left/through/right F F WB left/through/right C B NB left B B SB left B B OVERALL A A Main Street (Highway 82)/6' Street NB left/through/right F E SB left/through/right F D EB left B B WB left B B OVERALL A A Main Street (Highway 82)/5`h Street NB left/through/right D C SB left/through/right F F EB left C B WB left B B OVERALL A A 7`h Street (Highway 82)/Hallam Street SB left/through/right F F EB left/through B B WB left/through/right D C OVERALL B A Hallam Street (Highway 82)/8`h Street SB left/right F D EB left B B OVERALL A A 7' Street (Highway 82)/Site Alley OVERALL A A Bavarian Inn Redevelopment #1939/rptditl.ad 15 March 12, 1999 TDA, Inc. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS This section describes the estimated future traffic conditions in the study area without development of the proposed project. The year 2001, the scheduled project completion year, has been used for forecasting future traffic conditions. Consistent with City of Aspen policy, a zero growth rate in background traffic has been assumed. Roadway Improvements No roadway or signalization improvements are planned during the study period, but major improvements are planned for later implementation. The Entrance to Aspen highway/transit project will shift the alignment of Highway 82 as it enters Aspen. The preferred alternative, as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project, would place Highway 82 on a new Castle Creek bridge in order to align the highway directly with Main Street. After crossing the new bridge, Highway 82 would be on Main Street directly south of the Bavarian Inn site. Eighth Street will not connect to the new Highway 82 on Main Street but will end in a cul-de-sac, with the potential for on -street parking. As part of the Entrance to Aspen project, light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to run along the south side of Main Street/Highway 82, and there is a planned LRT station at the intersection of Main Street and 7' Street. According to the City of Aspen, implementation of the Entrance to Aspen project is not expected to occur for at least five years. Therefore, traffic operations under background and project conditions were analyzed assuming the current alignment of Highway 82. Other Planned Projects One major project was identified by the City of Aspen as planned for completion by year 2001. While still in the conceptual stage, this City project would provide 7-15 units of affordable housing on the SE corner of the 7' Street and Main Street intersection (adjacent to the planned LRT station). The dwelling units are planned to be studio and 1-bedroom units. The upper end of this range was used in the background analysis to provide a worst case scenario. Public Transportation No significant changes are expected to the public transportation system during the next two years, but major improvements are planned for later implementation. A light rail transit (LRT) line is planned for the south side of Main Street. The Main Street Design Report for the Entrance to Aspen project indicates a station at the intersection of 7`' Street and Main Street, with a shuttle bus loading and turnaround area located in the 7' Street right-of-way just south of the intersection. 7' Street to the south will not connect to the shuttle turnaround or to Main Street. When implemented, the LRT line will provide frequent transit service from the Bavarian Inn site to employment, shopping and other services to the east. Turning Movement Volumes Figure 7 shows the projected background turning movement volumes during the summer p.m. peak hour. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 16 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. a it Cu v Ili v .a+ Cu .sr fir+ Go Ln Francis Street 22 5 L 32200 't,� 3 414 f•-220 1 J14- �.86 r o Hallam Street 24 .1 1107-1* 15 2 IF 1W 1094 1109 13 1 .' 1 1108 5 L 6 .V 0 Bleeker Street �-� It 1tr 0 0 1116 0 .._::._..._ : 0 1108 All 1 0 1116 L 20 218108 507 ~ 505 1207 6113 1604 I 4 r 8 Main Street 17 ­0�tr 1002� itr —+ Itr 0 "3 6114 5 303 1108 6 2012 N Bavarian Inn Background Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour -� Inn Summer aBavarian DA#1939 Study Intersections INC. 3/12/99 FIGURE 7 Figure 8 shows the turning movement volumes expected under winter p.m. peak background conditions. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 18 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. m r. v v v v 00Ln `a Francis Street 19 4 L6 28170 L,3 1061 r05 Hallam Street 21 13 963 2 �► �tr 952 964111 1 964 4 t . 5 0 �1L►•- r 0 Bleeker Street o Itr 0 0 970 0 0 964 AIle 1 .� 0 970 17 216946 406 14 404 1050 568 JIL 4— 960 4 Main Street IT 872 �tr 11tr 0 "i 5113 4 303 964 5 2010 N: Bavarian Inn Background Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour El Bavarian Inn Winter TDA#1939 ® Study Intersections � INC. 3/12/99 FIGURE 8 Traffic Operations Table 2 shows the background LOS for the summer and winter p.m. peak hours, compared with the existing conditions LOS. In the summer p.m. peak hour, all intersections continue to operate with an overall LOS B or better under background conditions. In the winter p.m. peak hour, all intersections remain at a LOS A. Due to the high volumes of traffic on Highway 82, left -turning or through movements from the side streets may be substantially delayed. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 20 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. TABLE 2. BACKGROUND P.M. PEAK HOUR LOS - WINTER & SUMMER UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Existing Summer Background Summer Existing Winter Background Winter 7`h Street (Highway 82)/Main Street LOS LOS LOS LOS NB left/through/right E D C D EB left/through/right B B B B WB left/through B C B B OVERALL A A A A 7' Street (Highway 82)/Bleeker Street EB left/through/right F F F F WB left/through/right C C B B NB left B B B B SB left B B B B OVERALL A A A A Main Street (Highway 82)/6' Street NB left/through/right F F E E SB left/through/right F F D E EB left B B B B WB left B B B B OVERALL A A A A Main Street (Highway 82)/5' Street NB left/through/right D D C C SB left/through/right F F F F EB left C C B B WB left B B B B OVERALL A A A A 7' Street (Highway 82)/Hallam Street SB left/through/right F F F F EB left/through B B B B WB left/through/right D D C C OVERALL B B A A Hallam Street (Highway 82)/8`'' Street SB left/right F F D D EB left B B B B OVERALL A A A A 7' Street (Highway 82)/Site Alley OVERALL I A A A L A Bavarian Inn Redevelopment #1939/rptditl.ad 21 March 12, 1999 TDA, Inc. PROJECT CONDITIONS This section describes the conditions in the future year with the addition of project traffic. The proposed project consists of two parcels located on the block bounded by Bleeker, Main, 7`h and 8'b Streets. Redevelopment of Parcel 1 will remodel the existing Bavarian Inn lodge to include: • 13 dormitory style rooms with communal support facilities • one 2-bedroom unit • one 3-bedroom unit. The project also includes construction of a new 7-unit multifamily structure on Parcel 1 to include: • three 3-bedroom townhouse units • two 2-bedroom townhouse units • two 1-bedroom flats On Parcel 2 a new 5-unit multifamily structure will replace the existing single family residence. The new building will include: • five 3-bedroom townhouse units New duplex structures will also be built on Parcel 2. These buildings will include: two 1-bedroom flats • two 2-bedroom townhouse units Parking for the site is generally accessed from the east -west alley bisecting the site. The alley is proposed to be two-way, but it is recommended that the east end connection to 7t' Street be a right -turn in, right -turn out only. Left turns into the site from northbound 7' Street would be difficult due to the large volumes of southbound traffic. Left turns out of the alley could be problematic due to the heavy southbound traffic volumes and due to the short distance to the intersection at 7' Street/Main Street where large volumes of traffic are just completing their turn to the north and are approaching the alley exit. Traffic leaving the Bavarian Inn site and desiring to go north on 7' Street could go north on 8' Street, east on Bleeker Street, then make a left turn. Alternatively, traffic could go south on 8' Street, east on Main Street, then make a left turn at 6'h Street and loop around to the west to connect with 7' Street. After Highway 82 has been realigned to Main Street and traffic volumes on 7' Street have decreased, it could be possible to allow left turns between the alley and 7' Street. Figure 9 shows the proposed project site. Bavarimz Inn Redevelopment 22 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. < ;Lc g= %6 33 zkc .0 -AC— . . ......... =Od Is Ka Bavarian Inn Site Plan TDA#1939 „ UNC. 3/12/99 FIGURE 9 Trip Generation Estimates of project trips are based on trip generation data found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (6' Edition). It is assumed for this study that the duplex units and the Main Lodge units will have similar trip generation rates as residential condominiums and townhomes. Because these units are for employees, the trip characteristics are expected to remain fairly constant between winter and summer seasons (unlike tourist residential uses). Table 3 shows the ITE trip generation rates for the existing and proposed uses. These rates are based on an occupancy rate of 90%. In each case, the fitted curve equation rates were higher than the average rate. Therefore, the use of ITE fitted curve equation rates for this study is expected to provide a more conservative result overall. TABLE 3. TRIP GENERATION RATES Use ITE Trip Generation Rate Existing Uses Average Rate Fitted Curve E uation Condominium/Townhome land Use #230) Main Lode (13 units) 0.54 0.89 Manager's Apartment in Main Lodge 0.54 1.36 5 Additional Lodge Units in Outbuildings 0.54 1.03 1 Single Family Residence (Land Use #210) 1.01 1.69 Uses .Proposed Condominium/Townhome (Land Use #230) Main Lodge (13 dorm units + 2 others) 0.54 0.86 7-Unit Townhouse Building 0.54 0.97 5-Unit Townhouse Building 0.54 1.03 Duplex with Flats 0.54 1.21 Duplex with Townhouses 0.54 1.21 Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 24 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. Using ITE trip generation rates, we estimate that the proposed developments will result in a net increase of 10 trips. Table 4 shows the calculation of trip generation assumptions. Generated trips were calculated using a 90% year-round occupancy rate. TABLE 4. PROJECT P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION Location/Type Units % Occupied Trip Rate Trips In Trips Out EXISTING USES Lodge Units 13 90% 0.89 (8) (4) Manager's Apt. 1 90% 1.36 (1) (0) 5 Addl. Units 5 90% 1.03 (3) (2) Single Fam. Res. 1 90% 1.69 (1) (1) Total Trips for Existing Uses (13) (7) Dormitory Units 15 + 2 others 7-Unit Townhouse 7 Bldg. 5-Unit Townhouse 5 Bldg. Duplex with Flats 2 Duplex with 2 Townhouses Total Trips for Existing Uses Trips Removed Net Trips Added by Proposed Uses PROPOSED USES 90% 0.86 8 4 90% 0.97 5 2 90% 1.03 3 2 90% 1.21 2 1 90% 1.21 2 1 20 10 (13) (7) 7 3 Bavarian Inn Redevelopment #1939/rptditl.ad 25 March 12, 1999 TDA, Inc. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution is the directional distribution of site -generated traffic. Figure 10 shows the trip distribution for trips added by the proposed project. Project trips were assigned based upon existing traffic distribution. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 26 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. v v Cu v M (n 00 LN Ln Francis Street Hallam Street Bleeker Street AIlelf 3 3 Main Street 3 y 3 y 3 N� 'Bavarian Inn Net Project Trips Added' LJBavarian Inn TDA#1939 . Study Intersections �UNc. 3/12/99 FIGURE 10 Turning Movement Volumes Figure 11 shows the summer p.m. peak hour turning volumes for the project year. These volumes were determined by adding the estimated project trips to the background volumes. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 28 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. Q d .41 (U it GJ .y GJ .0 1 1 � Francis Street 22 5 7 32 20 0 'L 3 ....1220 �06 Hallam Street 24 .1 15 1107y 2 ..,,� Itr 1094 1109 13 1 1 1108 5 'L 6 r=- o Bleeker Street itr 0 0 1116 0 0 1108 A�� «11 1 3 1116 201091 L 1113 1L► r 507 «11L� .� 16 �. $108 505 20 4-1211 r 8 4 r Main Street 17 y tr 14 1105-► Itr 7 .Z 1111 -• 'Itr 0 -7; 9114 5 303 6 2012 Bavarian Inn Traffic Volumes With Project PM Peak Hour El Bavarian Inn Summer TDA#1939 • Study Intersections ZINC. 3/12/99 FIGURE 11 Figure 12 shows the total turning volumes for the winter p.m. peak hour with the proposed project in place. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 30 March 12,1999 #1939/rptdit1.ad TDA, Inc. (U (U Q) W (n (n .6� 00 LN Ln Francis Street 19 4 6 28170 3 1081 XL— 075 Ad Hallam Street 21 q 13 1963 2 --00. 1tr 952 OmT 964111 1 964 4 L 5 0 0 Bleeker Street 1tr o_.. . ..... ...... li!V x 09700 .... . ... ..... 0 964 Alm 1 .� ..... ... ..... . . ......... ... ... 3 970 .... . ...... ............ .. . .............. ... . ... .... 17 . .............. 2 16 949 968 406 14 404 4-1054 9 r 4 764 ",fJILJ14 ain Street 15 —M* �tr 12 875 �tr 6 *Itr 0 8113 4 303 967 5 2010 Bavarian Inn Traffic Volumes With Project J PM Peak Hour El Bavarian Inn Winter TDA#1939 • Study Intersections E 12 INC. 3/12/99 FIGUR Traffic Operations Table 5 shows the project LOS for the summer and winter p.m. peak hours, compared with the background conditions LOS. In the summer and winter p.m. peak hours, overall intersection operations remain unchanged from background conditions, although northbound movements at the 7" Street/Main Street intersection dropped from LOS D to LOS E during the summer p.m. peak hour. Due to the high volumes of traffic on Highway 82, left -turning or through movements from the side streets may be substantially delayed (as they were under existing and background conditions). The planned Entrance to Aspen project will change the alignment of Highway 82 by aligning it with Main Street. This project will remove a substantial amount of traffic from the 71h/Hallam intersection and from other study intersections north of Main Street, improving operations at those intersections. Also planned to coincide with the realignment is a new traffic signal at the intersection of 7' Street and Main Street. This signal will reduce future delay for Bavarian Inn residents trying to turn left from 7' Street onto Main Street as they head toward town. When the Highway 82 project occurs, 8' Street will no longer be connected to Main Street. At that point, traffic entering the Bavarian Inn site will have to use Bleeker Street and/or the alley. Traffic leaving the site will be able to exit from the alley directly onto 7' Street. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 32 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. TABLE 5. PROJECT P.M. PEAK HOUR LOS - WINTER & SUMMER UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Background Summer Project Summer Background Winter Project Winter 7' Street (Highway 82)/Main Street LOS LOS LOS LOS NB left/through/right D E D D EB left/through/right B B B B WB left/through C C B B OVERALL A A A A 7' Street (Highway 82)/Bleeker Street EB left/through/right F F F F WB left/through/right C C B B NB left B B B B SB left B B B B OVERALL A A A A Main Street (Highway 82)/6`h Street NB left/through/right F F E E SB left/through/right F F E E EB left B B B B WB left B B B B OVERALL A A A A Main Street (Highway 82)/5`h Street NB left/through/right D D C C SB left/through/right F F F F EB left C C B B WB left B B B B OVERALL A A A A 7'' Street (Highway 82)/Hallam Street SB left/through/right F F F F EB left/through B B B B WB left/through/right D D C C OVERALL B B A A Hallam Street (Highway 82)/8`h Street SB left/right F F D D EB left B B B B OVERALL A A A A 7' Street (Highway 82)/Site Alley OVERALL A A A A Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 33 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. Parking Demand and Supply The estimated peak parking demand was calculated using the following resources: ITE Parking Generation rates for residential condominiums and low -mid rise apartments. The proposed parking supply was based on Aspen City Code and information provided by Savanah Limited Partnership. The proposed parking supply for this affordable housing project equals the minimum supply established by the City Code for a similar free market residential project. The following assumptions were used: • Peak year-round occupancy will be about 90%. • Practical capacity of the parking facility is estimated to be 95%. Table 6 provides a summary of these different rates: TABLE 6. PARKING RATES Source Land Use Unit Winter Rate Summer Rate ITE Parking Generation Residential 1.11 (avg. rate 1.11 (avg. rate (Parking Demand) Condominium Dwelling unit weekday) weekday) Low/Mid-rise 1.04 (avg. rate 1.04 (avg. rate apartment Dwelling unit weekday) weekday) Aspen City Code 1 for each studio 1 for each studio (Parking Supply) Single Unit or 1-bedroom or 1-bedroom family/Duplex unit; otherwise 2* unit; otherwise 2* a 1 for each studio 1 for each studio Multi -family Unit or 1-bedroom or 1-bedroom unit; otherwise 2* unit; otherwise 2* *These requirements apply to free-market units, off-street parking requirements for artorctame housing are determined by special review. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 34 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. Table 7 identifies estimated peak parking demand for the Bavarian Inn project. The demand is based on the parking generation rates from ITE (see Table 6). TABLE 7. PARKING DEMAND # Units # Parking Spaces Dormitory Rooms in Main Lode 13 15 2-Bedroom Unit in Main Lode 1 2 3-Bedroom Unit in Main Lode 1 2 3-Bedroom Townhouse Units in New 7 Unit Building 3 4 2-Bedroom Townhouse Units in New 7 Unit Building 2 3 1-Bedroom Flats in New 7 Unit Building 2 3 3-Bedroom Townhouse Units in New 5 Unit Building 5 6 1-Bedroom Flats in Duplex 2 3 2-Bedroom Townhouses in Duplex 2 3 TOTALS 31 1 41 The parking utilization analysis produces a peak parking demand for 41 spaces. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 35 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. Table 8 summarizes the proposed parking supply. While the Bavarian Inn is an affordable housing project, the proposed parking supply is equivalent to the required parking supply for a similar free market residential project. TABLE 8. PARKING SUPPLY # Units # Bedrooms Parking Space Rate Oarking Spaces Dormitory Rooms in Main 13 13 1 Space/Bedroom 13 Lodge 2-Bedroom Unit in Main 1 2 2 Spaces/Unit 2 Lodge 3-Bedroom Unit in Main 1 3 2 Spaces/Unit 2 Lodge 3-Bedroom Townhouse Units in New 7 3 9 2 Spaces/Unit 6 Unit Building 2-Bedroom Townhouse Units in New 7 2 4 2 Spaces/Unit 4 Unit Building 1-Bedroom Flats in New 7 2 2 1 Spaces/Unit 2 Unit Building 3-Bedroom Townhouse Units in New 5 5 15 2 Spaces/Unit 10 Unit Building 1-Bedroom Flats in Du lex 2 2 1 Spaces/Unit 2 2-Bedroom Townhouses in 2 4 2 Spaces/Unit 4 Duplex TOTALS I 45 Based on these results, the recommended supply is 13 parking spaces for the dormitory, and 32 parking spaces for the other units, for a total of 45 spaces. The parking supply is shared by the buildings, so the total supply of 45 spaces meets the total demand for 41 spaces. The parking demand for the dormitory spaces will be met within the total project's parking supply. The City rates are somewhat higher than the minimums recommended by ITE for similar uses. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 36 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. MITIGATION During the summer and winter p.m. peak hours, all study intersections operate at LOS B or better under existing, background and project conditions. Overall intersection operations remained unchanged between background and project conditions. Northbound left/through/right movements at the 7' Street/Main Street intersection degraded from LOS D to LOS E during the summer p.m. peak hour with the project. Overall operations at this intersection remained at LOS A. The proposed project does not degrade any intersections to an unacceptable level of service, so no mitigation is proposed. The realignment of Highway 82 will substantially reduce traffic volumes on 7' Street and Hallam Street and will improve LOS at the study intersections north of Main Street. The planned traffic signal at the 7'h Street/Main Street intersection will improve access to and from 7' Street to the north. Bavarian Inn Redevelopment 37 March 12, 1999 #1939/rptditl.ad TDA, Inc. MYMORANDUNI To: Mitch Haas, Project Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer Date: March 26, 1999 Re: Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing: Conceptual PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review -for Parking, GMQS Exemption and Vested Property Rights Reviews Physical Address: 801 West Bleeker Street and 834 West Main Street, City of Aspen, CO Legal Description: Lots D through I, and K through P, Block 12, Aspen Original Townsite, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, CO. After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the comments made by the members of the DRC: Discussion: As a conceptual application, the applicant has addressed the major elements and requirements of the development and there are no apparent problems which would preclude the development as proposed. The major areas of concern are the adequacy of the parking, the geometry and access to accommodate the vehicular traffic, and neighborhood drainage patterns. Given the future re -alignment of Highway 82 from N. 7th St. to W. Main St., it may be more appropriate to execute agreements for future construction of curbs, gutters and sidewalks and streetscapes rather than construct these before a design is available for the new highway alignm ant. If the proposed site plan is modified from the one presented in the application, as discussed in the DRC meeting, the Engineering Dept. should review the new site plan to verify that these comments are still pertinent to the development and to review the proposed design. No additional information is necessary at this time, although 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 February 1-, 1999) 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. A draft copy of the Traffic & Parking Study, dated March 12, 1999, was also reviewed. The applicant will be required to complete the standard requirements and conditions associated with the several forms of development requested in the application. 1. Parking: This neighbor is relatively congested with vehicles typically parked the entire length of N. 8th St. and W. Bleeker St. due to the inadequate on -site parking at the Bleeker Place and Villas of Aspen. The final design and practical use of the site should dictate the number of parking spaces. As presented, the number of 1 OF 3 DRCM0999.DOC EXHIBIT h Memo - Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing: Conceptual PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review for Parking, Gi1VIQS Exemption and Vested Property Rights Reviews parking spaces and parking plan are reasonable. While the Aspen Municipal Code does not have a standard nor definition for mid -size nor compact designated parking spaces, this may provide additional alternatives if standards for these types of parking spaces were developed. When the re -alignment of the highway is completed, there may be a net loss of on -street parking around the block of this proposed development since the block is shorter in a north -south direction than in the east -west direction. Assuming that parking would be permitted on N 7th St. (200 ft less two driveways at the Bavarian Inn) and not permitted on W. Main St., (270 ft less two driveways [one residential, one commercial]), it appears there could be a net loss of two on -street parking spaces depending upon the final spacing of the driveways. The driveway locations along the N 7th St. frontage may be improved if the existing trees are removed and the entire length of the street frontage adjusted to best -fit the driveways and replacement trees. Given the space available for driveways, trees and a maneuverable parking arrangement, only minor improvements to the entrances appear to be feasible. 2. Traffic Report: The draft copy of the traffic report was delivered after the application packet and too late for thorough review. However, the following items need to be included, elaborated upon and verified: • Include the present and projected ADT for the study area • Fully describe the proposed parking mentioned in the report: angled vs. parallel parking; nominal length of parking spaces on -site and on -street (Aspen Municipal Code only recognizes full size parking spaces, mid -size and compact parking spaces are not recognized) • Recognition and discussion of the alley intersection between W. Main St. and W. Bleeker St. which crosses N 7th St. The alley in Block 12 (subject property) is a continuation of the alley to the east in Block 18, These are access points to businesses and residences within these blocks. When the subject development is completed the alley through Block 12 will become a functional intersection to the parking in this project and this traffic movement should be considered. • More fully discuss the locations of the existing bus stops in the vicinity of the proposed project and which bus routes service these stops. The seasonal tour buses and ski shuttle buses do not necessarily service these bus stops. • Include discussion of the West End Shuttle service and local taxi service. • Include the explanation of the LOS rating system in the appendix. This was not included in the draft report. • The occupancy rate for affordable housing units, rental and owned, is effectively 100% due to the housing shortage with waiting lists for every unit per Cindy Christensen of the Housing Office. Therefore an occupancy rate of '100% is appropriate to assume in the trip generation calculations. • The trip generation calculations based upon the ITE Trip Generation manual are generally acceptable although the applicant should also generate the calculations taking into consideration the Pitkin County adjustments to the ITE Trip Generation manual. These adjustments may influence the type of mitigation required for the project. • Include a discussion of the bicycle route in the vicinity of the project as an alternate means of transportation. 3. Parks Dept.: (See the separate memo from the Parks Dept.) These comments are conditioned upon a thorough evaluation of the conditions of the trees on the site, and any revisions to the site plan including the depth of the building foundations. Several trees may be recommended for removal or relocation on a case specific basis after further evaluation of the health of the trees. Other trees which are identified as being preserved in the application site plan may actually be impacted by the construction of the buildings due to the proximity of the buildings to the trees and the building foundation depths. 2OF3 DRCM0999.DOC Memo - Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing: Conceptual PC.'D, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review for Parking, GMQS Exemption and Vested Property Rights Reviews 4. Electric Dept.: Refer to the comments provided in the previous review of this project. 5. Environmental Health: The project will need to address PM-10 mitigation which may be accomplished, in part or whole, through paving of the alley and parking area, and by financially participating in other off -site projects. 6. Utilities: No utility plan was provided in the application packet so there are no comments about this aspect of the proposed development. Generally there is sufficient capacity in the utility systems to accommodate the increased demands and loading which would be created by this development. The applicant/owner would need to fulfill the current standards of each utility provider for service at the time of development. 7. - Public Street Improvements: The applicant/owner should install street lights, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and other typical street improvements as part of the development. Since the street alignment and configuration along the W. Main St. frontage has yet to be designed for the re -alignment of W. Main St. and the N. 7th St. frontage may be re -configured with the re -location of the Highway, it would be practical for the applicant to complete an improvement agreement for this portion of the public improvements. A condition should be included regarding the timing of the improvements in relation to the re -development of the public rights -of -way on these two street frontages. DRC Meeting_ Attendees: Applicant: Sonny Vann, John Sarpa Staff & Referral Agencies: Rebecca S., Ross S., Mitch H., Tom Bracewell, Phil O., John K. 3OF3 DRCM0999.D0C MEMORANDUM To: Mitch Haas, Community Development Department From: Lee Cassin, City Environmental Health Director Date: April 5,1999 Re: Supplemental Comments Based on Traffic and Parking Study Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing: Conceptual PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review, GMQS Exemption, and Vested Property Rights Parcel ID # 2735-123 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the Traffic and Parking Study for the Bavarian [nn Property under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments in addition to those made previously for the earlier application. Our comments with regard to water supply, sewage treatment, noise, fugitive dust, and water quality have not changed. 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 major air quality impact of a project such as this is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project. 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. Standards used for trips generated by new development are the trip generation rates and reductions from the 'Pitkin County Road Standards' that are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers TriE Generation Report, Fifth Edition. As described in our previous comments, the net trip generation rate (for the proposed development compared to what is there now) will generate an additional 82 trips/day or 11.51b. of PM-10/day. Neither the application nor the supplemental traffic study addresses mitigation of these trips. However, the project contains two features that will offset the PM-10 emissions produced (although not all of the trips). The proposals to extend sidewalks to improve pedestrian circulation will offset some trips in the area. Paving of the alley that will be used for access will offset the remaining additional PMuo emissions. These two measures will allow compliance w i th requirements to not generate significant emissions. Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E) I, , 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 . h on the attached list, on theae day of /IGJ - , 199 _ (which is days prior to the public hearing date of c//,A 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 ,3/ day 1991, to the ! 3 day of G (; _, 199 . (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) iigned before me this / day of 1991. by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: Notary Public at AUBVw OF C01.o/ XHIBIT M MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 5-194Wft PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BAVARIAN INN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday. April 13, 1999 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Savanah Limited Partnership (represented by Vann Associates, LLC) requesting Conceptual PUD approval to develop 31 units of deed restricted, category affordable housing on the property. Under the current proposal, the existing Bavarian Inn structure would be remodeled to include thirteen (13) dormitory rooms, one (1) two -bedroom apartment, and one (1) three -bedroom apartment (on Parcel 1, as described below). As the property includes more land than just the existing Bavarian Inn site (it includes a total of 18,000± square feet of land and spans both sides of the alley), the proposal also includes three (3) separate multi -family structures that would include: two (2) one -bedroom flats, two (2) two -bedroom townhouse units, and three (3) three -bedroom townhouse units along Bleeker Street (also on Parcel 1); five (5) three -bedroom townhouse units along Eight Street (on Parcel 2, as described below); and, two (2) one -bedroom townhouse units, and two (2) two -bedroom townhouse units along Main Street (also on Parcel 2). Parcel 1 of the subject site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Seventh Street and West Bleeker Street (legally described as Lots D through I, Block 12, City and Townsite of Aspen). Parcel 2 is located at the northeast corner of Eight Street and West Main Street (legally described as Lots K through P, Block 12, City and Townsite of Aspen). For further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5095, or by email at mitchh@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Bob Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 27, 1999. City of Aspen Account g:/planning/aspen/notices/bavinnpz. doc BERGER BRUCE NICOLAS PO BOX 482 ASPEN, CO 81612 LONG RICHARD E & LOIS N PO BOX 1314 ASPEN, CO 81612 LARNER JACQUELINE L 376 DAHLIA DENVER, CO 80220 MURRY PAUL J MURRY BONITA J 814 W BLEEKER ST C-5 ASPEN, CO 81611 FATAHI AMENEH PO BOX 8080 ASPEN, CO 81612 I RIS CHARLES R JR A611EN VILLAS MGM'T 814 W BLEEKER ASPEN, CO 81611 UHLER FRANCES M 814 W BLEEKER ASPEN, CO 81611-3115 BOSSART TODD L 814 W BLEEKER ST E4 ASPEN, CO 81611 MITTON JOSEPH & PATRICIA 1/2 INT FRANKLE DAVID 1/2 INT 1015 VOLTZ RD NORTHBROOK, IL 60062-4722 KLEIN HERBERT S & MARSHA 201 N MILL ST STE 201 ASPEN, CO 81611 STEINBERG EDWARD M 1068 HOLLY ST DENVER, CO 80220 EICHNER SAMUEL L EICHNER SUSANA STERN DE FUENTE PIRAMIDES 243 TECAMACHALCO MEXICO CITY, 53950 D'ALESSIO ROBERT J D'ALESSIO JEAN M 814 W BLEEKER C-4 ASPEN, CO 81611 TRAN HONG HUONG 814 W BLEEKER ST #C 1 ASPEN, CO 81611 LUU TONG KHON TRAN TUYET LE PO BOX 2785 ASPEN, CO 81612 LICHTENWALTER GARY R 350 HOUBOLT RD JOLIET, IL 60431-8305 KHALAF ALEXANDER R & FAHIMA 408 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 GELLER SCOTT 29 BARKLEY CIR FORT MYERS, FL 33907-7531 SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BAVARIAN INN 1925 CENTURY PK E STE 1900 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 HEISLEY MICHAEL E C/O K J LONG 2004 DIANA DR MENDOTA, IL 61342 HOGGATT JERRY S PO BOX 1776 HARVEY, LA 70059 COHEN RICHARD A COHEN ELIZABETH A PO BOX 1806 ASPEN, CO 81612 SCHAFFER WILLIAM H SCHAFFER KAREN W 127 BRIXWORTH LN APT 7 NASHVILLE, TN 37205-2036 TOPELSON ALEJANDRO TOPELSON REBECA 5300 DTC PKWY #400 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 POLSE KENNETH A & JOYCE L REVOC 1992 TST 452 SCENIC AVE PIEDMONT, CA 94611 DAILY KIMBERLY DAWN 814 W BLEEKER PL E2 ASPEN, CO 81611 MINNESOTA MATERNAL FETEL MEDICINE 2115 DWIGHT LN MINNETONKA, MN 55305 HEISLEY MICHAEL E KURTZ KENNETH T & KAREN SHAFER ROBERT C & ADRIAN C DIES - HEICO INC C/O BRAKUR CUSTOM CABINETRY INC DORWORTH- FOXFIELD RD STE 102 C/O 3554 QUEBEC ST NW ST CHARLES, IL 60174 18656 S RT 59 WASHINGTON, DC 20016 SHOREWOOD, IL 60435 GLATMAN THEMIS ZAMBRZYCKI BROWN ALBERT L JR ASPEN QUAL NANCY R HINRICHS N N GLATMAN BRUCE ROY TRUST 50% 100 N 8TH T #2 20034 CALVERT ST 1767 E MCMILLAN ST ASPEN, CO WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 CINCINNATI, OH 45206 KOPF CAROL ANN & DONALD W FERRARA VINCENT J CARSON BARBARA L PO BOX 956 FERRARA ANNA M - JT TENANTS 100 N EIGHTH ST 935 ASPEN, CO 81612 100 N 8TH ST 416 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GUEST SHERLYNNE MORE LEVINSON BERNICE S MCBAY WILBUR & SHARON BRUFF HAROLD H LEVINSON NANCY C/O 17123 CHESTERBROOK VALE CT 3875 SPRING VALLEY RD PO BOX 3190 MCLEAN VA 22101 BOULDER, CO 80304-1008 ASPEN, CO 81612 ' RICCIARDI RIK DI BARTOLOMEO BETTY M EIDSON JOY REVOCABLE TRUST-1/2 100 N 8TH ST #14 VILLAS OF ASPEN #C-I I EIDSON ARVIN WAYNE REVOCABLE ASPEN, CO 81611 100 N 8TH ST TRUST-1/2 ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 271 SULPHUR, OK 73086 DOYLE R & G 10% SEARIGHT P 30% REED BRENT H & GEORGE L II OVERTON THOMAS N DOYLE R T III 30% GRIST F 30% 100 N 8TH ST #6 OVERTON PATRICIA J 3711 EASTLEDGE DR PO BOX 3075 AUSTIN, TX 78731 ASPEN, CO 81611-1124 ASPEN, CO 81612 1G MONA HAYLES TRUST PARIS JOHN HERNANDO SAMUELS LAURA R BOX 3849 3200 SANTA MONICA BLVD STE 204 PO BOX 4934 ASPEN, CO 81612 SANTA MONICA, CA 90404 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM PITKIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS OF HADDON HAROLD A ASSOC ASPEN LLC HADDON BEVERLY J 617 E COOPER AVE 601 E HOPKINS AVE 409 21 ST ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80205 SPERLING FAMILY TRUST SPERLING LEONA AND STANLEY - ANZALONE GRACE E DAVIDSON A SCOTT TRUSTEES PO BOX 3808 PO BOX 5141 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 13082 -26 MINDANAO WAY MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 LEPPLA JOHN L DIETRICH JOHN C ANDREWS JUDY D LEPPLA JOEN F DIETRICH ANN S 1043 HIGHLANDER DR 4040 DAHL RD 744 E LAKE ST SEASIDE, CA 93955-6231 MOUND, MN 55364 WAYZATA, MN 55391 OBRIEN MERLE JABLIN & THOMAS R PIVNICK JAY HARPER JAMES R 3OX 778 PO BOX 1306 150 PALMETTO RD __,E'EN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 BELLEAIR, FL 34616 MORRISON SUSAN M LANDIS JAMES H RICCIARDI RIK 2550 CEDAR RIDGE RD C/O MICHELLE BRIGHT 100 N 8TH ST 914 WAYZATA, MN 55391 530 RIVERSIDE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT, CO 81621 SIEGEL ELIZABETH N & NEIL B COOK ROBERT C & MARSHA N RICCIARDI RIK 4706 WARREN ST NW 3060 W PINE VALLEY RD NW 100 N 8TH ST # 14 WASHINGTON, DC 20016 ATLANTA, GA 30305 ASPEN, CO 81611 SANDUNES LTD SANDUNES LTD ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING 4823 OLD KINGSTON PIKE STE 140 4823 OLD KINGSTON PIKE STE 140 AUTHORITY KNOXVILLE, TN 37919 KNOXVILLE, TN 37919 530 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN MANGONE PARTNERSHIP LP 1 UTCHESON RICHARD L 130 S GALENA ST 12687 W CEDAR DR #100 PO BOX 161930-. ASPEN, CO 81611 LAKEWOOD, CO 80228 AUSTIN, TX 78716-1930 BROOKS JOHN A & LORRAINE M SIVART HOLDINGS LTD EPSTEIN MARC L REVOCABLE 720 W BLEEKER PARTNERSHIP TRUST #1 ASPEN, CO 81611 708 W BLEEKER ST 205 N 6TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1103 AN ANDREW C 50% MEANS GRAEME COULTER G LYNNIE 735 W BLEEKER ST 711 W BLEEKER ST PO BOX L3 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 LUU INVESTMENTS LLC GOLDRICH MELINDA MANGHAM NANCY JANE 435 E MAIN ST 706 W MAIN ST 1709 DAKAR RD E ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 FT WORTH, TX 76116-2035 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY RYANCO PARTNERS XXX 1 ASPEN/SNOWMASS INC ASPEN/SNOWMASS INC 715 W MAIN ST STE 203 734 W MAIN ST 344 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BUDSEY NIKIFOR II CITY OF ASPEN BLOMQUIST LINDA LEE WABISZEWSKI SUSAN AS JOINT 130 S GALENA ST 724 W HOPKINS AVE TENANTS ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 728 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 PT' A RSON MARK L NEVINS ROBERT M & WENDY S HANLE JEFFREY T HANLE KELLEY J U HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 11482 126 S Ao?EN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 8 ASPEN,, CO C81611 0 9 WOLFER MARY E DODGE BENJAMIN H & NANCEE L 130 S 7TH ST 134 S 7TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 VALLEY MIA TERRY TONYA M 740 W HOPKINS AVE 744 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1664 WEST HOPKINS CONDO HINELINE SUSAN ASSOCIATION 730 W BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611-1134 ABBOTT DANNY 13 8 S SEVENTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 KNIGHT GLENDA C PO BOX 328 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 BRADY LINDSAY KEVIN 146 FORREST ST PEPPERMINT GROVE 6011 WESTERN AUTRALIA, BAVARIAN INN PARCEL 1 Renovation of existing structure: - 13 Category Two dormitory rooms with associated common facilities (kitchen, living area, laundry, storage) - One two -bedroom (lower priced) Category Three apartment - One three -bedroom Category Two apartment Demolish existing out -buildings, replace with seven -unit townhouse structure - Two one -bedroom Category Two units - Two two -bedroom Category Two units - Three three -bedroom Category Three units PARCEL 2 A townhouse structure consisting of: - Five three -bedroom Category Four units A building consisting of two duplexes joined by a shared storage room: - Two one -bedroom (lower -priced) Category Three units - Two two -bedroom (lower -priced) Category Three units a LijiLdLC or LJecerminaClon of an Liection held in NAMES OF CANDIDATES I OR PROPOSITIONS OFFICE VOTED FOR - ouESTlo►v No a: AUTHORIZATION TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF FURS. "Shall the City Council adopt Ordinance 70, Series of 1989, which prohibits the commercial - sale of furs of wild animals within the City of Aspen? For existing inventory, this ordinance will take effect one year from the date of its adoption. This ordinance does not prohibit the _ wearing of furs, nor does it prohibit either the sale or the wearing of furs from domestic animals. _ The City of Aspen has previously shown its concern for the cruelty and dangers of the leghold trap by the adoption of Ordinance 10 of 1986, which prohibits the use of the leghold trap, and Ordinance 56 of 1986, which prohibits the sale of furs from animals caught in - leghold traps. It has become clear that even experts cannot know with any certainty the source of furs offered for retail sale, and ranched wild furbearing animals suffer not only cruelty in death but cruel and unregulated conditions during a lifetime of unnatural confine- ment The purpose of this ordinance would be to lessen the suffering of furbearing wild animals by prohibiting the commerce in fur products." z2 FOR THE QUESTION 33 _ - r � AGAINST THE QUESTION 34 a SHALL THE ELECTORATE ADOPT ORDINANCE 69, SERIES OF _ 1989, ;N ONE OF TWO FORMS, WHICH ORDINANCE APPROVES THE AMENDED - ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD SUBDIVISION. "Shall Ordinance 69, Series of 1989, be adopted approving "�-e Amended Aspen Mountain { Planred ;nit Development Subdivision in one of two forms? (Electors may choose either 1 Opt,or, A or Option B, but not both.) Colton A (Nadi ,;;;ti_r,a�, n arS22c.p l - Shall the Amended As Mountain PUD/Subdivision be approved subject to the following; 1. Ordnance 69 is hereby adopted in the same form as Resolution 29, Series of 1988, by which the Aspen City Council previously approved the amendment of the Aspen Mountain SubdivisicrvPUD (including the Ri-".Carlton Hotel). 2. In addition, Developer shall, in good faith, process a land use application for af`ordable housing suitable for the 8/10ths of an acre on Main Street known as the - Bavarian Inn property. O®d_C'ti Counaf Prooccan _ Shall the Amended Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision be approved subject to the following: 1• The conditions contained in the "First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Deve1 _ opment/Subdivision Agreement Aspen Mountain Subdivision,' the amended Final Plat of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision, and conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission (to the extent not amended by the Agreement or Final Plat); �Q - -- 2• The applicant provide off -site housing for 106 additional employees, ployees no longer required by reason of any reduction in the number of h �j ern rooms (292) or other uses now proposed. The housing shall be consistent with the _ Affordable Housing Guidelines of the Housing Authority in place at the time of final approval of the housing; Q�Q 3. The external floor area for the entire Planned Unit Development be reduced by 60,413 square feet; the hotel on Lot One not exceed 128,941 square feet (consistent with the underlying zoning); and the maximum height of the hotel on Lot One not exceed 44,8 feet (1600% of the allowable height). Option A (Hadid/Ritz-Carlton Proposal) 54 l r Option B (City Coundl Proposal) 55 i j 12 — - - • STATP nI7 rnI no n nn __ BAVARIAN INN .AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCEPTUAL PUD A development applic2flon for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements: 1. General requirements. a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed devdopment shy be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surroumfing area. c. The proposed development small not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. d. Final approval shall only be aganted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicam 2. Density. a. General. The max5mum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district Furthermore, densities may be reduced. if: (1) There is not sufient water pressure and other utilities to service 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 stable for the proposed development because of its slope, around instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers; (4) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent waxer pollution; (5) The proposed development will have a deleterious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the city; or (6) The design and loon of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the teaain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. b. Reduction in deity for slope consideration. (1) In order to redu= -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 manner. (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 (5C) percent of that permitted in the underlying zone district; (c) For lands between sty -one (31) and forty (40) percent slope, the density shall be reduces to twenty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone district; and (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 pares resdng in more than one (1) underlying 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 pcmmitted shall be Those of the underlying zone district Detached residential units may be authorized to be clusL—i—ed in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall only be allowed when pe�rnitted by the mmderlying zone district 4. Dimensional requiremeras. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the Underlying zone district; provided, that variations rev be permitted in the following: a. Minimum distance berm buildings; b. Maximum height (inch 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 . If a variation is permitted in i lot area, the-ama of any lot may be greater or less than the minimum requirement of the underlying zone dstrict, provided the total area of all lots, when averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone &.strict Any variation permitted shall be clearly indicated on the final development plan. 5. Off-street parking. The mnnber of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based <im the following crosiderations. a. The probable number of used by those using the proposed development_ b. The parking needs of any mnresidential uses. c. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed_ d. The availability of public tsit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utfm automobile +clisincentive 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 y-==t parking spas is reduced, the city shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not cba��. 6. Open space. The open a 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 planned unit development (PUD), and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed planned unit development (PUD) through a common park or recreation area. An area. may be approved as a common parts or recreation area if it: a_ Is to be used and is suitabite for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and b. Is land which is acxessNe :3n+d available to all dwelling units or lots for whom the common area is intended. A proportionate, undivided ir=cst in all c ommCm Park and recreation areas shall be deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit ow aer-wig the planned unit development (PUD), together with a deed'restriction against future residential, commerniaiL 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 spas, recreation areas, and communally owned facilities. 7. Landscape plan. Theresham 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 suitadbie for the Aspen area climate. 8. Architecturml site plan_ There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensure:: ,architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preser ="on of the visual character of the city. It is not the purpose of this review that control Of architectural charar 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 ptuoses, upon the 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 na , ral terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion_ 9. Lighting. AZI lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining; .meets or lands. 10. Clustering_ rClustering of dwelling units is encouraged. 11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accomme)date 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 dwellEng unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public stre�� either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or :private use. b. Principal vehtcular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled tuning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the planned unit development (PUID) shall not, be connected to snreets 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 su=unding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so teat 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 vehicular access to a public street e. All nonresidential Iand uses within the planned unit development PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arteriz i street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. f. Streets in tdm 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. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application, and its conformity to the smndards and procedures of this chapter and this title. BONNIE AND PA UL MURR Y 814 WEST BLEEKER STREET C-S ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 April 12, 1999 To: Members of Planning Commission Re: Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Application Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing to you in regards to the above -mentioned props husband and I live across Bleeker Street from the Bavarian i (forinerly known as Aspen Villas). We are a 26- unit townb units owner occupied, and two units which utilize rental op complex and represent the majority of owners when I state development of employee housing at the site, and are hapf our neighborhood. &ems�l -T AA The West Bleeker Place homeowners seem to all share some strong concerns about the project as it is currently designed. Our concerns are not about density per se, but rather about the safety and livability of the proposed development, the traffic and parking problems, and the desire to keep the large mature trees on the site (the current massing of the buildings do not allow this). Safety and Livability Our neighborhood consists of our complex of 26 units with 12 children, The Villas of Aspen (the other contiguous neighbor) has 36 units with probably 20 children. There currently is no play area or park in close proximity, consequently many of the neighborhood children play in our driveway and parking lot. We have had several dangerous near misses of serious accidents. The proposed development consists of 9 three bedroom units and 5 two bedroom units (definitely will add more children) with no open space or play yard area. The property is bordered by the future Main Street extension and the always -will be busy 7th street. Consideration must be given to the safety of the children. Families without children and individuals living in these units are also entitled to some green space for outdoor enjoyment. Because one lives in affordable housing, they should not be relegated to tenement living. The existing Bavarian Inn is comprised primarily of hotel rooms. One of the existing rooms has been documented as having fifteen (yes 15) people living in it. The housing board has recommended that the dorm rooms be consolidated to provide studio units. That is definitely an improvement, but a more desirable complex and cohesive family neighborhood could be achieved with the demolition of the existing Bavarian Lodge. EXHIBIT Traffic and Parking Our already dense neighborhood has a severe parking problem. Our parking lots do not accommodate our residents' cars. To restrict the owners of these units to an auto free existence is not practical, as many of them will hopefully be families. Once again, why should we expect any less of a resident of affordable housing than we do of ourselves? Adequate on -site parking is a necessity. Traffic flow in this neighborhood is already atrocious. We now have two points of access, Bleeker and Seventh, and Eighth and Main. When the entrance to Aspen is built, the Eight Street access will be eliminated. The Seventh Street traffic will be diminished, but we must remember that all the Cemetery Lane downvalley traffic (to Hospital, Schools, Golf, Pool, etc. will no longer be able to turn right at Cemetery Lane. All these cars will be directed unto the stoplight at Seventh and Main. The only access to all of our properties will be a very busy Seventh Street or the nearby alley to the Bavarian property. The traffic must be further studied. Trees The subject property has some large irreplaceable trees that will set a very nice note to the new entrance to Aspen. Our complex faces a beautiful stand of evergreen trees. My husband and I met at the site with Steven Ellsperman, the City of Aspen forester. The Developers' submitted site plan has some inconsistencies to the actual vegetation. While there are some trees that will certainly be cut down to allow development, we would like to see some of the more unusual species and some of the healthy 30-foot trees remain. Why should there not be the same regard for trees on an affordable development as there is for free market development? The tree survey should be corrected and further examined. A very simple answer to the above problems would be to redesign the project with smaller massing, perhaps the "cabin" approach that is already existing. These buildings could be clustered to allow for open and play areas under the massive trees. The proposed Development lacks imagination for livability. It seems to be driven by the request of one neighbor's concerns to protect his views and privacy (legitimate concern) and the money saving aspect of keeping the poorly designed existing Bavarian lodge. The other two open spaces were then crammed with overly large and overly tall masses. This is a convenient and beautiful property. Let us see an affordable housing complex at the entrance to Aspen that will make us all proud! Thank you for your study and consideration on this matter (to say nothing of the hours spent on all P & Z matters ! ) Bonnie Murry Kenneth & Joyce P olse 814 West Bleeker Aspen, Colorado 84116 April 5, 1999 Mr. Bob Blaich, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Blaich: We live at 814 Nest Bleeker, Unit E-5 and have recently reviewed the proposal for the Bavarian Inn Affordable Housing Conceptual Planned Unit Development. Although we support the use of this property for affordable housing, we believe that the proposed plan raises several significant issues which involve the surrounding environment, the neighborhood, the safety of children, and other individuals who may occupy these units. Listed below are some of the issues that we hope the Planning and Zoning Commission will consider when making their recommendation about the adoption of this plan. Density of the Complex The proposed plan calls for 31 units of affordable housing. Unfortunately, a large portion of the complex is to run along West Bleeker from 7' Street to the single private residence at the end of West Bleeker. The result of putting most of the planned units along West Bleeker is to create a massive structure, which would virtually block most, if not all of the view from several of the existing units located in the West Bleeker Place Townhomes. Trees Several large trees along West Bleeker that soften the view would be removed to accommodate the structure. The removal of the trees along with the large and massive appearance of the building would have an adverse environmental impact on the area. Parking The plan does not allow for sufficient off street parking. There should be one off street parking space for each unit. We have observed that even now, with only the present Bavarian Inn, during most of the season there is little off street parking available. With the proposed increase in number of people occupying the new development, there would very limited open parking available for non-residents (e.g., visitors, service people, etc.). Open Space Inspection of the proposal provides for almost no open (common) space for trees and landscaping. Children will be forced to play in the street, which represents a substantial safety issue. Also, with the increased traffic along West Bleeker there will be an increased hazard for pedestrian traffic. Surrounding Neighborhood The area surrounding the proposed complex (e.g., Bleeker Street Townhouses, the Villas, and a few individual homes) is already dense and the addition of another large complex build along Bleeker would only add more negative impact to the esthetic appearance of the neighborhood. Although the above listed concerns are serious, we believe that there are several alternatives to the proposed plan that would be environmentally more friendly and still meet the aim of providing affordable housing. Some areas for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider are as follows: EXHIBIT R Redistribution of the Units Consideration should be given to having the multi -family structure currently planned for Bleeker Street be built on Main Street and the 4 townhouse units which are planned for Main Street be built on Bleeker. This would redistribute several of the higher density units to other parts of the parcel so that all neighbors would equally share the impact of the addition and result in a less massive structure along West Bleeker. Trees Tress should not be removed. These tress are substantial in size and would take many years to re- grow. Could not the property be set back so that the trees remain? Certainly, in other parts of Aspen, it is not possible to remove tress for building purposes. Below Ground Living Space Some consideration should be given to having some living space below ground level. This would reduce the overall height of the structure and thereby have less impact on the environment. With appropriate egress, lower level units can be light and functional. Existing Bavarian Inn It is proposed to maintain the Bavarian Inn. This structure is not in keeping with the rest of the new structure. Also, the Bavarian Inn is not particularly an esthetic structure or fit well into the neighborhood and should be replaced with. a structure which fits into the environment. This area will be close to the new entrance to Aspen and should be an asset to the neighborhood. Parking Parking is a major concern to the neighbors for noise, safety and the environment. Consideration for underground parking should be given. This would have the effect of providing adequate parking for all users of the Bavarian development and also meet the environmental needs of the area. We have been coming to Aspen since 1967. About 3 years ago we made the decision to retire in Aspen and began the diffcult job of finding a home. We felt fortunate to be able to purchase our Bleeker townhouse and plan to retire here in the next 2-3 years. We, along with our neighbors will be very much affected by this high -density structure which is now under consideration. There are several alternatives for this parcel which can address the needs for affordable housing and still have a new complex that is environmentally friendly and esthetically pleasing to neighbors, visitors, and the citizens of Aspen. Thank you for consideration of our concerns and we hope that you and your committee can recommend a plan to the developers that will meet the affordable housing needs of Aspen and also be environmentally sensitive to the long term goals of keeping Aspen a scenic and beautiful community. Sincerely, Kenneth & Joyce Polse Cc: Mayor John Bennett Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission David Tolen, Executive Director, Housing Commission FRO11 : HEFFE1::;:T _ KLEIN L, RSG30C TO . +970 920 G439 19a9104_0e 14 : 32 #129 P. 03i 07 HER139;7 , Kf PIN nULLARD a, ZIMET* CE COUNSEL JACQUEL INE L GARQNER 'also adrrutted in Nsw Ittrk MCFESSIONAL CCPPORATJCN ATTORNEYS AT LAW April a, 1999 of P1a .ing commission lRe a Bavarian inn Affordable H*01JSing Application Dear Rcncrable Members of the Planning Commissioz; 201,NoRrH MILL 1EET SOME 203 ASPH'4, CQL.CRADO 81611 lEL; (970) 925-8700 FAQ: (970) 925-3 7 r' I am v1qritir.9 to You can,cerni g the, proposed development application of Savanah Limited Partnershzp for development of affordable bOusin5 at the Bavarian Inn'property ("Parcel 1,,) and an 38, 000 squ.are fact parcel of. land to its south (,,Parcel 2T') . Parcel 1 zs presently zoned '� \P 'T and Parcel 2 is px'esently Zozled "R- fi n , Savanah has circulated plans for his project among nelghhors. and has diScuased the prcj eGt with myself, representatives from th.e Aspen Villas and the W. Bleeker Place Townhouses Condominium Demers Associationa and iudividua.l neighborhood propex ty ownex,s . I wish to compliment Savannah for 'ts wil "119ne,10 to meet with us and it, efforts to address our cQnce�.s, T believe there is a. deign and, density which caz1 aoncsr the s pp�ort of the neighborhood, how��ftr, some, critical cor�oerns ,remain both with the application as * submitted and with anticipated (T have nnt seen the staff report as ot yet) Planning Office staff recommendations. Savana.h is obligated tQ Process an application for affordable hou8ing at this site which is "suitable' fix' the property and nei hborho4d. Where is no specific number of units required nor are the type or alze of the .units specified. Ke"Ve tl�eless, avanah has l9ensed .pressure to Taaxirnize the density and variances in height, open space and parking =elzire�l, masons been $ought in order to maximi2� rents have Neighborhood 1 e the density, However, impacts should .tie given paramouiat consideration in the pl,anninq Ccmmissioii l s determination of the merits of the project and while same increase in density over the existing zoning could be acceptabls to the nezghbo�7h.00d, the underlying zoning shQuId be used as a primary indicatox of what density is "Suitable", The Villas zzeighbbr-hood is an enQl.ave of single family uses, the multi -family Villas projects and the navarian Inn. The sin le family Parcels are all zoned R-is and are located, on'the North and South Of West Fain Street between 7th and 8th Stzreets . These include the farmer Bealmer residences r Long� residence, and a, single family dwelling on Parcelger � c r the Bavarian Inn.. , zs zoned O��/P-�„ . The My home is located EXHIBIT r� ------- C5 h FROM : HEREER.T S. KLE I N & ASSOC TO ol +97© 920 :3 5r3.�� 1999a 04—©8 14 : 3? #129 P. D4i (7? Page 2 immediately west of Parcel. 1 and immediately (across north of Parcel 2 and because of this confi atio., alley) develOPmer.t of these two parcels could. have a sewer im � the home- My Prc)Perty iO zoned r� FR a.z�d contains my residaact a my two bedroom aPartlment as a lawful duplex. Tam the tztost�ie and�a neighbor as the project is propose. immediately adjacent to me Lo �d cn the east and south of mrc�th and yarcl areas are orien d tt�w rd tMy he access to sun8hine develt� meat Will have a substantial. impact on me. Howevh �y willing to support e plan that is considerate: of m cone 'rIt I am minimizes these-.mpacts . erns and The, laeighboncood is ' mPacted by inade traffic ci�rculatiorl relati�re to its existing 3, g and limited tiOns will .be further exacerbated once biz her Q82 of these c0ndi extended along Main Street. When that ha 8tb. and'�', Main will be closed happens, the. inters � �n of and o"t of the neighborhood at 7th a d Bieeker. e w�ll be only one way 3n have any access to w_ �'Iaiz� �t�'eet and the cn�,�r accessParefor el � ��.1�. not On Parcel. 2 will be through an alley_ the ur�tits My neicg. hhors and I are very ooncerned about a rjurr issues . I will try to briefly su.mmax-i ze the most , ar er of for you_ important of them 1. Pa-�ng . inhere is xna.cle a.te neighborhoc�d. �'hi� has been a v � parking far the e�i�tzn 'Fears. The Bawaxian project must p ovrY .,def+�nusi lt problem for many Of its density. The neighborhood strenuous) o to parking for all in pa�c Ing� requirements. The Code'mandated pa ���s arty reducta.an .are .bare mznimums and do not actual) g reg3rerrz�:nts site parking needs. .any reduction is upnacce tables . Sufficient on, 2. Traffic circulation - `his prc�j ect presents traffic circ�x3atic�n issues. parcel ,� will not have an a g �-f Zcar�.t W. Main St. once Hwy. 82 is Parcel and there has not bee cress onto analysis of how cars will get in and out of the rs� "ect a. careful only access, the alley and its intersection Wit h D along its proposed, Plan has an access onto W. 7th St. The c©r�strvcted+ P .though this access willx�oark� o alt Highway 82 ie until nwy., 82 is built, the staff is recommending that temporary basis not be built and a building be this acceas simpl,�-. na way that access along theta) n i wi 1.1 wolocation.. There is t�raffio conditions at the 7th and Sleeker lIn � liven curreizt tersectizon. To tlae extent the al.leY is used for access, it must permitted at its east end add acen.t to 7th St. The nei only bestrenuously- opposed to traffic using the west end gorhac�d is Cu--alrea.dY congested street cannot safelyhandle c handlethe alley. additional. FROM : HEREER.T S. KLEIN & ASSOC TO +970 920 S439 1999.04-Oe 14:34 #129 P.OS/O? April 81 1999 Page 3 traffic going all the way around RleQker and, 8th st, to access Parcel 2. Furthermore,, 8th st . at the ,rest end of the alley ie n. narrow and usa.fe and the all.eY is constrained to about 10-12 feet in width due to the giant spruce trees. We have not yet seen an engineering report which demonstrates that the alley can successfully handle the volume of traffic and the traffic report submitted by the applicant does not appear to take all relevant factors into account. 3. ��.Space. The project seeps a variance t4 reduce the open space required by the code. UndE xr the development proposal, the portion of Parcel 2 currently used for a volley ball, court and picnic ,area for Bavariam Inn zesidenta will be Fast . There is no Pocket park or play area for children. The childx-en and rss.i.dents of the project will have no where to play, except in the street and parking lets_ To further aggravate this situation, once Jiwy. 82 is built r the nei G;hborhood will be cOMPletely enveloped, by busy streets and no open space or par. land will be available an here near this neighborhood and the location cf the highway will eliminate valuable open space adjacent to the Villas of Aspen Tow ousel . 4. ma.ssi ncr. Parcel 11. The massing of the new 7 ui, It building on w. Bl-.aeker st . creates visuaj impacts to the neighborhood which are u'Racceptable. The building will. Cause the removal of sev)e old beautiful, spruce trees. The building will completely fral ll the site. Tri addition, a height variance is sought to raise tJiys bui.ldlug to 25 feet. The building needs to be lower, not higher and its mass needs to be reduced. The trees aeed to be protested and open. space needs to he created,, It i.s Possible that by deleting .3 of the 7 units proposed for this building, two smaller buildings could be Provided and solve this problem, The visual impact, would be reduced, open Space would be created, the trees could be saved and there would he Less Such reduction could go a laxzg way in a.ddressinganeighbor-hood rking needed�co cer a r�s . P_ argel 2. The prapcsed site plan has attempted to respo!.-ld to my coricerna about development on my east and south. The urli.ts to my east. are set bAck from the alley both to alb ow fox parking andto maintain some view8 and privacy to the east . The units to m south are located on either side of a central. parking area which all,cws some but, not all, of my views to the south to he protected and while a substantial lass of views and privacy will result, this Is generally are acceptabI8 compromise in light of the scareenin provided by giant spruce trees on the west end of Parcel, 2 and the parking area in the middle of Parcel 2. FROM : HEFEEPT S. VLE 11,4 & ASSOC TO +9*70 920 6479 1999,04-0e 14*34 #123 P. 06/07 April 81 1999 Page 4 Unfortunately, staff has recommended that a building be placed where the parking area is proposed and that the access to W. Main St - be closed. This suggestion would put this building squarely ill Tay view lines. The PrOject, site plan fOr Parcel 2 was designed with Protecting this view line xn Mind. The staffs suggestion would put a wall of buj.,ld- ings entirely across my southerly exposure and is unacc8ptabie. Furthermore, it 'would force all traffic to use the alley intersection with 7th Street before Hwy. 82 is hiijit along W. Main st. Clearly, this Circulatalon pattern won Tt work. 5. Parcel 2 Rezoning. The land -locked nature of Parcel 2, ou=ently zoned R-15, its proximity to the highway entrance to Aspen,. and neighborhood MmPatibility raiso serious queationa about the appropriateness of the Proposed upZoning to RMF. Under current zoning only a single family or a duplex can be built i T am certain that YOU would 'lot upzone this parcel for a free market development and that it is Only being considered because this is an employee housing project. rezon, However, the same COnside-raticn-9 apply' to this Ing reqlaeSt as would apply to a free market project. The land use code criteria for a rezoning do not give special treatment to affordable housing projects. The code says that Compatibility with the meighborhood, traffic and safety, are important conaiderations. Parcel 2 has unique characteriatics and challenges. It should act be uPz=ed unle5a all of these i'3f3U19G are fully addressed. G. - Unit Mix and be,. The Housing that all of the units be T Authority has recommended dormitaz-y Units "for-salell units and that the proposed e reconfigured illto for -sale studios. The neighborhood supports this recommendation and urges you to endorse it as well. 7. Site Isit- We feel that a site visit by the Commission is essential to Your understanding of our concerns and request that be done before a decision on the conceptual application is Made. There axe additional Points for discussion. at Yhearing 'which'whichare not addreaaea in this letter acid others whicohur I expect wi 1 -1 respond' to the staff memorandum. However, most of critical it,�aues are get forth for Your convenience the review n them before ext so you can week's hearing. Based upon diSCUSSions With MY neighbors, these concerns are shared by all Of us, however, for the reco27d, theae vjews are my crwn, and 'MY rleighbo=S will express their own ccr�cern . a to you_ FROM :HEFaER.T S. VLEIN & ASSOC TO +9?0 920 S439 1999,04-08 14.*36 #129 P.O?/O? April a, 1999 Page 5 I Sincerely hope you wijl consider these comments when deliberating on this rezoning and development proposal. Thank you vla.ry much for your consideration and indulgence. VerY truly yours, KLEIN-ZIMET PROVEssiaNAL CORPOP-AvroK t s. Herj--�Llein /%jk-PereI%bdVarian\ DI NAME OF PROJECT: �8+���1.4(�'.1�-� lNllI Apmpt,'Af5L� LtSl/Jb- Co CITY CLERK:Sf��-lam' L-pTT�7,�-� STAFF: M 1'TC*{- WITNESSES: (1) �'GsHT.4 S'`�F096v (�) ��Cy �DPC11<s (2) 45 Ut Q 7,4 VA-,,J �,j 44E:?�Fb J<Ltj��� (3) -R � c +4Coµ�f 8W 1 Z__LJA1M 57 sl� (4) ]3o;,4Miz;- m),4r, (5) 'PAqL- mA,�Rj;2�AL� Ljkl EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report (V) (Check If Applicable) ((V) J�j7(Ar 2 Affidavit of Notice (✓) (Check If Applicable) C+) �pL" MOTION: 3 Board Criteria Sheet (✓) (Check If Applicable) 4 OARIC)a�� t?LLA-e-"&jE;-S s �rJi4i€ � pAUL muKB,y�( Roes rne� U ET,) --PO CC) &M n4u 'Ln� 9- riao--V�j oe_c��l VOTE: YES -,� NO O ROGER HUNT 1' YES NO x"wmelf -YES -� RON ERICKSON YES NO JASMINE TYGRE YES NO TIMOTHY MOONE YE V Y S NO r� TIM SEMRAU YES7-,v' O