The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.20030107 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2003 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES IH. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MAROON CREEK ROAD REZONING, Sarah Oates B. RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD, Scott Woodford, continued From 12/3 C. 1000 E. HOPKINS PUD AMENDMENT, AME~MENT TO GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, OFF- SITE REPLACEMENT OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING MITIGATION, AND SPECIAL REVIEW TO VARY ADU DESIGN STANDARDS, James Lindt D. LOTS 1 AND 2, MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD AMENDMENT, Scott Woodford ¥. BOARD REPORTS AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2003 4:30 PM CITY COUNCIL CHMABERS I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Pulolic II. MINUTES III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF iNTE~ST IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLiC HEA~NGS A. MAROON CREEK ROAD REZONING, Sarah Oates B. 1000 E. HOPKINS PUD AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT TO GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSiNG~ OFF~ SITE REPLACEMENT OF EMPLO~E HOUSING MITIGATION, AND SPECIAL ~ViEW TO'VARY ~U DESIGN STANDARDS, James Lindt C.LOTS 1 AND 2, MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD AMENDMENT, Scott Woodford D. RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD, Scott Woodford, continued from 12/3 V. BOARD REPORTS VI. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer S RE: Rezoning of Proposed City Portion of Maroon Creek Road DATE: January 7, 2003 APPLICANT /OWNER: City of Aspen LOCATION: Proposed City Portion of Maroon Creek Road, Annexation Parcels A-E (see Exhibit "B" for map and Exhibit "C" for legal description) PROPOSED ZONING: PUB (Public) SUMMARY: The City of Aspen is annexing Maroon Creek Road from the roundabout to the Iselin Park tennis courts and is required to rezone an annexed property within 90 days of the annexation. APPROVED AND CURRENT LAND USE: The proposed City portion of the Maroon Creek Road is used for transportation to the Aspen School District Campus, Aspen Recreation Center, Aspen Highlands Village, Maroon Bells and several residential subdivisions. SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting to rezone the portion of the Maroon Creels Road from the roundabout to the Iselin Park tennis courts (see attachment "A" for location), to PUB (Public) Zone District. The above described portion of the Maroon Creek Road is in the process of being annexed into the City of Aspen pursuant to state statue the area to be annexed must be given a zoning designation. REVIEW PROCEDURE Rezoning (Two Step Review). City Council may approve or deny an application for rezoning, after considering a recon nendatiorn from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and after considering public comment. STAFF COMMENTS: Rezoning: As the City is required to provide a zoning designation for an newly annexed property, Staff finds that the PUB (Public) Zone District supports the proposed use of the parcel. The purpose of the PUB (Public) Zone District is to "provide for the development of governmental and quasi -governmental facilities for cultural, educational, civic and other governmental purposes. " STAFF ANALYSIS SUMMARY: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning forward a recommendation Of approval to City Council on the proposed rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposed resolution recoininending that City Council approve the proposed rezoning application. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2003, recommending that City Council approve the proposed rezoning application to rezone the Annexation Parcels A-E of the Maroon Creek Road Annexation (as shown on the attached snap and legal description) to PUB (Public) . " Attachments: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Proposed Annexation and Rezoning Map Exhibit C -- Legal Description of Proposed Annexation and Rezoning 2 L D. TO: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Deputy Director <-� Scott Woodford, City Planner RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL, PUBLIC HEARING, CONCEPTUAL PUD RESOLUTION NO. —9 SERIES 2003 January 7, 2003 This application was continued from the December 3, 2002 meeting. Because of the complexity of the proposal, it was split up into two different meetings (with a possible third meeting on January 21 ". if necessary). Whereas the physical characteristics of the development were the focus of the December 3rd meeting, this one is intended for discussion of affordable housing requirements, timeshare, rezoning, and any other outstanding items. Additional comments related to building mass, architecture, and setbacks may be necessary, since they were not all discussed at the last meeting. Attached to this memo is an updated resolution incorporating revised conditions arising from the December 3rd meeting. Most notably, a condition was added requiring the applicant to mitigate the pedestrian and vehicular conflict at the corner of Galena Street and Dean Avenue where the porte cochere is proposed to be located. This is the same area where there is an established pedestrian corridor from the St. Regis and Hyatt Grand Aspen to the gondola. Possible mitigation of this conflict could include signage, different pavement textures, or re -working of the new driveway for the porte cochere. REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant, Aspen Land Fund, LLC, requests Conceptual PUD and other appropriate land use approvals in order to demolish the existing Tipple Inn Condominiums, Tippler Nightclub and Italian Caviar Restaurant, Tipple Lodge and two adjacent single-family residences and to redevelop the property with a 109,500 square foot, multi -story structure to consist of 30 timeshare units, 1 condominium unit, 4 affordable housing units, approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial and ancillary space and a 72 space sub -grade parking garage. STAFF APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH RECOMMENDATION: CONDITIONS (SEE RESOLUTION FOR CONDITIONS) The North of Nell Condominium Association (NONCA) suggested that the proposed counter clockwise movement of guest vehicles entering the porte cochere be changed to a clock -wise traffic circulation to prevent headlights shining into their units. Staff supports this change in circulation and a condition has been added to the resolution to this effect. In response to soil stability and construction management concerns from the NONCA, a condition was also added requiring that the NONCA be allowed to review the grading plan for work proposed for Dean Avenue prior to final approval of the PUD. They raised concerns at the December 3rd meeting with grading work that could come close to their building foundation. Documents of this nature are public record, but it seems appropriate to reinforce the necessity for this information to be shared in a timely manner with NONCA. An adequate amount of time will be necessary for NONCA consultants to review the plan, work with the applicant and prepare a response. For this reason, staff feels it is important to include a condition requiring the applicant to provide a copy of the plan at least one month in advance of the public hearing. Adjacent property owners, Steve and Debbi Falender, submitted a letter and Mr. Falender gave testimony at the last meeting detailing their concerns with the proposed development. They requested additional information comparing what was allowed under the existing zoning (i.e. floor area ratio comparisons considering slope, heights, and setbacks) versus the proposed zoning. The comparison of what the existing zone district (L/TR) allows versus the proposed zone district (CL) after reduction for steep slopes is being complied by the applicant and will be available for the meeting. The other comparisons between zone districts is contained in the table below (also found in the PUD Findings in Exhibit B of the original staff report): Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... 6,000.................. 73,060 Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 6,000.................. 3,540 Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L................... 15,000................. 4,600 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... No Requirement..... N/A Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 6,000.................. 35540 ....... . Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L.. ......... 15,000... ............. 45600 Maximum Allowable Density N/A N/A Minimum Lot Width Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... No Requirement..... 207 feet Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 60 feet................ 60 feet ... . ........ Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L.. .... 75 feet.. .. .. . ... ....... 60 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... No Requirement..... 2.5 feet Lot 2 L/TR, PUD ...................... 10 feet ................ TBD feet Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L................... 25 feet.. ...... 13 feet Minimum West Side Yard Setback. Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... No Requirement..... 5 feet Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...... ............. 5 feet................ 11.5 feet Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L... ................ 10 feet.. ............. 5.5 feet Minimum East Side Yard Setback Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... No Requirement..... 207 feet Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 5 feet................ 12 feet Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L.. ................ 10 feet.. ............... 4.5 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... No Requirement..... 20 feet Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 10 feet................ 6 feet Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L.. . ................. 10 feet.. ............ . 12 feet Maximum Height Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... 28 feet................. 56 feet Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 25 feet................ TBD feet Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L.. 25 feet.. TBD feet Minimum Distance b/w Buildings No Requirement 10 feet Minimum Percent of Open Space Lot 1 CL, PUD......................... 25% .................... 55% Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 25% .................... TBD Lot 3 R-155 PUD, L................... None................... N/A Allowable Floor Area (FAR) - Lot 1 CL, PLD......................... 109,500............... 109,500 Lot 2 L/TR, PUD...................... 21200.................. Lot 3 R-15, PUD, L.. ................ 2,412.. ................ Minimum Off Street Parking Lodge Units ............................ .7 spaces/BR Lot 1: 68 spaces Free Market Dwelling Units......... 2 spaces/D.0 Lot 2: 2 spaces Commercial ............................ 2 spaces/1,000 sq. ft Lot 3: 2 spaces Affordable Housing Units............ I Special Review *Setbacks and height vary in the development program. RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-182-96033 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the CWA Development, LLC (Applicant), represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission grant approval of a Conceptual Development Plan for the Residences at Little Nell Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Waste District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Conceptual PUD and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval to City Council to approve the proposed affordable housing mitigation and replacement units for the Residences at Little Nell; and WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on December 3, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to January 7, 2003, by a five to zero (5-0) vote. At the January 7, 2003 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development by a to vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD approval shall only grant the ability for the applicant to submit a Final PUD Application and the proposed development is further subject to Final PUD review, Rezoning, Subdivision, Growth Management Quota -4- ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION January 3, 2003 Ms. Ruth Kruger Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall 130 Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Ruth, t'ece4" vec{ I " * a3 P*--� �A e e#-t e---9 I just received the packet relating to the Residences at Little Nell and appreciate the opportunity to review the information, as well as to comment on behalf of the Aspen Alps' owners. First let me say that the plan is an interesting one and, with the involvement of The Little Nell, should be an excellent addition to Aspen's tourist accommodations. I will not presume to discuss fractional fee/timeshare ownership, other than to say that the first amendment to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association Declarations was specifically to disallow that form of ownership. One concern of the Aspen Alps lies in the area of geotechnical considerations. The Aspen Alps has experienced damage to its buildings caused by movement of the soils on Little Nell. Three of the Alps buildings have under gone expensive remedial measures to mitigate the effects of and protect against future movement. We continue to monitor soil movement and were very careful to request extensive measurements and construction features when working with the Mitchell's on the construction of their new house on the east side of Little Nell. We would ask to be included in all of the excavation and grading plans and would also ask that an approved monitoring system be set up to detect any soils movement on the Little Nell slope. The Alps has extensive geotechnical studies on these problems and would be happy to share them if requested. The other area of major concern is the shipping and receiving of supplies needed for the management of the apartments. We note that a tunnel is to be built to access the new development from the Little Nell Hotel. I assume this is for service personnel and not to 700 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-7820 Fax (970) 920-2528 info@aspenalps.com bring supplies from the hotel. The Little Nell was not designed with sufficient storage capacity for the current operation and could not possible accommodate the needs of the 31 plus additional luxury units. Similarly, Spring Street is impassable during certain times due to the excessive number of delivery trucks required to service the hotel and its ancillary mountain restaurant operations. There have been many occasions when emergency vehicles have been unable to access the Aspen Alps or the ambulances have needed Police help removing skiers from the mountain. In 1972, the Aspen Alps' owners purchased Lot 21, (the parcel currently known as Aspen Alps' Park, which separates the Alps 200 building from the hotel) and donated it to Aspen Valley Land Trust (formerly known as PARK) so that there would always be access to Aspen Mountain from the east, as well as an ambulance waiting area. When the ASC applied for its original SPA overlay, and then presented plans for the development of the hotel, Bill Cain, then with Design Workshop, represented that all trucks needed to service the Little Nell would be able to be accommodated in the hotel bay with the doors closed and, therefore, would not create a deleterious affect on the neighbors. I am certain that the City Parking Department, Mountain Rescue Ambulance, the Aspen Police Department, and the Aspen Fire Department could confirm ongoing access problems that have occurred because of the impact of delivery trucks on Spring Street. Although Little Nell employees have been very cooperative in their attempts to mitigate the impacts, the current situation is difficult, at best. Any additional traffic would create an intolerable situation and will be of major concern to Aspen Alps' owners. Spring Street has been the historic entrance to the Aspen Alps since 1964 long before the construction of the hotel. The current level of use by trucks delivering to the Little Nell has adversely affected the Alps' operation, as well as the owners' property values. Any additional impact would be intolerable from safety, aesthetic and economic standpoints. On June 10, 1983, Paul Taddune, then City Attorney, sent a memo to City Council in which he discussed thoroughly the process and conditions to be considered when reviewing the Aspen Skiing Company SPA overlay and subsequent development plans, which conditions are "automatically incorporated by reference". These conditions are: "(1) Compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity of the site........ and "(2) Impacts of the rezoning upon expected traffic generation and road safety..." The Aspen Alps owners relied upon this memorandum to the City Council by the City attorney, when it ceased its opposition to the SPA overlay requested by the Aspen Skiing Company. If the shipping and receiving issue has been resolved so as not to further impact the entrance to the Aspen Alps, I look forward to sharing that information with my owners. Otherwise, we will be forced to continue to urge you to turn down this request until such time as the problem is addressed. Thank you for taking the time to review the concerns of the 83 Aspen Alps' owners. Sincerely, Pamela M. Cunningham General Manager PMC:pwm Enc: Excerpt of June10, 1983 Taddune Memo Memo to June 10, Page Six City Council 1983 3. Before any building is permitted" the owner must file with the planning commission a written request for the adoption of the precise plan. 4. The plan must be considered and -approved pursuant to the application, notice and hearing requirements gener- ally required for rezon.ing.s. However, there is no limitation on when an application may be submitted. 5. Once adopted, the plan constitutes the development regulations (i.e. zoning) applicable and development may occur only if it is consistent with the plan. Since the plan must be considered and approved in accordance with the rezoning procedures established in Article- XII, Chapter 24, the Code, the criteria and standards applicable to rezoning contained. in Section. 24-12...5(d) are automatically incorporated by reference: "(d) In reviewing the rezoning application, the planning, and zoning commission hearing shall consider, but not be limited to, the following evaluation criteria as they may apply to the particular application under consider- ation; although the commission need not make findings relative to each of, these criteria: (1) C�mpatibilitof the rezoning proposal with the surrounding zone districts and land use in. the vicinity of the site, considering. the existing neighborhood characteristics, the applicable area and bulk. requirements, and the suitability of the site for development in terirts of on -site charac- teristics. (2) Impacts of the rezoning upon expected tr.a-f f is gen- eration and road safety, availability of o.n-- and abil it. off=site arkn and p g y to provide- utility service in the vicinity of the site, including . an rise-ssment of the fiscal impact upon the community of the proposed rezoning. 3The SPA provisi-ons currently refer_ to the rezoning provisions of Article X1. 1-assume this is. a typographical error.. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Plalllllng and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: James Lindt, Plaimer T� RE: 1000 E. Hopkins PUD Amendment, Subdivision Amendment, Amendment to a GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing, and Special Review to Vary the ADU Design Standards — Public Hearing DATE: January 7, 2003 APPLICANT: Robert Blatt REPRESENTATIVE: Francis Krizmanlch LOCATION: Unit 4, 1000 E. Hopkins Condominiums ZONING: R/MF Residential/ Multi -Family CURRENT LAND USE: Deed Restricted Category 4 Rental Unit Photo Above: Unit 4 of the 1000 E. Hopkins Condominiums. The applicant is requesting to amend the deed restriction on this unit to convert it from a Category Affordable Housing "Rental" Unit to an Accessory Dwelling Unit. PROPOSED LAND USE: Accessory Dwelling Unit K SUMMARY: The applicant requests to have the deed restriction removed from his category affordable housing unit at 1000 E. Hopkins and transferred to a unit that he has under contract in the Ajax Condominiums. The E. Hopkins unit from which he is proposing to remove the category deed restriction is subsequently proposed to be deed restricted as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Photo Above, Unit 2 of the Ajax Condominiums. The applicant is proposing to deed restrict this unit as a Category 4, Affordable Housing Sale Unit as a replacement for removing the "Category Deed Restriction" from his unit at 1000 E. Hopkins. 1 REVImv PROCEDURE Combined Revieli) of Application: The Community Development Director, in consultation with the applicant, has determined that a combined review of the various land use actions being requested would reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense and clarity in reviewing the application. Therefore, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny all of the land use requests associated with this application after considering a recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Housing Board, and the Community Development Director. The land use actions that are required and that are being requested are as follows: • Amendment to an Approved PUD • Amendment to an Approved Subdivision • Amendment to a GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing to alloi,i; for off - site replacement of affordable housing • Special Revie}4) to I1'a7 y the AD U Design Standards BACKGROUND: Robert Blatt ("Applicant"), represented by Francis Krizmannich, is requesting approval of an application to amend the deed restriction that exists on Unit 4 of the 1000 East Hopkins Condominiums. The applicant requests to remove the Category 2 rental deed restriction on the above -mentioned unit and deed restrict it as a voluntary Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). In addition, the applicant requests to deed restrict Unit 2 of the Ajax Condominiums as a replacement for removing the Category 2 deed restriction from the unit at 1000 E. Hopkins. Unit 4 of the 1000 East Hopkins Condominiums was one of four (4) deed restricted category affordable housing units that was provided as mitigation to obtain a GMQS exemption for affordable housing to construct four (4) free market multi -family units at 1000 E. Hopkins. The affordable housing units were required to be built through the multi -family replacement program because the multi -family building (consisting of eight (8) units) that existed on the site previously housed local working residents (please see Exhibit "B" for ordinance approving the development at 1000 E. Hopkins). In order for the applicant to amend the deed restriction as he has requested, the applicant requires four (4) separate land use actions. The applicant requires a Subdivision and a PUD amendment to amend the site specific development plan that currently calls for there to be four (4) category affordable housing units within the Subdivision/PUD as was built. Furthermore, the applicant requires approval of an amendment to the existing GMQS exemption for affordable housing to allow for Unit 4 of the 1000 E. Hopkins Condominiums to be replaced off -site as a unit of affordable housing mitigation for the free market units that were built in 1995. Finally, the applicant requires approval to vary the ADU design standards to allow for the unit at 1000 E. Hopkins to be deed restricted as an ADU because it is not detached from the other units on the site and it is not located entirely above grade as is required by the ADU design standards. 2 STAFF COMMENTS: Subdivision and PUD Amendment Staff believes that the proposed subdivision and PUD amendment will not substantially affect the character or operating characteristics of the PUD at 1000 East Hopkins. The unit that the applicant is proposing to remove the category deed restriction from is proposed to remain as affordable housing by means of deed restricting it as an ADU. Therefore, any ilfliabitants of the unit would still have to be working residents as is defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. The primary change in the rental operations of the unit will be that the owner will be able to choose the working resident that rents the unit, whereas, currently the rental of the unit is handled through the Housing Authority. Staff believes that the proposed subdivision and PUD amendment meets the applicable review criteria to amend the approved 1000 E. Hopkins PUD/Subdivision. Amendment to GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing The applicant has proposed to deed restrict Unit 2 of the Ajax Condominiums as a Category 4, "Sale" Unit to replace the category deed restriction that is to be removed from Unit 4 of the 1000 East Hopkins Condominiums. The applicant must replace the category deed restriction because the Hopkins Unit was used as mitigation through the multi-falnlly replacement program for a GMQS exemption for affordable housing. A replacement unit must be located on -site Lidless City Council finds that the on -site replacement would 1)be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or 2)would be an inappropriate plamling solution due to the site's physical constraints pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.530.050, Location of replacement housing. Staff does not believe that the proposed amendment to the GMQS exemption to allow for the off -site unit to replace the existing on -site category affordable housing unit as mitigation is in response to site specific constraints as the review standards require. Furthermore, staff does not believe that maintaining the category unit at 1000 E. Hopkins for purposes of employee housing mitigation is incompatible with the neighborhood because it has existed as such for approximately a decade without incident. Therefore, the Planning Staff cannot support the proposal. Conversely, staff does believe that the proposal. furthers several of the Aspen Area Community Plan's (AACP) housing goals. The proposal would increase the number of affordable housing units within the community which is consistent with the AACP goal that calls for 800 to 1,300 additional affordable housing units to be developed within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary. Moreover, staff feels that the proposal is also consistent with the AACP goal of encouraging the private sector to develop affordable housing. The Plam-iing and Housing Authority Staffs also feel that Unit 2 of the Ajax Condominiums in which the applicant is proposing to deed restrict as a Category 4 "Sale" Unit, is more livable than the E. Hopkins unit. Both units contain two bedrooms, are at least 50% above grade, and the Ajax Condominium unit is approximately fifty (50) square feet larger than the E. Hopkins unit. Furthermore, staff believes that the proposal to replace a category "rental" unit with a category "sale" unit would make the administration of the category affordable housing unit easier for the Housing Authority in light of the recent Telluride Supreme Court Case Decision regarding rent controls. 3 Special Review to Vary ADU Design Standards The applicant requires special review approval to vary the ADU design standards to deed restrict the East Hopkins Unit as an ADU because it is not detached from the other multi- family units on the property and it is not located entirely above grade as is required by the ADU design standards. Staff believes that the unit meets the livability requirements of the Housing Authority and is designed in a manner that promotes it's function as a separate and private dwelling unit. In addition, deed restricting the unit as an ADU is consistent with it's current use as a rental affordable housing unit. Staff believes that the ADU design standards that require an ADU to be detached from the main residence and above grade are mainly intended for units that are proposed to be accessory to a single-family or duplex dwelling unit. This standard was put into the land use code to encourage ADU s to be rented as a separate dwelling unit rather than being used as a below -grade recreation or storage room for the main residence as has frequently been the case in the past. In this situation, the unit to be deed restricted as an ADU is a multi -family apartment unit that met the livability requirements for a category affordable housing unit. In addition, the unit was designed as part of a planned unit development to operate as an attached apartment unit and to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in regards to it's operating characteristics. Staff believes that the Special Review Standards to vary the ADU design standards are met by this proposal. Ajax Condominiums Retaining Wall Concerns: Staff has been contacted by several Ajax Condominium Unit Owners who have alerted staff of possible structural problems with a retaining wall that is constructed on the common land of the Ajax Condominiums. The Owners who have contacted staff feel that there is a possibility that the retaining wall will fail in the near future (or that major repairs will be required) and that the condominium owners might be subjected to pay a sizeable special assessment. Staff has verified that there has been recent work done on the retaining wall in an effort to improve it's stability. However, staff is still concerned that any qualified employee that may purchase Unit 2, of the Ajax Condominiums could possibly be subject to a sizeable unexpected cost. Therefore, staff feels that it is necessary to propose a condition of approval in the attached resolution that requires that the Applicant obtain a letter from a licensed, professional engineer stating that he/she feels that the subject retailing wall will not need to be replaced or that under normal use, further significant repairs to the retaining wall should not be needed within the next five (5) years. Staff has proposed that this condition be satisfied prior to amending the deed restriction on Unit 4, of the 1000 E. Hopkins PUD. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the proposal would benefit the community by providing an additional employee housing unit to the affordable housing inventory within the community. In addition, staff feels that the unit in the Ajax Condominiums that is to be deed restricted as a category unit is a generally more livable unit than the unit at 1000 E. Hopkins that is currently designated as a category unit. However, staff cannot support the proposed amendment to the GMQS Exemption for affordable housing at 1000 E. Hopkins because «7e do not feel that locating the affordable housing mitigation off -site is 1) incompatible with an approved neighborhood plan or 2) is in response to site specific constraints as the off -site replacement review criteria require. . Staff M recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of denial to City Council on the proposed amendment to the existing GMQS exemption at 1000 E. Hopkins finding that the review standards for off -site replacement have not been met by the proposal. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS (ALL MOTIONS ARE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No.OZ , recommending that City Council approve with conditions, a subdivision and PUD amendment, an amendment to the GMQS exemption for affordable housing at 1000 E. Hopkins, and a special review to vary the ADU design standards to allow for the Category Affordable Housing Unit that is legally described as Unit 4, of the 1000 E. Hopkins PUD; to be deed restricted as an ADU and to allow for the free market unit legally described as Unit 2, of the Ajax Condominiums to be deed restricted as a Category 4 Sale Unit to replace Unit 4, of the 1000 E. Hopkins PUD as affordable housing mitigation." Attachments: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Application Exhibit C -- Aspen/Pitkin Housing Board Conunents 5 RESOLUTION NO. 02, (SERIES OF 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE 1) A PUD AMENDMENT, 2) A SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT, 3) AN AMENDMENT TO THE GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR OFF -SITE REPLACEMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION IN THE 1000 E. HOPKINS PUD, AND 4) SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL TO VARY THE ADU DESIGN STANDARDS TO AMEND THE DEED RESTRICTION ON UNIT 4, OF THE 1000 E. HOPKINS PUD AND TO DEED RESTRICT UNIT 2, OF THE AJAR CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 7-182-01-006 Parcel ID 2 73 7-182-0 7-008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Robert Blatt, represented by Francis Krizmanich, requesting approval of 1) a PUD Amendment, 2) a subdivision amendment, 3) an amendment to the GMQS exemption for affordable housing for off -site replacement of affordable housing mitigation in the 1000 E. Hopkins PUD, and 4) special review approval to vary the ADU design standards to allow for the category affordable housing deed restriction on Unit 4, of the 1000 E. Hopkins PUD to be transferred to Unit 2, of the Ajax Condominiums and for Unit 4, of the 1000 E. Hopkins PUD to be deed restricted as an accessory dwelling unit; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department reconnmelnded denial of the proposed amendment to the GMQS Exemption for affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 7, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and approved this resolution, by a to (_-_j vote; recommending that City Council approve with conditions, 1) the proposed PUD Amendment, 2) the proposed subdivision amendment, 3) an amendment to the GMQS exemption for affordable housing for off -site replacement of affordable housing mitigation in the 1000 E. Hopkins PUD, and 4) a special review to vary the ADU design standards to allow for the category affordable housing deed restriction on Unit 4, of the 1000 E. Hopkins PUD to be transferred to Unit 2, of the Ajax Condominiums and for Unit 4, of the 1000 E. Hopkins PUD to be deed restricted as all accessory dwelling unit; and, WHEREAS, the Planr�ing and Zoning Connnnnission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission funds that this resolution fiirthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. P.,p :;;L- I / 4 1 2-60,-J,� Thomas Peckham, 08:08 PM 12/30/2002 -0700, Public Hearing 117/03 X-Originating-IP: [64.156.34.17] From: "Thomas Peckham" <thomaspeckham@hotmail.com> To: <jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us> Cc: "Debi Spencer" <dbspencer@mindspring.com>, "Tom Chapin" <tomnidac@earthlink.net> Subject: Public Hearing 1/7/03 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 20:08:57 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Dec 2002 03:18:47.0556 (UTC) FILETIME=[55221 C40:01 C2B07B] X-ECS-MaiIScanner: Found to be clean Date: 12/30/02 To: James Lindt City Of Aspen Community Development Department From: Thomas C. Peckham, President Ajax Condominium Association Re: Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, January 7, 2003 before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Several Ajax Condominium homeowners have contacted me regarding the Public Notice they received for the above referenced meeting. Each of them expressed opposition to Robert Blatt's proposed deed restriction of Unit 2 of the Ajax Condominiums. They have asked me to write and tell you that the Ajax Condominium building in inappropriate for anyone but a free market owner. The Ajax building has been and will continue to be excessively expensive to maintain. Since I have lived here, I have incurred unforeseen special assessments in the many tens of thousands of dollars. Our original retaining wall, for example, cost in excess of $760,000 to replace. Our new retaining wall, in the words of our structural engineer, Bob Pattillo, is "failing." It is cracking, bulging and leaking badly. As much as I would wish otherwise, I see no reason to expect that large and unpredictable assessments will not continue into the future. These special assessments must be borne by the owners of the nine units in the building. Even one owner not paying assessments jeopardizes the financial stability Of the Ajax Condominium Association. More than half of the Ajax Condominium units have been foreclosed on over the years. The most recent was by the Condominium Association itself for a former owner's nonpayment of assessments described above. Recently we used Our reserves and had still another special assessment ($10,000) to pay for remedial action taken to attempt to slow the failure of our retaining wall. Colorado law requires that a real estate seller must disclose any adverse condition to prospective buyers. Any prospective buyer Of an Ajax Condominium unit should be advised by the seller to not only contact Mr. Pattillo about the retaining wall, but to also conduct an independent inspection and thorough analysis before buying. Every owner- I have spoken with and the overwhelming majority of the Ajax Condominium ownership feels rriniea Tor fames Lindt <jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us> Thomas Peckham, 08:08 PM 12/30/2002 -0700, Public Hearing 1/7/03 that Ajax condominium units should only be sold on the free market to individuals with the financial resources to take on the risks inherent in ownership. These owners also fear that their own investments at the Ajax may be threatened should a new owner take possession who does not have the necessary financial resources for ownership. It would be wrong for a government agency to restrict ownership to only those individuals without such financial resources. As none of our officers or directors will be able to attend the above referenced meeting, our Board of Directors met today and unanimously appointed David Spencer to represent the Ajax Condominium Association at the meeting. He will be available to express our concerns and to answer questions that members of the Planning and Zoning Commission may have. Sincerely, Thomas C. Pecldiam, President Ajax Condominium Association minted for .lames Lindt <jamesi@ci.aspen.co.us> 2 Aspen Planning and Zoning Jasmine Tygre, Chair Response to request, from Robert Blatt, on off -site replacement of 1000E Hopkins My Name is Joe Wise, owner of unit #5 Ajax Condominiums. Ajax was built in the 1960's, It's a 9 unit complex. There has been very little changes to the complex in recent years, I've just completed a major remodel on my unit that has increased my tax base, as well as improved the utilities services to the entire building. The retaining wall that supports Aspen Mountain Rd. is a concern to all the current owners of the Ajax; we have an engineer monitoring its stability. My concern is it may require a substantial special assessment in the future. The Ajax Condo Assoc. has very little current operational reserves that would cover any unexpected expenses, therefore requiring a special assessment. I bring this up due to the fact that a person in a free market unit may have the financial resources to cover such expenses. I could see a problem, if a deed restricted unit goes to a lien and foreclosure, due to unpaid assessments. This would cause a burden on both the deed restricted unit owner, the Ajax and the Aspen Community Development Dept. There is currently (1) open market rental unit, a 2 bedroom with 4 tenants, IF the unit in Question takes on the normal usage, The Ajax would have 8 people in 2 small units. This would not be appropriate or fair to the free market units, it would be a strain on the total infrastructure and in my opinion cause values to decrease and a hardship on all parties. While I support the Aspen's employee housing initiatives, I feel the Ajax is not the best use as a replacement deed restricted unit. I agree with your staff recommendation to deny this request. Please feel free to contact me for any reason on this issue. Thanks you in advance for your consideration in this matter Joe Wise (919) 815-0213 Thomas Chapin, 12:34 PM 01/02/2003 -0600, Deed Restrict Unit 2, Ajax Condominium User -Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 12:34:55 -0600 Subject: Deed Restrict Unit 2, Ajax Condominium From: Thomas Chapin <tomnidac@earthlink.net> To: James Lindt <jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us> CC: <thomaspeckham@hotmail.com> X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean To: James Lindt City of Aspen Community Development Department From: Tom Chapin Board member, Ajax Condominium Association Owner of Unit 1 01 /02/03 This is to express my opposition to the application by Robert Blatt to allow employee housing in Unit 2 of the Ajax Condominium at 107 Aspen Mountain Road. This is inappropriate for this condominium for these reasons: No 1. There is no yard space for family activities. No 2. There are only 9 units at this complex. Each owner has a great investment which demands future expenses requiring special assessments to maintain value. This may not be compatable with a lower income family. No 3. If this application is approved for unit 2, it may lead to employee housing in other units and even greater overall burden to the complex. No 4. Mixing employee housing with free market housing with only 9 units total at the Ajax would lead to conflicts. Unit 2 has 10.35 % of our total voting rights. A lower income family would not likely have the same interest as the other owners in future improvements. Printed for James Lindt <jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us> dbspencer@mindspring.com, 08:55 PM 01/02/2003 -0500, 01/01/03 Public HEARING From: dbspencer@mindspring.com Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 20:55:46 -0500 To: jamesl@ci.aspen. co. us Reply -To: dbspencer@mindspring.com Subject: 01/01/03 Public HEARING Sender: dbspencer@mindspring.com X-Originating-I P: 12.252.242.247 X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean To: James Lindt, City of Aspen Community Development Department From: David B. Spencer, Ajax Condominiums, Unit #3 Re: Public Hearing to be held on tuesday, January 7, 2003 before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Date: January 2, 2003 Dear Mr. Lindt: On behalf of Ajax Condominiums, Unit #3, this is to express our strong opposition to the proposed deed restriction of Unit #2, which is our adjacent neighbor. We are the senior owners at the Ajax, as our ownership goes back to 1983. Our unit has been a second home and sometimes on the rental market but since October 2001 we are off the rental market as our daughter lives here permanently and we visit more than ever. Our understanding that only one of the nine units at the Ajax is now in the long term rental market and all .others are primary residences or secondary family residences. During our term of ownership we have seen staggering expenses and staggering special assessments. There is the prospect of staggering future special assessments as well. The dues and general assessments are substantial and when even one owner does not pay on time it greatly jeopardizes our operations. Also, like all of the others owners we are sure, we have major investment in our unit, including major sweat equity, and want to protect and enhance that investment. Every other owner to whom we have spoken is also strongly opposed to the proposal. It is not in the best interest of our property or association. Thanking you for your consideration, David B. Spencer Printed for James Lindt <jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us> MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission �D THRU: Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Directory_,-6_) FROM: Scott Woodford, Planner RE: LOTS I AND 2 MAROON CREEK CLUB / PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT DATE: January 7, 2003 PROJECT REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicants, Jennifer and David Stockman, represented by Kevin Morley of Robert Trown & Associates, Inc., requests the Planning and Zoning Commission grant a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to amend the platted development envelopes on Lots 1 and 2 of the Maroon Creek Club. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to amend the platted development envelopes on Lots 1 and 2 of the Maroon Creek Club. REVIEW PROCESS: According to Section 26.445.110 of the Land Use Code, an amendment to a PUD found to be inconsistent with the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director shall be subject to final development plan review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Staff finds this amendment to be inconsistent with the approved final development plan, so review will be by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The purpose of the request to amend the development envelopes of the two lots is so that the applicants can construct one common driveway accessing both lots instead of having separate driveways to each lot. It is ' their desire .to have a single, "custom and private" driveway servicing the two lots, both of which are owned by the applicants. Although they do not propose to sell the lots separately, an access easement will be dedicated across Lot 2 to Lot 1 in case there are separate owners in the future. Lot 1 has already been developed with a single-family residence and has its own driveway access directly from Tiehack Road, while Lot 2 is undeveloped. If approved, the applicants plan to abandon the existing driveway on Lot 1 and re -vegetate it. To be able to facilitate the common driveway, it will be necessary to encroach outside of the platted development envelopes of both lots. Development envelopes are areas on a lot that cannot be built upon, but can be disturbed with driveways and landscaping. Areas outside of the development envelope must remain in their natural state. In exchange for encroaching outside of the development envelopes, the applicant is proposing to abandon other developable areas on each lot in amounts exceeding the area requested to be disturbed for the driveway. The exchange is summarized in the chart below: Lot 1 Maroon Creek Club Subdivision New Development Envelope Requested: 2,500 square feet Abandoned Development Envelope: 2,572 square feet Lot .2 Maroon Creek' lub Subdivision. New Development Envelope Requested: 1,432 square feet Abandoned Development Envelope: 1,582 square feet To help mitigate the additional impact to the site from the common driveway, the applicant is offering to reduce the amount of floor area ratio (FAR) on the undeveloped lot from what is allowed (10,000 square feet) down to 6,000 square feet. This requirement would run with the land regardless of present or future ownership. According to the Parks Department, there will be at least nine trees removed to make way for the driveway. Mitigation for the trees to be removed on site will be $13,250.88. A tree permit will be required before final approval of the driveway alignment. Mitigation can be done on -site with landscaping of the native restoration area. The entire area west of the proposed Y-turn, which serves as the current driveway, will need to be re -vegetated with native plantings. The area in front of the existing house and to the south of the Y- turn can be landscaped for screening at the resident's discretion. In addition to the new driveway, two other changes requested are to shift the entry point of the driveway from Tiehack Road to Lot 2, so that it is entirely contained within the lot (the platted development envelope shows access in a slightly different location and across the adjacent lot to the north) and to move the garage entry on the house on Lot 1 from the driveway courtyard in front of the house to the east side of the structure (which requires additional encroachment in the existing development envelope). They then plan to reclaim part of the gravel driveway and re -vegetate it with native landscaping. BACKGROUND: The Maroon Creek Club Subdivision PUD was originally approved by the Board of County Commissioners and annexed into the City in 1996. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff does not support the request to amend the development envelopes because it is our opinion that it doesn't comply with the PUD Development Standards and several provisions of the Subdivision section of the Land Use Code. For staff comments on how the proposal does not comply with the PUD Development Standards, see Exhibit A. First, we feel that the proposed driveway is unnecessary because it duplicates the adjacent City street, Tiehack Road, by closely paralleling it and accomplishing the same purpose of access to all lots along the street. Section 26.480.050.B.b (Suitability of land for subdivision) precludes this duplication of public facilities. The specific code provision states the following: -z- Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessaf-y public costs. Second, staff feels that the proposed common driveway will create a potentially dangerous situation for fire truck or other emergency service access. During the course of this review, the applicant has worked with the Fire Chief to design a driveway plan that meets their minimum requirements for width and fire truck turnaround capability. In addition, a vehicle turnout midway along the driveway has been added so that a car could pull to the side in the event an emergency service vehicle needed to get by. While it may be technically possible to meet Fire Department access standards in plan, staff believes that in reality, this proposal creates an unnecessarily dangerous situation. To ensure that the driveway is accessible year around, constant attention will have to be paid to snow removal and to making sure that the turnaround area is always free of parked vehicles. Section 26.480.050.B.a. (Suitability of land for subdivision) does not allow the creation of a situation that may be dangerous for the residents of a subdivision: Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health. safety. or welfare of the residents in the roposed subdivision. Staff also feels that the proposed driveway will unnecessarily create more impermeable surface and disrupt natural vegetation. Although the exact, final layout of the driveway has not been determined, the Parks Department believes that there will be 9 trees lost to make way for the driveway. Granted, a portion of those trees would be lost if the applicant decided to construct two individual, non -connected driveways, but the plan for a common driveway definitely increases the impact to natural vegetation. Finally, even though the two lots are jointly owned now, which would allow the common access to possibly function more smoothly, we are concerned about the ramifications of when one lot is sold separately._ There is no mechanism currently proposed, such as consolidating the lots, that would guarantee that this scenario would not transpire in the future. If they ever were to be sold separately, ..a situation could arise where the new owner of one of the lots petitions the city to have the common driveway undone and the separate driveway access arrangement reinstated. Doing so, would create additional site impacts and require new re -vegetation. In summary, if the proposed common driveway were the only method to achieve access to these lots (for example, due to topographic concerns), staff would likely be more lenient in its evaluation and recommendation; however, there already exists an adequate driveway to Lot 1 and it appears that a reasonable driveway can be constructed to undeveloped Lot 2. We feel that removing a driveway, where there already has been impact to the site, and replacing it with a longer and harder to access driveway with new impacts to the natural vegetation, will not be a good planning solution and is not necessary. - 3 - STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to amend the platted development envelopes on Lots 1 and 2 of the Maroon Creek Club. RECOMMENDED MOTION (NOTE: ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN TBE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 03, Series of 2002, for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to amend the platted development envelopes on Lots 1 and 2 of the Maroon Creek Club." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Findings -Planned Unit Development Standards Findings Exhibit B: Development Review Committee (DRC) Minutes Exhibit C: Application -4- Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk -7- EXHIBIT A FINDINGS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The proposed amendment to the approved PUD is addressed against the applicable criteria in the PUD standards below. A. General Requirements: 1) The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? ( No Comments: In the Parks, Open Space, and the Environment section of the AACP, the intent is "to preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area". Staff does not believe that the proposal would significantly degrade the natural beauty of the site, however, there would be more environmental impact to the site (i.e. more loss of trees) with the common driveway than there would be with two, shorter individual driveways to each lot. 2) The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Does it Com 1 ? No Comments: Most of the developed lots in the surrounding area are each accessed directly by a driveway from the public street. The common driveway proposed would be a departure from that attern. 3) The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable Comments: 4) Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the Applicant. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable Comments B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable Comments: C. Site Design: - 8 - D. La Staff Finding: Does it Comply? No Comments: Staff feels that the application does not comply with the provision that states, "buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access." We feel that the proposed driveway creates an unnecessarily dangerous access to the lots. ape Plan: Staff Find in Does it Com 1 ?I No Comments: With the common driveway proposal, staff does not feel that the plan preserves the existing vegetation as well as it could by.using separate, shorter driveways to each lot. E. Architectural Character: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable Comments: F. Lighting: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable Comments: G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable Comments: H. Utilities and Public Facilities: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable Comments: I. Access and Circulation: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? T Yes Comments: While staff finds the proposal to create problems with access and circulation, it does comply with the six specific criteria of the PUD . J. Phasing of Development Plan: Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable Comments: -9- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) MINUTES MEMORANDUM To:. Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: October 30, 2002 Re: Maroon Creek Club — Lot 1 and 2 Attendees: Scott Woodford, Community Development Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Brian Flynn, Parks Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Kevin Morley, Applicant's Representative At the October 30, 2002 meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the following project: Maroon Creek Club Lots 1&2: A minor PUD amendment to modify the existing development on lots 1 and 2 to allow for a common driveway. DRC COMMENTS Engineering Department: No comments at this time. 2. Community Development Engineer: • Since vehicles will access Lot 1 by driving across Lot 2, an access easement is needed across Lot 2. 3. Zoning: No comments at this time. 4. Housing Department: No comments at this time. 5. Fire Protection District: • Since the driveway is more than 150 feet long, the driveway must be 16 feet wide. • All dwellings must have sprinklers. • The driveway must be designed to accommodate the necessary movements of a fire truck (including turning around). In addition, at the mid point of the driveway there needs to be a wide pull out spot in the driveway to allow two vehicles to pass. In order to limited the area of pavement, this area should be incorporated into the driveway area serving exclusively Lot 2. • The turn off of Tiehack Road needs to be 'softened' to provide access for a large fire truck. • Some of the driveway requirements for fire access may not be necessary if the existing driveway serving Lot 1 remains. If the Lot 1 driveway is replaced with grass-crete pavers, the pavers would have to be designed to DOT standards to support a fire truck. The grass-crete driveway would also have to be maintained year round (i.e. plowed). 6. Parks Department: No comments at this time. 7. Building Department: No comments at this time. Pagel of 2 October 30, 2002 MCC- Lot 1 and 2 8. City Water Department: No comments at this time. 9. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; No comments at this time. 10. Environmental Health: 11. City Community Development — Planning: No comments at this time. 12. City Electric Department: No comments at this time. 13. Holy Cross Electric: No comments at this time. 14. City Attorney: No comments at this time. 15. Streets Department: No comments at this time. 16. Historic Preservation Officer: No comments at this time. 17. Pitkin County Planning. No comments at this time. 18. County and City Disaster Coordinator: No comments at this time. 19. Transportation: No comments at this time. 20. Parking: No comments at this time. /DRUM CC-Iot1 &2 Sent By: William Lukes + Associates; 970 920 6986; Jan-7-03 2:13PM; Page 1/2 R� 1--+-d�5 WILLIAM LUKES + ASSOCIATES 11It01 FC:T NI A N A G E �lENT A R C II I T F. C: T U R E 7 January 2003 Scott Woodford, Planner Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 re: Maroon Creek Club Lots 1 and 2 Amendment to the PUD proposed by Mr. And Mrs. David Stockman for modification of envelopes to allow construction of a shared driveway vs—s— Mr. Woodford: I am writing on behalf of the Site and Architecture Review Committee [SARC] of the Maroon Creek Club Master Association with regard to the application which is to be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission later today. SARC is the entity which is responsible for all architectural and development reviews and approvals for single family lots at the Maroon Creek Club PUD, and Lots 1 and 2 are subject to the Protective Covenants of the PUD, and the Design Guidelines which have been adopted by SARC and the Master Association. On December 27, 2002, we received a proposed site plan from Robert Trown & Associates which is dated December 17, 2002 and subsequently requested and received the application letter dated October 18, 2002 and your staff report dated January 7, 2003. The applicant asked SARC to review the proposed plat amendment and provide you with a letter with our recommendations and thoughts that you could provide to the Planning & Zoning Commission members at their meeting today. No application for Association design approval for the proposed driveway, the architectural modifications to the existing house on Lot 1, or any structures proposed for Lot 2 have been submitted to SARC for review and approval and so we cannot comment on the specific configuration proposed to you, but the Association does not have an objection to a minor amendment to the plat to allow such a shared access, based on the applicants' representations to the City and to SARC and the information that was provided to us. The areas of this proposal which would be subject to detailed review by SARC, and which may require specific conditions of approval include the following; 1. The applicant has proposed reducing the allowable 10,000 above -grade SF for this lot to a maximum of no more than 6,000 above -grade SF. This reduction would be a fundamental trade-off In Impacts for consideration of this proposal and we ask that it be specifically and legally included as a condition in any approval which the City grants. 2. Alignment of the driveway has been modified in this recent drawing to cross a portion of the Building Envelope on Lot 2. Since this reduction of the building envelope is of the applicants' own choosing and making, SARC will not be inclined to grant any variances to the Design Guidelines and the site specific requirements for landscaping and landscaping mitigation due to space constraints in the envelopes, the grade of the proposed driveway In relation to floor heights established in our Design Guidelines, and so forth. This site has additional landscaping requirements to mitigate visibility of the Tiehack Bench lots from distant points across Maroon Creek which was required by the County in the PUD and which will continue to be a requirement for any development on Lot 2, as they were for Lot 1. pos-1. 0I.1.1cl. Roo H=tiy Aspt:K (:oi.oR,\1/() 31(11! 970.91u.6929 L'AX 92.1)-6986 Sent By: William Lukes + Associates; 970 920 6986; Jan-7-03 2:14PM; Page 2/2 7 January 2003 Page 2 3. We are concerned that the stand of oak trees and the existing aspen groves which are indicated on the plan as "to remain" and which are in the building envelope to varying degrees, will actually be removed for any construction on Lot 2, especially with the reduction in usable building envelope. 4, Our Design Guidelines require a shared curb cut for the Lots 2 and 3 driveways. This is to occur at the common property line approximately where the Lot 1 &2 shared driveway is proposed to access Tiehack Drive. The proposed adjustments in the development envelopes would not preclude this being worked out later so we have no objection to their request, but the curb cut as shown and as worked out with the fire department does not address the common access issue with Lot 3 which we had requested that the applicant address before submitting any plans for SARC's review, From the point of view of the Association, the combining of driveways for Lots 1 and 2 would probably be a visual enhancement and perhaps even a practical enhancement for the immediate neighborhood, assuming that the above issues are addressed to the Association's satisfaction and assuming that the net result will be a much smaller house on Lot 2 than is currently allowed. Nevertheless, any proposal will be subject to SARC's review of much more detailed plans and proposed landscaping, and will have to Involve the owner of Lot 3 to address a common driveway access point; we will not waive that requirement and allow a separate driveway as shown which encroaches into the lot 3 access area. We do not view the modified alignment and joining of the driveways as intrinsically negative or duplicative of the Tiehack cul-de-sac because there are some specific positives to it, such as eliminating and re -vegetating the existing driveway to Lot 1 and addressing grade and retaining wall conditions which I am not sure were fully contemplated or known at the time of the PUD approval by the County. Further, the development of the Urschel parcels which have their access adjacent to Lot 1 has created almost a blind driveway situation where both the existing driveway and the Urschel access enter the cul de sac without sightlines to the other; moving the driveway would certainly improve this situation. Please let me know if we can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, MAROON CREEK CLUB MASTER ASSOCIATION Site and Architecture Review Committee By: V, L William Lukes AIA Architectural Advisor, Maroon Creek Club Master Association copies: Kevin Morley / RTA Gary Albert, President of the MCC Master Association Brian Martin, MCC sent by fax to all parties January 7, 2003 (1:59pm)