The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.19960402 '-""--'--"~'---~--~'--'~~'~~~".---~--~'-'''''--._---------~.~-<~~---_. ._-,-, AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 1996, 4:30 PM SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL 1. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES ill. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Rocky Mountain Pie Company Conditional Use, Suzanne Wolff B. Silverman Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use for ADU, Suzanne Wolff C. Neisser Conditional Use for ADU, Suzanne Wolff D. Phillips/Gordon Lot Split Conditional Use for ADU (cont. from 3/19), Dave Michaelson N. WORK SESSION A. Waterplace, Dave Michaelson B. Smuggler Affordable Housing PUDlRezoning Advisory Review, Suzanne Wolff C. ADU Survey Conclusion, Dave Michaelson V. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Rhonda Harris, Administrative Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: March 27, 1996 April 5 - City Council Discussion of Small Lodges April 9 - Special Meeting Aspen Mountain PUD, Dave Michaelson April 16 - Regular Meeting Waterplace Conceptual PUD, Dave Michaelson 971 Ute Avenue Conditional Use for ADU; Public Hearing, Bob Nevins Smuggler Affordable Housing PUD/Rezoning, Public Hearing, Suzanne Wolff April 23 - Special Meeting Aspen Mountain PUD, Dave Michaelson 1� A" MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: Rocky Mountain Pie Company Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing DATE: April 2, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting conditional use approval for a restaurant in the LJTR zone district. The applicant is using the commercial kitchen in the Mountain Chalet to provide retail and wholesale baked goods to lodge guests and the general public. The application packet is attached as Exhibit A. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for a restaurant with conditions. APPLICANT: Jill Phillips LOCATION: Mountain Chalet, 333 E. Durant ZONING: L/TR, Lodge/Tourist Residential BACKGROUND: A portion of the Mountain Chalet has traditionally been used as a restaurant. In 1994 the Planning Commission approved a GMQS Exemption to change 1,566 square feet of commercial area (Lauretta's restaurant) to three guest rooms. The change in use extinguished restaurant use as an allowed use for the property. The dining area that was not converted to lodge rooms was only to be used for guests of the lodge. The applicant submitted an application for a City of Aspen Business License in December of 1995. Bill Drueding, City Zoning Officer, rejected the application because the use was not entirely accessory to the lodge. Staff determined that Conditional Use approval would be required to re- establish restaurant use within the lodge. The Taco and Burrito Company is also operating a take-out and delivery restaurant from the kitchen. A business license was issued for their business prior to staff's determination that restaurant use was not permitted in this location. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see the attached comments from the Housing Office and the Environmental Health Department (Exhibit B). Housing Office: Cindy Christensen has reviewed the project, and is not requiring any employee mitigation since there is only one employee and the kitchen is already existing. Environmental Health Department: Nancy MacKenzie reviewed the application, and Environmental Health does not have any concerns with the proposed use since the Mountain Chalet kitchen has a valid food service license and the kitchen complies with the sanitation regulations. STAFF COMMENTS: Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, the criteria for a conditional use review are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP), and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is purposed to be located; RESPONSE: The intent of the L/TR (Lodge/Tourist Residential) zone district is to accommodate tourist -oriented dwellings and accessory uses at the base of Aspen Mountain. The Pie Company serves as an accessory use to the lodge by providing baked goods for the Mountain Chalet's guest breakfast. One of the goals of the AACP is to revitalize the permanent community, which includes creating incentives for local serving commercial uses and encouraging a more balanced permanent community. The Pie Company supports the local economy by providing wholesale baked goods to local restaurants. Retail baked goods are also provided to lodge guests and the public. Use of the existing commercial kitchen has afforded Ms. Phillips the opportunity to operate her business in the vicinity of the downtown core where the majority of her clients are located. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; RESPONSE: In staff's opinion, the proposed use is compatible with the existing lodge and the surrounding area, particularly considering the history of restaurant use in the Mountain Chalet. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; RESPONSE: The use will create minimal additional impacts because the existing commercial kitchen is being used. Parking is available adjacent to the lodge, though it is not anticipated that this use would create any additional demand for parking. 04, D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; RESPONSE: No additional infrastructure is required for the use. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use, - RESPONSE: The Rocky Mountain Pie Company is solely operated by Ms. Phillips. Since existing facilities are being used, the Housing Office has determined that no employee mitigation will be required at this time. However, staff recommends that any additional and/or future restaurant use at the Mountain Chalet will require a re-evaluation of employee generation for mitigation purposes. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: The proposed use complies with the definition of "restaurant" in Section 26.04.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The Mountain Chalet has adequate delivery access and an elevator accesses the kitchen. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for a restaurant with the following conditions: l . Any additional and/or future restaurant use at the Mountain Chalet will require a re- evaluation of employee generation for mitigation purposes by the Housing Office prior to issuance of a business license and/or any building permits. 2. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for a restaurant at the Mountain Chalet with the conditions as outlined in the Planning Office Memo dated April 2, 1996" Exhibits: "A" - Application Packet "B" - Referral Comments 3 MAR 22 '96 04:02PM P. I Aunlawl TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Dept. FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing DATE: March 22, 1996 RE; Rocky Mountain Pie Company Conditional Use Review Parcel ID No. 2737-182-45-002 IMUE.- The applioant is requesting an approval to run a pie company out of an established kitchen. I RECOMMENDATION: After our site visit with Bill Drueding, it was established that this is not a change in use and is presently done in an established kitchen. There is only one employee, the owner, and vefy little walk-in baffic is done. Therefore, staff believes that no mitigation is required for this use, VffbffmMPO�M1 MEMORANDUM To:Suzanne-Wolff, Planner From: .-Nancy MacKenzie, 'Environmental Health -Officer \, ; Date: March 20' 1996 Re Rocky Mountain Pie'Company_Conditional Use Review Parcel -ID #. •27*37-182-45-002 .- • The - Aspen/Pitkin Environmental. I4ealth - .Department has . reviewed the - Iand use submittal -of the Rocky. ",Mountain :Pie Company! under authority of the Municipal Code -'of the City of - Aspens . and has ..the following comments. AIR. QUALITY : -Sections 11--2 : 1 I'It is the purpose of [the . air quality. section of the Muni cipa'l 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 Plessen'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 concern of - our Department. i-s � the impact of • increasing traffic in a non -attainment area designated by -the EPA. This conditional use is. not expected -.,to contribute..significantly to the degradation of air quality -in the -non -attainment area. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL -HEALTH LAWS: '. A person` must. have - a valid food,. service- license ..to operate a : food service establishment. -The Rocky Mountain Pie `Company .-uses -the- facilities of the- Mt Chalet kitchen. This kitchen. has a valid Colorado Food Service Licenser and complies with. the Rules and Regulations Governing the- Sanitation- of Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado. This Department'.has no concerns. with this application as .long. as - the Rocky Mountain -Pie Company operates out of a licensed .'kitchen. City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Dept. 130 South Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 Attn. Dave Michaelson January 10,1996 Regarding: Application for conditional use Rocky Mountain Pie Company, located a 333 E. Durant Aspen, Colorado, Phone 925-8655, is a sole proprietor Company Owned and operated by Jill Phillips. The function of the company is to provide retail and minimal wholesale baked goods for the guests of the lodge and general public. Rocky Mountain Pie Co., located in the Mountain Chalet Building, at the above address, is operated out of a legal commercial kitchen. The kitchen is regularly inspected by the local health department. Aside from offering daily pie specials to guests and the general public, we provide baked goods each morning as part of the Mountain Chalet breakfast. The minimal wholesale is to local Aspen restaurants to support local economy. Our location provides parking, wheelchair access, public restrooms, a place to sit and eat, an elevator and unloading zone for deliveries. Cur hours of operation are Monday through Friday 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.. Rocky Mountain Pie Company is solely operated by the owner Jill Phillips so part E of attachment 4 would not apply. Parts A,B,C. and D also on attachment 4, fall under the conditions and requirements currently being exercised by the Mountain Chalet. I have names and addresses of the surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the Mountain Chalet Building and I'm prepared to notify them of the nature of my business if necessary. Sincerely, Jill Phillips Owner/Operator 333 east durant avenue 303-925-7797 "at the base of Aspen Mountain" aspen, colorado 81611 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Dept. 130 South Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 January 10,1996 To whom it may concern, At yodr request, the Mountain Chalet of Aspen, owned and operated by Ralph Melville gives full approval for the use of the commercial kitchen to Jill Phillips owner and operator of the Rocky Mountain Pie Co. The kitchen is located on the pool level in the Mountain Chalet Building. If you need any further information please contact Ralph at 925-7797. Sincerely, Ralph Melville Owner/Operator MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: Neisser Conditional Use Review For an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Public Hearing DATE: April 2, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct an ADU located within a proposed new residence. The studio ADU is located on the upper level of the residence and contains approximately 393 square feet. The application packet is attached as Exhibit A. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit with conditions. APPLICANT: Judith Neisser, represented by Steve Buettow, Gibson Reno Architects LOCATION: 425 W. Francis; Lots C, D & E, Block 35, City and Townsite of Aspen ZONING: R-6 LOT SIZE: 9,000 square feet FAR: Allowed = 3,660 square feet; Proposed = 3,349 square feet REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see comments from the the Housing Office (Exhibit B). Verbal comments from the Parks, Engineering and Water Departments are included below; written comments will be available at the meeting. Housing Office: Cindy Christensen has reviewed the project, and notes that the unit has a private entrance and is located on the upper level of the residence. The Housing Office recommends approval subject to the following conditions: • The kitchen shall include a minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. • The unit shall be deed -restricted prior to building permit approval. Parks Department: A tree removal/relocation plan shall be provided to the Parks Department for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits. Any removal of trees will require a tree removal/relocation permit. All remaining trees must be protected during construction with no encroachment of the driplines during excavation. Engineering Department: Three parking spaces are indicated in front of the garage; the westernmost space is within the setback. The existing fence encroaches outside of the front property line. Water Department: Phil Overeynder requests that the applicant abandon the existing water line on the property if the new residence will not be constructed within 6 months after the existing residence is demolished. STAFF COMMENTS: Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, the criteria for a conditional use review are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is purposed to be located, - RESPONSE: A fundamental goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan is to "Create housing opportunities for 60% of the workforce to live up -valley of the Aspen Village Trailer Park". A short-term goal with the Housing Action Plan was to develop "650 new affordable housing units, including employee -occupied ADUs to achieve the identified current unmet need to sustain a critical mass of residents". Staff notes that an additional goal included the revision of the ADU program to require registration and deed restrictions of all ADUs. The ADU, as depicted, exceeds the minimum net livable requirement of 300 square feet. The unit must comply with the Housing Guidelines and shall be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for working residents of Pitkin County. The property is zoned R-6 (medium density residential). Lands in the R-6 zone are generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, contain relatively dense development patterns, and are within walking distance to the central core. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development, - RESPONSE: The R-6 zone is a relatively dense zone district, which is appropriate for the development of ADUs. In staff's opinion, the proposed ADU does not represent an incompatible use, and the proximity to the downtown core is consistent with long-term policies of community revitalization. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; RESPONSE: The unit meets the overall objective of liveability; the unit is above grade, obtains adequate natural light, and has a separate exterior entry from the alley. Parking is provided on the driveway apron in front of the garage. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; RESPONSE: No additional infrastructure is required for the ADU above and beyond what is in place for the existing neighborhood. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; RESPONSE: The ADU must be deed restricted for resident occupancy. If the unit is rented, they must be used to house a qualified working resident of Pitkin County. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: The proposed unit is required by Ordinance 1, 1990, and must be deed restricted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ADU with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer; B. Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs; and 3 C. A tree removal and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department. Tree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 6" caliper. All remaining trees must be protected during construction with no encroachment of the driplines during excavation. 2. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. 35 sound attenuation requirements. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Department shall inspect the unit to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on -site. 5. The applicant shall abandon the existing water line on the property if the new residence will not be constructed within 6 months after the existing residence is demolished. 6. The applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and shall consider these representations to be conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for an ADU at 425 W. Francis St. with the conditions as outlined in the Planning Office Memo dated April 2, 1996". Exhibits: "A" - Application Packet "B" - Referral Comments 19 MEMORANDUM TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: March 29, 1996 RE: Neisser ADU We have reviewed the drawings for the Neisser ADU and have a few concerns regarding removal of trees on the lot. It is difficult to determine the true impact on the existing trees from the proposed development plan. However, looking at the site it may be possible to save the majority of the trees on the lot. The Spruce trees on the eastern side of the lot, somewhat in the center, are trimmed up considerably could accommodate a building relatively close. However, it is still important to NOT excavate within the dripline of the trees. It appears as though one of the trees has already been damaged, possibly by the demolition of the former building. From the proposed development drawing it looks as though one of the pines and a few aspens in the back of the lot may be lost to parking. A tree permit will be necessary for any trees proposed for removal prior to issuance of a building permit. The code requires mitigation on all trees proposed for removal, which can either be replaced on site with comparably valued trees or a payment - in -lieu option is available. On the existing conditions site plan it shows a 27" stump in the right-of-way which could be removed during excavation of the lot and a cottonwood replaced in the same location and could count towards some mitigation if trees need to be replaced on site. CC: Ross Soderstrom, Engineering Department Neisser.doc PUBLIC NOTICE RE: NEISSER CONDITIONAL USE FOR ADU NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 2, 1996 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 Judith Neisser, requesting approval of a Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit within the existing single-family residence. The property is located at 425 W. Francis, and is described as Lots C, D & E, Block 35. For further information, contact Suzanne Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5093. s/Sara Garton, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen Account rvp�.ly 1rV 1 IVC ` DATE /1ML 2 p �7 ice— _ IMP . PLACE 'PURPOSE -4 NE{Ia - 00N/i /ffF(v& / ,4 G, p x 6 �l-K �y. f'G� F.1�fNE� INGrtM�bN ��r �u�rmE ,��r' �T � �r�/r►�N , I.GNiMUrIrK p6�l�PM6h� t�Ef;^t�iEN'�, I� �+.rr►+ lwENk �T yyf�H Rio. �11Q- 9to- 5C�13 r nr.o+.+aa..na. car��.u: r � •�wnmw n�w�.o orsa. •1 �JD 90U1N fiLLFNA �� GO <�� IOYG 1 ` ow t4A t , 4 Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } } SS. State of.ColQrado } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 6-205.E. I , !- being or representing an Applicant{ to the'City, of Aspen, personally certifythat I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 5% day of 199& (which is days prior to the public hear7.ng date of 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the day of , 19 4, to the 7i day of /9"�r� 199l0. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. i at ( Attach photograph here) S igne ore me this ?ice day of 199�. by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL Sr�AL My COT ss ' on e pire. Notary Public NEISSER RESIDENCE NOTICE LIST OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 300 FOOT RADIUS 2735-12-424001 Donald G. Swales P.O. Box 1956 Aspen, CO. 81612 2735-12-424003 Lewis A. Teague Business Management Office c/o 4605 Lankershim Blvd., Suite 325 North Hollywood, CA. 91602 2735-12-424004 Eppler Klaus Trustee Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelshon c/o 2255 Glades Road #340 W Baca Raton, FL. 33431 2735-12-41007 Gell-Mann Murray 70% Gray Harry & Shirley Trust 30% P.O. Box 91 Tesque, NM 87574 2735-12-41003 Patricia Crown -Tapper 5 Polo Club Drive Denver, CO. 80209 2735-12-413001 Thomas Hoffmaster 437 W. Smuggler St. Aspen, CO. 81611 2735-12-410002 Richard Becker Kendall Lisa See Kendall 17975 Porto Marina Way Pacific Palisades, CA. 90272 2735-12-413004 Joan Reed Cundill 432 W. Francis St. Aspen, CO. 81611 2735-12-413005 Robert M. Chamberlain, Jr. 420 W. Francis Street Aspen, CO. 81611 Neisser Residence Page 2 2735-12-413006 2735-12-495001 Five Continents Aspen Realty Joseph Edwards III, c/o 502 Main Street, Suite 201 Carbondale, CO. 81623 S. Robson & Carolyn F. Walton 125 W. Central #218 Bentonville, AR 72712 2735-12-495002 Stewart Rex and Emily Graham Wright 111 Sierra Vista Redlands, CA. 92373 2735-12-433004 Chester & Beverly Firestein 9777 Wilshire Blvd. #501 Beverly Hills, CA. 90212 2735-12-433007 James & Lily Patrick 417 W. Hallam St. Aspen, CO. 81611 2735-12-425006 Sally Rae Glenn 504 W. Hallam Ave. Aspen, CO. 81611 2735-12-425011 Robert & Janet Blaich 319 N. Fourth Street Aspen, CO. 81611 2735-12-423006 Margarete A. Uhl P.O. Box 122 Aspen, CO. 81612 2735-12-413002 Hubert D. Chisholm 1414 11th Ave. S.E. Olympia, WA. 98501 2735-12-433001 John & Patricia Kerrigan 1850 White Swan Drive Oskosh, WI.54901 Neisser Residence Page 3 2735-12-43 James & Lil allam St. Aspen, 11 2735-12-434001 John and Ann Scheid 500 S. Arroyo Blvd. Pasadena, CA. 91105 2735-12-410006 518 W. Francis L P A Colorado Limited Partnership 615 Peachtree Ste. 1150 Atlanta, GA. 30308 2735-12-425001 David & Don N. Stapleton Darrell L. Stapleton & Billee Lou Speer 1350 Mountain View Drive Snowmass Village, CO. 81615 2735-12-425002 Lucy Sharp Dikeou 25 Polo Club Circle Denver, CO. 80209 2735-12-414001 James & Jacqueline McMahan 2 Oakmont Drive Los Angeles, CA. 90049 2735-12-414004 Robert & Judy Allen 4545 Post Oak Pl., Ste. 251 Houston, TX 77027 2735-12-414005 Ellen P. Kohner Ellen Hunt c/o P.O. Box 8770 Aspen, CO. 81612 2735-12-423002 Merrill Ford 323 W. Francis St. Aspen, CO. 81611 2735-12-423001 Brunhilde Schloffer P.O. Box 941 Aspen, CO. 81612 Neisser Residence Page 4 2735-12-423005 2735-12-425007 2735-12-425005 2735-12-424008 2735-12-424007 2735-12-424010 Frank E. Peters Maria Chaikouska P.O. Box 9698 Aspen, CO. 81612 Brill & Elizabeth Key 506 W. Hallam St. Aspen, CO. 81611 Thomas & Judith Daly 520 W. Halam St. Aspen, CO. 81611 Wm. & Patricia Hutzley 100 Cold Indian Spring Ocean, NJ 07712 Marilyn Gallant 617 Vine St., Ste. 1430 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Hugh & Lynn Evans 1821 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 415 Santa Monica, CA. 90402 2735-12-424006 Steven Craig Gordon 520 So. Lafayette Park Place #318 Los Angeles, CA. 90057 2735-12-424005 Hallam, LLC Colorado Limited Liability Co. 434 W. Hallam St. Aspen, CO. 81611 2735-12-432004 Roger H. Hunt P.O. Box 3944 Aspen, CO. 81612 2735-12-432003 Walter F. Bauer Family Trust Walter & Donna Bauer, Trustees 15935 Valley Vista Encino, CA. 91436 IAND USE APPLICATICU FC M 1) Project Name 2) Pro j ©ct IDcation 1.4' G/ �-S00, + ( indicate street address, lot & block ruber, legal . on w appropriate) 3) Present Za AM 1`! �SF� 4) Tart Size 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone Af 6) tive's , Name, Address & Phone 2/o 4er- / jA14V 4CflrX- 202 1+`5;Ar7V G/40 F16/� 92S- 4"6 7) Type of: Application (please check.a11 that. apply) : Cu-ditional Use SPA aonoxt ual Historic Dev. Special view Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 PUD Minor Historic Dev. 1 Stream Margin Final FUD Him ry mol.itiC�n View Plane _ Subaru Historic Desi.4natLon CS❑rr3a�ni�11mi zat-i rn Amonftent CAS Allotment Lot Split,not Line C F.`�®pit iAn Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (rater and type of existing ; appraximte sq. ft. ; rmber of bedoom s; any previcus xavals granted to the prcperty) - 4f g/4j?r/N 95 Gs �l�- / 5 /f �� S//ryGJ� /�i�3 iG 9) Description of Developnext imtim 4CA41 ' e'er try 10) Have you attached the follmd-ng? �" ••c.-�• • s - to Attachmenta= Submission •• ents March 12, 1996 Aspen/ Pitkin County Community Development Department DAVID 130 South Galena Street GIBSON, Aspen, Colorado 81611 AIA Re: Neisser Residence Conditional Use (A.D.U.) AUGUST 425 W. Francis REND. Aspen, Colorado ALA We are pleased to submit the enclosed application for the Conditional Use of Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) In the residence located at 425 W. Francis In Aspen, Colorado. SCOTT The following addresses Attachment 4, Items A- F of the Review Standards for the development of a Conditional Use. SMITH, ALA A. The current zoning of the property Is R-6 which allows Accessory Dwelling Units as a Conditional Use within this zone district The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan A encourages residences to provide an ADU within a single family residence to help supply housing within the Aspen Area. B. The Conditional Use Is consistent and compatible with the 4 character of the immediate vicinity of the West End parcel. The surrounding area consists of single family residences and several existing ADU's. GIBSON-RENO C. The 393 Square Foot Studio ADU will be located on the Upper Level A k C H I I I I T E C T S of the Single Family residence and Is provided with a separate exterior Entry. The Entry Is located off the existing Alley adjacent to the Garage. There is provision for 3 Parking Spaces In addition to the single Garage. The ADU will have no adverse effects 210 E. HYMAN on the surrounding properties. D. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is located in a single family residence NO 202 within the city limits of Aspen, and has access to all public facilities and services. ASPEN E. As a requirement of Ordinance #11, replacement housing program, COLOR.ADO for a now single family home within the R-6 zone district 81611 the applicant must provide an Accessory Dwelling Unit or pay a fee In lieu. This ADU unit fulfills this requirement. 303.925.5968 F. This Conditional Use of the Accessory Dwelling Unit complies with all standards by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and FACSIMILE the requirements of Ordinance #1. 303.925.5993 Thank you for your time In reviewing our request for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and should you have any further questions regarding this application, please feel free to contact me. P.O. BOX 278 Sincerely, 117 N. WILLOW NO 2 August G. Reno TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 303.728.6607 FACSIMILE 303.728.6658 March 12, 1996 DAV I D Aspen/ Pitkin County Community Development Department GIBSON, 130 South Galena Street AIA Aspen, Colorado 81611 AUGUST RENO, AIA This application is for a Conditional Use of an ' Accessory Dwelling Unit. The development is located at 425 W. Francis. The legal description is Lots C, D & E, Block 35, Aspen Townsite. scoTT SMITH, I AIA Floor Area Ratio • ► f Proposed Allowable ' First Floor 2175 SF Second Floor 856 SF GIBSON - RENO ADU: 534- 250 SF = 284 SF A R C III T E C T s III 3315 SF Garage 318 SF -250 SF .5 FAR x 68 = 34 SF 3349 SF 9000 SF R-6 Duplex Lot = 4080 SF " 4080 SF r, 210 E. HYMAN No 202 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303.925.5968 FACSIMILE 303.925.5993 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW NO 2 TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 303.728.6607 FACSIMILE 303.728.6658 Mtn r Laur �eOrel0 Ct c rer J r.,.,,. Mtc tce 11 ell, IS BorudS �ooc Q.In °P Ai Pd ro o / `• . �� p` �o Pod / rtl \ce 5N _ �Pd et��lP 0 d0 r�0 I P / Np� J PBd�rP Q�oc �u/B/uno� pey v _ �� o �0c `0� !s U s c J a tV is a�Sitvor.00een C. C r� °� o� V Gondola'-`- \\ ! _ 5� kjed c i `3 rb !S / oc OeL� p ul A—YR19 Aver or 8j0 �r Q(o> /�O^O v ` _ �i 90 Castle Creek Or (po err r —'``--C t J� ueo p l._• P: �3 3 `4 R_ 0 ,•-.8me(erY cord n ,fat N M°noh o� G t� i e5e 0 �� 6 0 .� _ � s P1101) tr �� iQ r?Gply ulm j r� �e0 ic o V) n rl 0J / r- 'o try. C hft MAR 22 ' 95 04 : 29PM P.1 TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Dept. FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: March 22, 1996 FEE: Neiaser Conditional Use for A DU Parcel ID No. 2736-124-24-002 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting to build a studio ADU to be located in the upper level of a single-family residence, BACKGROUND: The size of the ercessory unit falls within the guidelines of the Code: Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) square feet of allowable floor area and not morn then seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable floor area. The unit shell be deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident tmupie[d units and shall be limited to reMal periods of not iess than six (6) months in duration_ Owners of the principal residence shall have the right to dace a qualified employee or arnployees of his or her choosing In the accessory dwelling unit. The applicant states that the unit is to have a private entrance which will be located off the existing alley, adjacent to the garage. The kitchen must also be built to the following specifications: Kitchen - For Accessory Dwelling Units and Caretaker Dwelling Unite., a minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cuble fact refrigerator plus freezer. RE_ �ilV ENDATION: Staff recommends siploroval as long as the following conditions are met: 1. the Kitchen is as stated above; and 2. an accessory dwelling unit deed restriction needs to be recorded before building permit approval; this form is provided by the Housing Office. %referraNieisser.a4v aN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITIPLA.N ON SECOND LEVEL 0_0 - P F(:T F 6 (r,� 0) I� ACCESSORY DWELLING -UNIT:. - 393 SF ABITAEf SPACE 205 m L 1 I Im I 0 e � OPEN TO ` OPEN TO BELOW BEDJW e i "— I 97.9 EDGE OF.ASPHALT & ST . FRANCIS STRFF FOUND: REBAR k CAP L.S. 9184 S 75 09'11' E 96.? 98.4 60' 13' 17' 16' 10' I 8' 10' 16'cn o c W C_ I I I I o W u 10 �n ' o in v j I z z 0 J W v x 1 I I 99.1 I I i O N FOUND: REBAR do CAP LS. 9184 N 75 09'11' W 90.00' (F-IELD: N 75 15'00' W 89.78') SITE PLAN W/ ROOF PLAN x x 99.8(� ALLEY) 99.4(� ALLEY) Al 1 f 16n = 1' G" ALLEY . BLOCK 35 95.8 a 96.6 O ON V O in ` SITE DATA REQUIRED ALLOWED PROPOSED F.A.R. 4;080 SF 3349, SF SITE COVERAGE '30% 2,700 SF 2,538.78 SF PARKING 2 SPACES 2 SPACES i 98.7 0 x98.5((� ALLEY) a PR' E-ISSUED FOR PRICING REVIEW 1119196 ISSUED FOR PREUMINARY PERMIT 3/13/96 Tigerman McCurry ARCHInCTS 444 NORTH WELLS CHICAGO, MNOIS 60810 312.644.5880 NEISSER RESIDENCE ASPEN, COLORADO SECOND FLOOR PLAN SHEET A4 ---------------- _---_-_____________________L-_--___-______________--L___-_-__-_--__-_______-_______-___.-___ NORTH RON T ) ELEVATION A5 SOUTH (REAR) ELEVATION 1 A5 178' = 1' 0" 1 1 1 1 i 1 ' I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 i 1 I 1 1 1 i I 1 t i 1 1 I 1 t 1 I 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 r' r' I 1 1 i 1 1 t i i I 1 i I i 1 1 I 1 I I i i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 I i 1 1 EAST ELEVATION 1 1 1 1 1 1 L---------- _--_._-_______L--____1--------------- L____1____J It YYLJ I LLL V/1 1 IYIV i ' I 1 A6 ; 1 /8" - 1' 0" ; 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 , i 1 1 t--------------- i 1 I , MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director RE: Phillips/Gordon Lot Split Conditional Use Review for three (3) Accessory Dwelling Units - Continued Public Hearing DATE: April 2,1996 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct three ADUs within a duplex and two free market homes. On March 19, 1996 the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to allow staff to clarify the available parking on the site. Staff has attached a parking plan (Exhibit A), a floor plan and elevation for the ADU on Lot O (Exhibit B and C), a revised floor plan showing a window placement modification for the ADU on Lot M (Exhibit D), and the elimination of access to the free market unit on Lot P (Exhibit E). Staff has also included the March 19, 1996 staff report as. Exhibit F. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Available Parking: The attached parking plan depicts 13 total spaces available on -site in the following configuration: two garage spaces and two apron spaces for each duplex on Lots M and N, two garage spaces and one apron space on Lot O and a single garage space and one carport space on Lot P. The proposed ADU within the duplex on Lot M is over 600 s.f., and the ADUs on Lot O and P are both slightly over 300 s.f. Based on the relative size of the ADUs, it is reasonable to assume that the 300+ s.f. ADUs would function as studios, and will only require a single space. The larger 600+ s.f. ADU on Lot M can accommodate two people, and there are a total of 4 spaces provided on -site. Lot P, which proposes a 300+ s.f. ADU, includes two spaces on -site. Code Requirements: Parking standards for all uses have been modified by the passage of Ordinance 30, which are as follows: For single-family and duplex residential use: two (2) spaces/dwelling unit. Fewer spaces may be provided by special review pursuant to Chapter 26.24 for historic landmarks only, and fewer spaces may be provided by conditional use review pursuant to 26.60, for accessory units only. One (1) space per dwelling unit is required if the unit is either a studio or a one (1) bedroom dwelling unit. Staff notes that the parking requirements for ADUs was mis-represented by staff at the March 19, 1996 hearing. Lots M, N and O all meet these parking requirements. Lot P, which is a historic landmark, was granted a waiver by HPC to provide for one (1) space for the free market unit. As shown on the parking plan, the ADU is provided with a single carport space. Other Issues: The Commission was also concerned about the access to the proposed Lot O ADU. The applicant has submitted an east elevation and floor plan for Lot O (Exhibit B and C) which depicts the covered stairs descending to the ADU. Both the Housing Office and the Commission were concerned about the aligned windows of the bedrooms for the ADU on Lot M and the free market duplex on Lot N. The applicant has staggered the windows, as shown on Exhibit D. In addition, the applicant has eliminated the internal access from the Lot M ADU and the free market duplex. A revised floor plan showing exclusive access to the Lot M ADU is attached as Exhibit E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on compliance with the parking standards, the clarification of the access to the ADU on Lot O, the modified window placement for the ADU on Lot M and the elimination of internal access between the Lot M ADU and the free market duplex, staff recommends approval based on the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval for all three ADUs. Upon approval of the deed restrictions by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restrictions shall state that the accessory units meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer; and B. Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs. 2. The ADUs shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling units on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. 35 sound attenuation requirements. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Department shall inspect all three units to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on -site. 5. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, and the Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of - way from the City Streets Department. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a tree removal and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department. Tree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 6" caliper. 7. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 8. The Housing Office shall review to unit on Lot O for compliance with applicable standards. Any conditions that the Housing Office recommends are considered conditions of approval. If the applicant does not wish to comply with these conditions, the ADU for Lot O shall require an additional hearing before the Planning Commission to review the unit. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for three (3) ADUs at 918 E. Cooper with the conditions as outlined in the Planning Office Memo dated February 6, 1996". Exhibits: "A" - Parking Plan for All Units "B" - Floor Plan For Lot O ADU "C"- Elevation for Lot O ADU "D"- Window Modification for Lot M ADU "E" - Floor Plan for Lot P indicating Elimination of Door "F" - March 19, 1996 Staff Report ►��` ,� r i ALLEY 6 ,J —_ — — .'ARV `I • a S "e.. V � J a � I I to�.•.. IaIA� _ - t .� � I \•.RED ` �is1. 5'��f � � \t. P —•-� — _ — I ic• "tW,'y.+. ?'J_s �� ?, 41+tO'g NEAR "Vol � 1,71 - - � PARKING PLAN --- - ----• - ----_ - ToTA L COOPER EAS7 14G , CARS � C�A� /� �, ` � ,�, •, • vi: DJt•g !•�-t n .n 0• -yr a3 w� / I . i , I ►3 rr G � �n - '01iI c::::D IR O MCI eJo_.f T oo ��:I O 1 C9) .01 9, 00 hill IL ' ( U.14 0� 4w+.a O IT V, I I %4, I jdP 10 cr varH .0 P--YJ-4 I C-3 J-% - G UNIT P LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN P-'I�113 1i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director RE: Phillips/Gordon Lot Split Conditional Use Review for three (3) Accessory Dwelling Units Public Hearing DATE: Apt if 2, f996 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct three ADUs within a duplex and two free market homes. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for three ADUs with conditions, with the finding by the Commission that compatibility issues have been addressed. APPLICANT John Davis, Represented by Mark Ward LOCATION: 918 East Cooper (Lots M, N, O and P of Block 117, Phillips/Gordon Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen) ZONING: R/MF (Residential/Multi-Family) LOT SIZE: 6,000 s.f. BACKGROUND: The Phillips/Gordon Lot Split was approved in 1994. That approval required compliance with Ordinance 1 for affordable housing mitigation. The duplex on Lots M and N must provide an ADU of at least 600 square feet. Lots O and P must provide anADU in each dwelling of at least 300 square feet. All necessary approvals from HPC have been granted. At the time the applicant made the initial submittal, the applicant was under the impression that only ADUs for the duplex (Lots M and N) and the free market unit on Lot P was necessary to satisfy the requirements of Ordinance 1. Staff informed the applicant that an additional unit would be required for the free market unit on Lot 0. The applicant has indicated plans for the Lot O ADU, but the unit has not been reviewed the Housing Office. Staff has addressed this issue with a condition of approval. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see the memo from The Housing Office (See Exhibit B). They expressed concern that Lot M ADU is directly across from the free market bedroom occupying Lot N, requested changes in the window well, and recommended that the interior doorway between the ADU and the free market unit be eliminated STAFF COMMENTS: Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 24-7-304, the criteria for a conditional use review are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is purposed to be located, - RESPONSE: A fundamental goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan is to "Create housing opportunities for 60% of the workforce to live up -valley of the Aspen Village Trailer Park". A short-term goal with the Housing Action Plan was to develop "650 new affordable housing units, including employee -occupied ADUs to achieve the identified current unmet need to sustain a critical mass of residents". Staff notes that an additional goal included the revision of the ADU program to require registration and deed restrictions of all ADUs. The ADUs, as depicted, exceeds the minimum net livable requirement of 300 square feet. The units must comply with the Housing Guidelines and shall be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for working residents of Pitkin County. The property is zoned R/MF(residential/multi-family). The purpose of the R/MF zone is to provide for the use of land for intensive long-term residential purposes, with customary accessory uses. Lands in the R/MF zone are generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, include lands on transit routes , and other lands with existing concentrations of attached residential dwellings and mixed attached and detached residential dwellings. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; RESPONSE: The R/MF zone is a relatively dense zone district, which is appropriate for the development of ADUs. In staff s opinion, the proposed ADUs do not represent an incompatible use, and the location in the vicinity of the downtown core are consistent with long-term policies of community revitalization. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; RESPONSE:. Housing has approved ADUs on Lots M and P with conditions. The unit on Lot O was included by the applicant following discussions with staff. Housing still needs to approve the unit on Lot O. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; RESPONSE: No additional infrastructure is required for the ADUs above and beyond what is in place for the existing neighborhood. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; RESPONSE: The ADUs must be deed restricted for resident occupancy. If the units are rented, they must be used to house a qualified working resident of Pitkin County. 2 F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: The proposed units are required by Ordinance 1, and must be deed restricted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of all three (3) ADUs with the following conditions: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restrictions by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restrictions shall state that the accessory units meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer; and B. Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs. 2. The ADUs shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. 35 sound attenuation requirements. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Department shall inspect the units to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on -site. 5. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, and the Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the City Streets Department. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a tree removal and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department. Tree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 6" caliper. 7. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 8. The Housing Office shall review to unit on Lot O for compliance with applicable standards. Any conditions that the Housing Office recommends are considered conditions of approval. If the 3 applicant does not wish to comply with these conditions, the ADU for Lot O shall require an additional hearing before the Planning Commission to review the unit. 9. The internal access to the ADU on Lot M shall be eliminated and the window well egress of the duplex shall be redesigned to be consistent with the requirements of the Housing Office regarding total privacy of ADUs. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for three (3) ADUs at 918 E. Cooper with the conditions as outlined in the Planning Office Memo dated February 6, 1996". Exhibits: "A" - Application Packet "B" - Referral Comments "C"- Plans and Elevations N MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director DATE: April 2,1996 RE: City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing Project - Work Session SUMMARY: The proposed Water Treatment Plan and Affordable Housing Development would house essential city employees, including emergency response personnel, adjacent to the city's water treatment and distribution facilities. An additional component of the project calls for significant improvements to the both the infrastructure and office facilities of the water plant. Based on comments during a two-step submittal in March of 1995 and an additional workshop with both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, the applicant (City of Aspen) is requesting a work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to a Conceptual SPA hearing scheduled for April 16, 1996. The proposed development now calls for the construction of 22 fully deed restricted units plus the renovation of and existing unit for a total of 23 units. Six units will be single-family detached and 17 units will be in a townhome configuration. Significant revisions from the March 1995 submittal include the following: • the elimination of a fourplex previously proposed for the lower portion of the property adjacent to Castle Ridge. The former site of the fourplex is no longer proposed for development, and the applicant intends on dedicating the area as open space; • the units proposed near the bluff above (south) of Castle Ridge have been set back approximately 25 feet from the top of the slope to lessen the visual impacts from existing units and State Highway 82; • the proportional share of single-family detached units have been dropped in favor of more affordable smaller, attached units; • the overall site design has been revised to represent a more pedestrian -oriented neighborhood, and isolating all parking from the units on the east side of Doolittle. Limited access would be allowed for deliveries by way of the proposed walkway; • the density has been increased from 16 units in the original application to 23 units; • the project has been designed to maximize the neighborhood relationship between the structures by proposing a "greenspace" orientation of the front facades for the units on the east side of Doolittle Road; • the necessary modifications of the water treatment plant to ensure that impact of the project is minimized and to allow expected growth in the department has been included in the application; • the design is based on a "green" approach by minimizing the influence of vehicular traffic adjacent to the units, maximizing solar exposure, and incorporating energy efficient design and construction; and • Dolittle Road has been re -engineered, and will meet all current City standards for grade, lane width and curve radius. This is a significant improvement from prior submittals. APPLICANT: City of Aspen Engineering Department, represented by David Hauter (Project Manager) LOCATION/ZONING: Lot 2 and 4, City of Aspen Thomas Property. The property is located at the end of Doolittle Drive, south of Castle Ridge Housing complex, and includes the City water plant. The entire parcel is approximately 54 acres, with approximately 5 acres proposed for residential development. The property is zoned Public (PUB) with an SPA (Specially Planned Area) overlay. The adjoining residential uses to the North are zoned R-15 PUD SPA. The applicant's submittal package, which includes a conceptual site plan, a description of significant revisions, a preliminary financial plan, a summary of potential chlorine hazards and evacuation radius, as well as memos addressing transportation issues are all attached for the commission's review (Exhibit A). ISSUES: During the previous submittal, several issues where identified by both staff and the Commission. These issues, as well as proposed modifications by the applicant, are summarized below. Building Envelopes. The proposed building envelopes may be quite visible from both adjacent development (Castle Ridge and Twin Ridge) as well as from the State Highway 82 corridor. The applicant has set back the building envelopes approximately 25 feet from the edge of the bluff overlooking Castle Ridge. Staff has requested that the applicant place story poles within the building envelopes shown on the site plan for review by staff and the Commission. In addition, staff has requested that the proposed building envelopes and road alignment be conceptually depicted on an aerial photograph to determine the impact on existing vegetation. Road Improvements. Dolittle Road is substandard for existing uses, and the applicant proposes to improve the road with a pavement width of 24 feet, and install curb and gutter on the downhill side. The existing road width varies from 14 to 16 feet, with existing grades at or exceeding 10 percent. Existing residents have noted that the road retains snow and ice due to the north facing descent and existing vegetation, and additional traffic may be problematic. The improvements proposed by the applicant have addressed the majority of these issues. Widening the template to 24 feet may require significant disturbance of existing vegetation on both the up and downhill slopes. The proposed uphill and downhill slope reach 2:1, which may make topsoil retention and revegetation difficult. 2 Trail Alignment. The applicant is proposing an improved trail connection from upper Dolittle Drive to the Twin Ridge intersection (see site plan). The relocation of dwelling units from this area may minimize impacts on existing vegetation when compared to previous trail alignments. Staff has requested that the alignment also be shown on an aerial photograph, and be field - located to minimize disturbance of the mature oak stands. PROCEDURE: The project will go through a Four -Step Review, with each of the necessary approvals depicted below: Planning and Z Conceptual SPA April 16, 1996 Table 1 City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing Process Council Conceptual SPA Not Scheduled Note : Italics indicates a public hearing Planning and Zoning Final SPA Subdivision GMQS Exemption Special Review 8040 Greenline Conditional Use Council Final SPA Subdivision GMQS Exemptio Following the work session, a memorandum will be presented by staff at the April 16, 1996 meeting. Exhibits "A" - Application "B" - Bluelines 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: Silverman Conditional Use Review For an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Stream Margin Review - Public Hearing DATE: April 2, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct an ADU and stream margin review approval to develop a new single-family residence on the lot. The studio ADU is located on the main level of the proposed new residence, and contains approximately 384 square feet. Both the existing and the proposed residences are located within 100 feet of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. The application packet is attached as Exhibit A. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit and stream margin review with conditions. APPLICANT: Dr. Barry Silverman, represented by Stan Mathis LOCATION: 1470 Red Butte Drive; Lot 2, Block 1, Red Butte Subdivision ZONING: R-30 LOT SIZE: 30,056 square feet FAR: Allowed = 5400 square feet; Proposed = 5200 square feet BACKGROUND: REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see comments from the Housing Office (Exhibit B). Verbal comments from the Engineering, Parks and Water Departments are included below; written comments should be available at the meeting. Housing Office: Cindy Christensen has reviewed the project, and notes that the unit has a private entrance and is located on the upper level of the residence. The Housing Office recommends approval subject to the following conditions: • The kitchen shall include a minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. • The unit shall be deed -restricted prior to building permit approval. Parks Department: The existing trees should be located outside of the building envelope. Any removal of trees will require a tree removal/relocation permit. A landscape plan shall be approved by Parks prior to issuance of any building permits. Silt fencing shall be used during construction to prevent runoff from disturbed soils from entering the river. Parks requests that the owner dedicate a fishing easement along the river. Engineering Department: No development shall occur outside of the building envelope. Construction procedures shall insure that runoff from disturbed soil does not drain into the river. Any disturbed soil on the site shall be revegetated. Water Department: Phil Overeynder requests that the applicant abandon the existing water line on the property if the new residence will not be constructed within 6 months after the existing residence is demolished. STAFF COMMENTS: Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, the criteria for a conditional use review are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is purposed to be located; RESPONSE: A fundamental goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan is to "Create housing opportunities for 60% of the workforce to live up -valley of the Aspen Village Trailer Park". A short-term goal with the Housing Action Plan was to develop "650 new affordable housing units, including employee -occupied ADUs to achieve the identified current unmet need to sustain a critical mass of residents". Staff notes that an additional goal included the revision of the ADU program to require registration and deed restrictions of all ADUs. The ADUs, as depicted, exceeds the minimum net livable requirement of 300 square feet. The unit must comply with the Housing Guidelines and shall be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for working residents of Pitkin County. The property is zoned R-30 (low density residential). Lands in the R-30 zone are typically located along river frontages in outlying areas of the City. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; 0 RESPONSE: In staff's opinion, the proposed ADU does not represent an incompatible use with the neighborhood. The Red Butte Subdivision Protective Covenants apparently prohibit accessory dwelling units. The applicant must resolve this issue with the homeowners' association. If the subdivision does prohibit the accessory dwelling unit, the applicant must provide a cash -in -lieu to the Housing Office. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; RESPONSE: The unit is completely contained within the proposed residence. The unit meets the overall objective of livability; the unit is above grade, obtains adequate natural light, and has a separate exterior entry. The unit can also be accessed through the interior of the residence. One parking space is required for the ADU; parking is provided off of the driveway. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; RESPONSE: No additional infrastructure is required for the ADU above and beyond what is in place for the existing neighborhood. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use,, - RESPONSE: The ADU must be deed restricted for resident occupancy. If the unit is rented, it must be used to house a qualified working resident of Pitkin County. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: The proposed units are required by Ordinance 1, and must be deed restricted. Stream Margin Review: Pursuant to Section 26.68.040(B), "No development shall be permitted within 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 the standards set forth below:" 3 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. RESPONSE: The building envelope is located outside of the 100 year floodplain line, and the development will not increase the base flood elevation. 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. RESPONSE: Not applicable. 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable; RESPONSE: Red Butte Subdivision is not located within the area considered under the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan, though it is located across the Roaring Fork River from the Rio Grande Trail. Parks has requested that the owner dedicate a fishing easement. 4. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or 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 a Certificate of Occupancy. RESPONSE: The applicant has designated an envelope on the site plan. Staff recommends that the envelope be amended to exclude the existing trees. The applicant agrees not to manipulate any vegetation outside of the envelope, and to barricade the envelope prior to issuance of any building permits. S. 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. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; RESPONSE: The proposed residence will not impact the river, and safeguards will be utilized during construction to prevent pollution of the river. Drainage shall be directed away from the river. 6. Written notice is given 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; 51 RESPONSE: Not applicable. 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; RESPONSE: Not applicable. 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100 year floodplain; RESPONSE: All work will take place outside of the 100 year floodplain. 9. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within 15 feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. RESPONSE: Staff visited the site and confirmed that the property does not have a distinct "top of slope", therefore, no development other than approved native vegetation planting shall take place within 15 feet of the high waterline. 10. All development outside the 15 foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a 45 degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. RESPONSE: The attached site section shows the development's compliance with this requirement. 11. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall limit new plantings outside of the designated building envelope on the river side to native riparian vegetation; RESPONSE: The site plan includes the existing landscaping. A more detailed landscape plan shall be approved by the Parks Department prior to issuance of any building permits. Only approved native vegetation may be planted. 12. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope; RESPONSE: The applicant agrees to comply with this requirement. 61 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 elevations above sea level; RESPONSE: See attached application (Exhibit `B"). 14. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. RESPONSE: The proposed envelope avoids any wetland or riparian areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ADU and the stream margin review with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restrictions by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory units meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer; and �-A verified b the Housing Office to ensure compliance with B. Kitchen plans shall be y g p specifications for kitchens in ADUs. 2. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. 35 sound attenuation requirements. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Department shall inspect the unit to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. If the accessory dwelling unit is prohibited by the subdivision, the applicant must provide the applicable cash -in -lieu payment to the Housing Office prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence. 5. All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on -site. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department. Tree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 6" caliper. 7. The building envelope shall be amended to exclude the existing trees. No vegetation shall be manipulated outside of the envelope, and the envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any building permits. 8. Silt fencing shall be used during construction to prevent runoff from disturbed soils from entering the river. Revegetation is required for any disturbed soil on the site. 9. If dedicating a fishing easement along the river, the applicant shall contact the Parks Department to determine the appropriate location. 10. The applicant shall abandon the existing water line on the property if the new residence will not be constructed within 6 months after, the existing residence is demolished. 11. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for an ADU and the stream margin review at 1470 Red Butte Drive with the conditions as outlined in the Planning Office Memo dated April 2, 1996". Exhibits: "A" - Referral Comments "B" - Application Packet 7 VIHM CD ' �t% Ud; LbK'l 3-F EXHIBIT A N 1i TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Dept, DATE: March 25, 1996 RE: Silverman Conditional Use for ADU Palm ID No. 273"13-02-003 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting to build an attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The unit is proposed to be 100% above grade. BACKG-MUND: The size of the accessory unit falls within the guidelines of the Code: Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (WO) square feet of allowable floor area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet of allomble floor area. The unit shall be deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied unita and shall be limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the eocessory dwelling unit. The kitchen Must also be built to the following specifications: logtq= - For Accessory Dwelling Units and Caretaker Dwelling Units, a minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a S-rvbic foot refdgeraWr plus freezer. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval as long as the following conditions are met: 1. the kitchen is as stated above; and 2. an accessory dwelling unit deed restriction needs to be recorded before building permit approval; this form is provided by the Housing Office. Vabrmhshimn.adu MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Michaelson, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: March 29, 1996 RE: Silverman Stream Margin Review & Conditional Use for ADU Review We have reviewed the application submitted by Stan Mathis on behalf of Dr. Barry Silverman. The site plan drawing shows several existing trees in the back yard of the existing house. There are no specified diameter sizes for these trees however, upon viewing the property from the road they are all over code and must be protected during demolition and new construction. It is difficult to determine from the drawings whether the new construction will change the grade around the furthest western tree (by the 7715 topo line). It shows stairs going down to an apparent lower patio? We would recommend this tree be protected during construction by placing snow fencing or other such barrier around the dripline of the tree and no digging to occur within this area. This may require reducing the development envelope to accommodate this tree and the other tree shown within the development envelope. The other request we have is for a fisherman's easement to follow the 100 year flood boundary across the property, east to west, and continue down to the property boundary in the river. CC: Ross Soderstrom, Engineering Department Slvr_SMR.doc Attachment 8 County of Pitkin } } State of Colorado } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS SECTION 6-205.E. being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the me day of lycSr'col , 199CP (which is days prior to the public hearing date of 14 11 2jllr 10 ) , 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 Z2 day of , 199C, to the day of 199�1, . (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date) . hereto. A photograph of the posted sign is ed a Signatur Signed before me this gy- 'W— 1 1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL—B-YAL My ' ' pmmI on expires • o�?�Z Notary Public 3. Subdivision applications only also require notice by registered mail to all surface owners, mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners of the subject property. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the.date of public hearing. /das:city;at7 p� LAM �C AMION FORM EXHIBIT 'G 1) Project name 51L=\l ` ri 1 DSW C - 2) Project Location 1 q O t�s b 5010-` Opl u e.- LOT S, U IS I OQ A6PE1,-.4 , G4LO , (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropri.: ;:e) 3) Present Zoning P .0 4) Lcat Size 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone btu , 15,E 1:� FAY S� L 0 6W A Q C,0/0 57A-W - MA1- c 1 c;, 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phav-,- � �JTAc N i ' 1��C�'�'�� " 1� �� 157QK 1 q 1 `Z 7) Type c f Application (please check all that apply) : X Conditional Use Ctrj=eptual SPA Conceptual l Historic Dev. Sr -al R.e-,rlew Final SPA Final Historic Dcv. 8040 Gr enline Conceptual FM Minor Historic Derv. Stream Margin Final PUD Histtor3-c Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision HisDesignation _ Condon i n i i nn i 7ati on Text/Map AIIn.�nt al:�S Allotment Lat Split/rat Line (IMQS Exempt --ion Adjustment 8) DeS. =i'pt-i.an of Exi ; i ng Uses and type of ems. a ; approximate sq. ft. ; rx=ber of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to t� Prope'Y) - 9) De_=ipt i.on of Develcpmerit ApoLicati cn �i'IS 15 �Aa)=400 , At�-oU-) ,tea , t:2- U . 5,W0 vJ�C�A # -5TKEAH Mf�Kc:�IQ K5VZ�O 10) Havp you attar the folloc.rir�g? Response to Attacime-►T t 2, Mi n i ra nn Suhm i_ss ion Corrtents Response tro Atrrt 3 , Specific lizn on �s Pes-ponse to At'ta.c.tmor--^.t 4, Review Standards for Your Application ncent J. Higens �sident PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303-925-1766 : 303-925-6527 FAX 300' OWNER'S LIST Christina Davis Vice President Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list of property owner's within three hundred feet of LOT 2, BLOCK 1, RED BUTTE SUBDIVISION, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls. NAMES AND ADDRESSES TAX SCHEDULE NUMBER -------------------------------------------------------------------------- JEANETTE OGILVY 2735-013-02-004 1490 RED BUTTE DR. ASPEN, CO 81611 ROLAND FISCHER GERTRUDE FISCHER 12035 APPLEWOOD KNOLLS DR. LAKEWOOD, CO. 80215 DONALD LEFTON IN FISHER & LON TABATCHNICK -)0 MARY ST. MIAMI, FL. 33133 MARTIN KELLER FLORENCE E. KELLER 13880 WIDE ACRES RD. GOLDEN, CO. 80401 CHUCK BELLOCK MADELEINE MORRISION 1400 28TH ST. BOULDER, CO. 80301 TIMOTHY J. FORTIER LISA A. FORTIER 1465 RED BUTTE DR. ASPEN, CO. 81611 SHIRLEY G. CLEVELAND 1445 RED BUTTE DR. ASPEN, CO. 81611 J 2735-013-02-002 2735-013-02-001 2735-013-02-006 2735-013-02-007 2735-013-30-003 2735-013-30-002 ZURCHER P. PAEPCKE HAMILTON A. PAEPCKE BRUL A. PAEPCKE J FAMILY FARM RD. WOODSIDE, CA. 94062 MARJORIE B. STEIN STEIN & ZULFER TRUSTEES P.O. BOX 1047 ASPEN, CO. 81612 PARK TRUST LTD. P.O. BOX 9405 ASPEN, CO. 81612 2735-011-00-002 2643-354-00-001 2735-024-00-001 AUTHORIZED SIGNATIFIE CDMMI��II'i`t' h�V�llol�ME.{��4T 1 © S. C4ALS1�� Cv-r(z5Z7 -.1 AsPew,6owpt4 ct) 5 140 11 I '? Arlo t, AV E, MAKO- vi ON Pe�\JIS 17W) AT 14-4?c) RSP ��UTIE, t2F-4UF.:O'. N -A� Hs- PFOFbs66 -ro FDUILC� A Nvr-.k 15ZDo.+W m gp,�q�e -T 4 L450 tt.,l cWrvZ A A--r-r-4-^-L-Lrn Pw5u..it.Jr-4 uNrr OP., Ul) SSG V-6-rvlO CF ULAIIONS 111PE f;m lolke K5-�OtQ6S )46 w 2-4-7-50� P;�60 t of -,* �1191MUM wr3m)e-7slcQ Pon ATT7k AW W*4 C)MONJAL O�?6 "'f* '5) "F, Fovsg:-7e, NY—) _-y COQi) tR HAI TO Wluu KlaT EE R4,L",�ISMP SY PEVELOPMUZ - 16 QCo CSu�L-ORMVOT 4��— 't� -pr Tb &1+1S CD$X 700AL.- U45E lt� ccoJS611�OT w III+ AREA cc .Nezi u s IBC• , ra c.�.� 'T�-4 Wt'r4 �-K& qZJq t-tgOPZF4 oop Gi"fi-41S C�.�ITI�N�_��'t�-f►�- � _C�7Nc�K1•� o� -I�HS ��71�►J �� Q�12� , -- - ��ITfIS C4:%1PITIC.]ArL USE COMPLIES WI'fU ALL ��if�fY�dV3D� A.t.'1h ►. r rJ �� '�'r G �` ';111 �C rat ` Si CITY OF ASPEN WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT Conceptual Land Use Application Requesting Approval for: SPA Amendment #2 Subdivision GMQS Exemption Conditional Use Special Review 8040 Greenline Review March, 1996 Submitted To: City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Applicant: City of Aspen Asset Management Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 1 CONSULTANT TEAM Land Planning: Thomas G. Stevens The Stevens Group, Inc. 312EAABC Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)925-6717 Architecture: David Gibson Gibson Reno Architects 210 East Hyman, Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)925-5968 Civil Engineering: Jay Hammond Schmueser Gordon Meyer 118 West 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 2 CITY OF ASPEN WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT Conceptual Land Use Submission SECTION NUMBER I. INTRODUCTION Il. EXISTING CONDITIONS III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - WATER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS A. Development Program B. General Site Improvements/Public Facilities 1. Access 2. Utilities a. Water b. Sewer C. Private Services IV. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT A. Development Program B. Unit Categorization and Sales Rates C. Architectural Description D. Deed Restriction E. Site Capacity F. SPA Development Data G. Conditional Use Within PUB Zone I. General Site Improvements/Public Facilities 1. Access 2. Grading and Drainage 3. Landscaping 4. Easements 5. Open -Space 6. Utility Service a. Water b. Sewer C. Private Services 7. Recycle/Trash Collection 8. Outdoor Lighting 9. Parking J. Homeowners Association K. Internal Road Revisions 3 L. Requested Variances M. Construction Schedule V. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS A. SPA (Section 7-804) B. Subdivision (Section 7-1001) C. GMQS Exemption (Section 8-104c) D. Conditional Use (Section 7-301) E. Special Review (Section 7-404B) F. 8040 Greenline Review (Section 7-500) V. MAPPING 1. Existing Conditions Map 2. Specially Planned Area Map 3. Doolittle Drive/Water Plant Improvements Site Plan 4. Affordable Housing Site Development Plan 5. Lower Doolittle Drive Roadway Plan 6. Doolittle Drive Station 0 - 19+18 (Profile) 7. Utility Plan 8. Utility Plan 9. Grading and Drainage Plan 10. Landscape Plan 11. Architectural Renderings 12. Architectural Unit Plans 13. Architectural Unit Plans 14. Doolittle Drive Elevations 15. Architectural Elevations 16. Architectural Elevations 17. Site Sections VI. EXHIBITS 1. Application Form 2. Pre -Application Form 3. Letter of Authorization to Represent 4. Deed 5. List of Adjacent Owners 6. Engineering Report 7. Subsoils Study 8. Phase One Environmental Site Assessment 4 INTRODtJCTION This application submitted by the City of Aspen Asset Management Department (herein after referred to as the Applicant) requests Conceptual Submission approval for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Water Place Affordable Housing Development. The specific areas of requested approvals are as follows, • SPA Amendment #2 to Lot #4, City Thomas Property • Subdivision • GMQS Exemption • Conditional Review • Special Review • 8040 Greenline Review All relevant provisions of the Code with respect to these review requirements have been included within this application. The SPA portion of this application will seek to amend the Lot 4 City Thomas Property SPA Amendment #1 dated 3/27/84 which granted approval the City of Aspen water plant facility and accessory uses. This 100% affordable housing component of this development proposal will house only the employees of the Applicant and shall comply with all regulations set fourth within the 1996 Affordable Housing Guidelines and the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations. The Applicant currently owns the property which is zoned Public. The Parcel has not merged with any adjacent tract. While the Applicant has attempted to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of this application, questions may arise which result in staffs request for additional information and/or clarification. The Applicant will be pleased to provide such information as may be required in the course of this application review. 6 11. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is located at the end of Doolittle Drive within the City limits of Aspen, south of the Castle Ridge Housing complex. The property proposed for construction comprises a portion of Lot 4 of the City owned Thomas property as defined in Amendment 1 to the SPA Map dated 3/27/84. Lot 4 currently comprises 54 acres and this proposal would utilize approximately 4.95 acres for the residential development. Construction of the two storage structures and road re -alignment by the City of Aspen Water Department is proposed to occur on the remaining 39 acres. A. Site Access; Access to the site is via the existing Doolittle Drive which intersects with Castle Creek Road. During the construction of the Health and Human Services Building, the intersection of Doolittle Drive and Castle Creek Road was improved to accommodate additional traffic. Doolittle Drive was also improved during the construction of Twin Ridge by widening the pavement up to the Twin Ridge Drive intersection. The remaining section of Doolittle Drive from Twin Ridge Drive, approximately 560 feet, has not been improved. The gradient at centerline is in excess of 10% in some places and pavement width varies from approximately 14 to 20 feet. Castle Creek Road then intersects with Maroon Creek Road and immediately again with State Highway 82. Castle Creek Road from the Doolittle Drive entrance to the intersection of Maroon Creek Road comprises approximately 2,000 linear feet of two lane roadway with a pavement width which varies between 24 and 26 feet. The roadway currently meets Pitkin County Class III local Access Standard with two I 1 foot lanes, one to two foot paved shoulders and additional gravel shoulders 7 from 6 inches to 4 feet in width. Current design capacity of the existing road pursuant to Pitkin County Standards is between 700 and 1,100 vehicles per day with a suggested speed of 35 miles per hour. The Lower Castle Creek Road (between the Aspen Valley Hospital campus entrance and the intersection with Maroon Creek Road) is also encumbered with intersections accessing the Aspen Valley Hospital campus, Meadowood Subdivision, the Pitkin County Assisted Living Facility, and the Marolt Ranch Housing Project. Current traffic volumes on the Lower Castle Creek Road, based on the traffic count study undertaken by Pitkin County in September of 1993, show a 24 hour traffic volume for that date of 5,333 vehicles at the Maroon Creek intersection. Converting this figure to annual average daily traffic (AADT) utilizing the Pitkin County AADT adjusted factors results in an AADT for Castle Creek as of 1993 of 4,335 vehicles per day (VPD). The Colorado Department of Transportation installed a traffic signal at the intersection of Maroon Creek and State Highway 82 in the summer of 1987, and has resulted in significant improvements to the level of service of that intersection. The Maroon/82 intersection now functions at a level of service "C" (stable flow) with only intermittent queuing problems for traffic attempting to turn left onto Maroon Creek Road from the highway, or turn left onto the highway from Maroon Creek Road. The existing Maroon/82 intersection is currently constrained by two major factors including proximity to the Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road intersection and to the limited queuing capacity of the left turn lane from Maroon Creek Road onto Highway 82. Source: Schmueser Gordon Meyer Engineering Report, March 23, 1995 8 B. Existing Uses The subject property currently contains the City of Aspen water plant facility, accessory structures and one residence. As this facility has public security concerns, the facility is fenced off from the public. The specific structures are five buildings associated with the existing water treatment plant, raw water reservoir, treated water reservoir and a backwash pond, a maintenance building, and one residence. Storage of related equipment currently occurs on the property but only on a limited basis within specific structures and primarily outside. The proposed location of the affordable housing currently serves as Water Department and Electric Department storage. This storage location is proposed to be relocated to a new location as described in Section III, Proposed Development. C. Utilities; The City water main lines originate at this site and their location and size have been represented on the Existing Conditions Map. The proposed development site is located on the boundary of the City's gravity system and the pumped pressure zone for Meadowood. An existing 8 inch main line located within Doolittle Road will provide service for the upper 12 units while service to the fourplex will be provided from an existing gravity line connecting Castle Ridge to Twin Ridge. Sanitary sewer service exists to the site via a line which is located existing the Castle Ridge site, and running up the steep slope to the subject property (again, this is represented on the Existing Conditions Map). As this is a service line only, a main line extension will be required originating at the upper loop of the Castle Ridge site. 9 101 M Private utilities are all located within the subject property (see Engineering Report, Exhibit 6). Vegetation; Vegetation on the site is limited primarily to scurb oak with some aspen and cottonwood. In the location of the proposed residential development, only scrub oak is found. A natural clearing is found at the site for the single family homes and the duplexes and only limited vegetation will need to be removed. The lower site where the townhomes are proposed is vegetated with scrub oak. Soils, Hepworth Paulick Geotechnical has prepared a Phase One Environmental Audit. This has examined the soils for any contaminates. See Exhibit a. 10 111. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - WATER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS A. Development Program The proposed development program calls for the construction and or expansion of the following existing facilities; 1. Reservoir expansion; The existing raw water storage reservoir, if dredged, has 15 acre feet or approximately 4.88 million gallons of holding capacity. The City's current peak day demand ramps up to 8 million gallons per day. Therefore, there is a need for the expansion of this reservoir in the near future to provide maximum daily demands. This will require the reservoir to be doubled in its current size to maintain continuous feed to the water treatment plant. 2. Second floor office expansion of approximately 2,000 square feet above the existing west plant and office building to include 5 office spaces, reception, men's and women's restrooms, conference room, records storage and map layout and work space as well as a new entry lobby. construction to the existing first floor will contain remodel of the main floor office space, new showers and locker room, new meter shop, new main entry and demolish the existing chemical feed room, 3. Interior remodel and reorganization of the east plant consisting of a new lunch room, remodel of the existing control room, new office space, and -remodel of the existing shop space, 4. The existing 250 square foot chlorine storage building will be expanded by approximately 250 square feet to house a 1 ton chlorine scubber. 5. Expanded electric shed to include approximately 450 additional square feet added to the south end of the existing 1,100 square foot structure. This structure will be used to store Electric Department equipment and 11 E materials. The expansion will be constructed of metal to match the existing building. the only utility servicing the building will be electric. 6. Construction of new transformer storage yard to consist of grading a level platform only located adjacent to the electric shed. 7. Construction of a new Water Department storage building consisting of approximately 4,400 square feet and will be constructed of concrete block with a metal roof. The front elevation will have standard bays with overhead doors in front of each bay. The purpose of this building will be for Water Department vehicle and equipment storage. The only utility servicing the building will be electric. 8. Designation of site for future storage building of approximately 2,000 square feet in size 9. Additional surface parking and approximately 12,000 square feet of construction material storage to be located in two storage bins constructed of three concrete block walls and a concrete floor, 10. Associated infrastructure improvements as described below in Section III, B., 11. Water Plant Emergency Response Building consisting of a 500 square feet, one story building located at the south end of the affordable housing parking lot. 12. Security fencing consisting of chain link fencing around the water plant facility and green vinyl rapped chain link fence adjacent to the affordable housing. Fence height will be eight feet. All improvements have been described in greater detail in Exhibit 12. See Water Plant Improvements Site Plan, Sheet 3 of the drawing package for location of all improvements. 12 B. General Site Improvements/Public Facilities 1. Access Doolittle Drive will be improved from Twin Ridge Drive to its completion at the Water Plant. Platform and pavement widths will be increased with asphalt width proposed at 22 feet. Gradient will be decreased to a maximum of 10%. Lastly the curve radius at the lower switchback will be increased to 100 feet making all design criteria meet City standard. This is described in greater detail in the Engineering Report, Exhibit 6. 2. Utilities 1. Water, A 12 inch diameter raw water line will be extended from the vicinity of the west treatment plant in the same trench as the relocated 24 inch line and capped beyond the limits of the housing project for future extension into the Meadowood area. Also, the 8 inch diameter pressure line that will be tapped to serve the housing project will also be extended at its south end to add a fire hydrant at the treatment plants and provide pressure service to the plant buildings. 2. Sewer; An extension of the sewer line, probably in a 6 inch diameter size, to replace the current 4 inch service to the treatment plant site will be installed. This line represents about 600 linear feet of additional construction and is shown on the utility plans along Doolittle Drive from the housing site up to the plant area. 3. Private Utilities; Improvements no proposed in the upper plant site area will require minimal service which is available on site. 13 IV. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT A. Development Program The proposed development program calls for the construction and sale and or rental of twenty two fully deed restricted affordable housing units plus the renovation, deed restriction and sale and or rental of one existing unit for a total of twenty three units. Six units will be in single family detached configuration while seventeen units will be in townhome configuration. Included in the development program is all associated infrastructure development and the demolition of the existing storage structure on the development parcel. The program outlined in Table One is the result of a survey of City employees. The survey resulted in a significant revision in program from that originally proposed by the Applicant. Specifically, the proportionate share of single family detached units has dropped in favor of smaller attached units which will sell for less money. Additionally, after several meetings with City Planning and Zoning commissioners and City Council members, the overall site plan has been revised to not only accommodate the revised program but represent a more pedestrian oriented neighborhood. Density has been reviewed in great detail, as has program, and has been revised. The original application requested approval for sixteen units while this addendum to that application revises the density to twenty three units. Clearly, any development represents impacts to the project site, the surrounding neighborhood and to the community at large. The proposed development site represents relatively little impact when compared to other developments due to existing transit services, existing infrastructure, 14 extremely low visibility from off site and compatible adjacent land uses. Impacts will be realized to the existing City of Aspen Water Facility and the adjacent housing projects due to increase traffic. This is mitigated however with the improvements proposed to Doolittle Drive and the inclusion of a van pool service. This will not eliminate the impacts, but will instead minimize them. Offsetting these impacts will be the fact that twenty three families, including emergency response personnel, will be housed within City limits. Currently, several emergency response personnel, specifically water facility employees and police, live outside the range of adequate response time, endangering the community. Having these personnel on site will significantly benefit the community. Additional benefits to the community will be realized through housing City employees. This development will allow the City to keep employees it otherwise could not keep, and attract employees it otherwise could not attract. With these community benefits in mind, as well as the limited impacts, it became apparent to all that participated in the design process (City P&Z, City Council, City Staff etc.) that the density on this site should be maximized. As a result, the development program has been revised to a total of twenty three units. While maximizing the density was a goal of the design team, accommodating neighborhood concerns was equally important. For this reason, the units located on the lowest portion of the site (at the intersection of Doolittle Drive and Twin Ridge Drive) have been relocatc to the upper portion of the site. This will eliminate the perceived density between Castle Ridge and Twin Ridge and provide perpetual open space between those two developments. 15 Lotting for the proposed units has been represented on the Lotting Plan contained in the attached plan set. All units will be on individual, fee simple, lots which will transfer at sale with the unit. Table One Development Program Unit Type Total Units Bdnns/Unit Total Bdrrns SF/Unit Total Living Total Gar/Stor SFD "A" 2 3 6 1092 2184 800 SFD "B" 1 4 4 1400 1400 400 SFD "C" 2 4 8 1568 3136 800 Duplex "D" 3 3 9 1098 3294 675 Duplex "E" 3 2 6 936 2806 675 Townhouses: 2BR "F" 3 2 6 902 2706 675 1 BR "G" 5 1 5 748 3740 1125 Studio "H" 3 1 3 600 1800 675 Totals 22 47 21,066 5,825 B. Unit Categorization Unit categories have been proposed after review with the Housing Authority, that provide the City the greatest flexibility for future sale. The proposed Resident Occupied category is not intended to allow for greater sales prices, as the units will be sold at cost. Additionally, the standard appreciation cap as defined by the Housing Authority will be- applied. The proposed categories for units are as follows in Table Two. 16 Table Two Unit Categorization Unit Type Number of Units Category Single Family "A" 2 RO Single Family "B" 2 RO Single Family "C" 2 RO Duplex " D- 3 RO Duplex "E" 3 RO Townhouse "F" 4 Cat. 4 Townhouse "G" 4 Cat. 4 Townhouse "H" 3 Cat. 4 C. Architectural Description All units have been designed to maximize their association with the neighborhood. The addition of front porches which are accessed from a common pedestrian walk will provide areas for neighbor interaction as well as the ability to sit and watch children at play in the open space area. Additionally, private space to the rear of each unit has been provided which leads to the existing native landscape. The orientation of the units maximizes solar exposure with all units facing south. Units have been designed with maximum glazing on the south facing elevation for maximum solar gain. Energy efficient insulation packages, heating systems and low flow water appliances will add to the overall efficiency of the development. Exterior materials for the units will be horizontal wood siding and asphalt shingle roofing. 17 Massing of the units has been lowered to one story on the project exterior elevations to minimize the perceived mass. On the project interior, the addition of porches will further reduce the scale of the front elevation. Unit locations have carefully avoided the existing mature scrub oak to provide a visual screen from off site views. The floor plans and elevations for all units as well as perspective sketches of the neighborhood have been provided in the plan set as well as reduced versions as follows. D. Deed Restriction As previously stated, all proposed units will be fully deed restricted in compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Office Master Deed Restriction in effect at the time of approval. This master deed restriction will then be converted to the individual deed for each property at the time of sale and recordation of the deed. A draft of the Master Deed Restriction will be provided at Final Submission. E. Site Capacity The original application proposed development on both the upper and lower portions of the development parcel. Through neighborhood input, development of the lower parcel has been abandoned. All development is now confined to the upper parcel. This parcel consists of approximately 4.58 acres which includes .86 acres of road right of way leaving 3.72 net developable acres. This yields a net unit per acre of 6.18 and a gross of 5.02 units per acre. As previously stated, six units are in single family 18 detached configuration and seventeen units are in townhome configuration. As a comparison, the adjacent Twin Ridge development represents a gross unit per acre of 5.55 (25 units on 4.5 acres) while the adjacent Castle Ridge apartments are considerable higher. For this reason, the 5.02 units per acre of the proposed affordable housing development is similar or less than the density of adjacent developments. The range of recently developed projects within the City of Aspen is 3.84 units per acre at Williams Ranch (predominately single family detached) to 33 units per acre at the West Hopkins development (all townhomes). F. SPA Development Data Lot 4, City Thomas property, SPA Amendment 54 Acres Residential development parcel, SPA Amendment 2 4.58 Acres Total R.O.W. 0.86 Acres Open Space (dedicated common) 1.25 Acres Impervious Surface (roads, drives, buildings) 0.75 Acres Private Open Space (less dedicated common, R.O.W., and impervious surface) 1.72 Acres Maximum-F.A.R. 0.45 Maximum Building Height (to midpoint) 25 feet Parking 2.17/unit G. Conditional Use Within PUB Zone Pursuant to the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations, affordable housing is a Conditional Use within the Public Zone District. the specific requirements have been addressed within Section IV., Review Requirements, D. Conditional Use within the original application. 19 N. General Site Improvements/Public Facilities 1. Access Access to the development parcel is via existing Doolittle Drive. In its existing condition, Doolittle Drive does not meet City standards for pavement width, gradient, and turning radii. To accommodate the proposed development, the Applicant has submitted plans for re -alignment and widening of the road. These improvements will bring Doolittle Drive into 100% compliance with City standards. These improvements have been described in detail in the attached Engineering Report. Maintenance of Doolittle Drive currently is sufficient for Water Facility operations but not adequate for residential purposes. Upon development of this proposal, the road will require an increase in maintenance consistent to that of residential neighborhoods. Off site impacts and improvements have been addressed within the attached Engineering Report. These improvements have been defined for lower Castle Creek Road as well as the Maroon Creek/Highway 82 intersection. As a result of studying these required improvements as well as the existing and projected traffic counts, a pro-rata share of the traffic impacts have been assigned to the proposed development. The Applicant will pay the pro-rata share of these improvements which is estimated to be $5,052.63 (see Engineering Report). 20 2. Grading and Drainage Due to the existing nature of the site, being on a minor ridge and knoll in an area that accumulates little runoff volume under natural conditions, the Water Place housing development will not result in any changes to historic runoff patterns or volumes in the area. This has been addressed in detail in the attached Engineering Report.. 3. Landscaping Landscaping will be provided for all units as well as common areas. The main element of this landscaping will be a water feature located within the landscaped common area. This water feature will pick up existing surface, untreated water, divert the water to the stream shown on the Landscape Plan and return the water to the existing channel. Plant material along this water feature consist of native material such as red twig dogwood and cottonwood. Landscaping will consist of native seed mix with wildflowers in the outlying areas with scrub oak, aspen and serviceberry. Areas adjacent to the units will receive bluegrass seed (we are currently investigating a drought tolerant fesue that performs like a lawn when watered and mowed but requires much less water to replace the bluegrass), shrubs such as wood's rose, alpine current, potentilla and snowberry as well as aspen and flowering crabapple. See Landscape Plan. The proposed landscaping will provide "starter" landscapes for each unit that can be added to by the owner. However, adequate plant material and ground cover will be provided so no additional work will be required if this is not in the interest of the owner. Space will be provided within each lot for a garden and owners will be encouraged to take advantage of this space. 21 Screening the view of the parking lots from Doolittle Drive will be accomplished by sloping the parking lot to decrease finish grade by two feet below natural grade in the area closest to Doolittle Drive. Additionally, a two foot berm will be graded into the space between the parking and the road. This will provide four feet of overall grade barrier between the parking and the road. Trees and shrubs will be located in the area of the berm to further screen the parking. 4. Easements All existing easements have been shown on the SPA Plan while new easements have been shown on the Site Development Plan and the Utility Plan. 5. Open Space Within the development parcel, dedicated common open space has been provided. This space provides a pedestrian link to all the townhome units while providing a play area for children. Kitchens within the individual townhome units have been oriented to the open space for ease of supervision of children at play. The paved walk has been designed to allow for bicycle riding, rollerblading etc. in a loop configuration without having to go out onto the street. A central water feature will provide an amenit: for residents and has been landscaped with natural riparian vegetation. The balance of the landscaping within the open space has been left open with grass only to allow for active play/recreation. Included in the dedicated common open space parcel is the parking for the townhome units. Each units is provided two parking spaces, one of which 22 is covered, with an enclosed storage unit. Additionally, three guest spaces have been provided. Van pick up, trash dumpsters and mail lock boxes have been located within this parcel. 6. Utility Service a. Water The site is located on the boundary of the City's gravity system and the pumped pressure zone for Meadowood. Service to both the townhome site and the single family detached units will be via a main extension from and existing 8 inch diameter main line located in Doolittle Drive that is fed from the pressure side of the Meadowood pump station. The proposed service is described in greater detail in the attached Engineering Report. At this time, the Applicant is looking into the potential of providing raw water rather than domestic for irrigation purposes. b. Sewer Service will be provided to the proposed development via a main line extension of approximately 825 feet to an existing collection main located in the east end of the upper loop of the Castle Ridge housing site. A proposed sewer main extension is shown in the attached Utility Plan. The proposed service is described in greater detail in the attached Engineering Report. C. Private Services All private utility services are currently located within the project site with capacity to service the proposed development. The 23 i proposed services have been described in greater detail in the attached Engineering Report. 7. Recycle/Trash Collection Common recycle and trash collection facilities have been provided for the proposed development. They have been located at the north end of the parking lot. It is anticipated that this \facility will be used by the seventeen townhomes. The single family homes will be serviced via curb side pick up. 8. Outdoor Lighting All outdoor lighting will comply with the City lighting code. Locations for outdoor lighting has been shown on the Site Development Plan in the attached plan set. Four fixtures have been located along the pedestrian walk in the open space area. Three additional fixtures have been located at pedestrian and vehicular intersection areas. While the actual lighting fixtures have not been selected at this time, it is the Applicant's intention to use historic fixtures and the lowest possible lighting levels. Specifics will be provided at Final Submission. 9. Parking/Transportation As a result of the extensive design meetings with City staff, P&Z and Council, a site plan which provided remote parking and increased pedestrian access was created. Parking for the seventeen townhome units has been located in a double loaded lot accessed from, and parallel to, Doolittle Drive which provides two spaces per unit and three guest spaces 24 This parking has been located approximately twenty five feet from the Doolittle Drive pavement edge, allowing for slight berming and landscaping to minimize the visual impact. One bank of the double loaded parking lot will be covered as well as provide storage for the residents (see Site Development Plan). Parking for the single family homes will be in garages which will hold two cars. The driveways have been sized to accommodate two additional cars parked tandem to the garage for guest spaces. Located centrally to the development is a van pick up. RFTA van pool service will be provided to the residents with service to and from the project and the City. As the residents of this development will be City employees, even though spouses or other dependents may work at other locations, a substantial number of residents will be leaving for, and returning from the same location at the same time, making this development an ideal candidate for effective van pool service. RFTA currently provides bus service to the immediate area with pick up/drop off located at the bottom of Doolittle Drive. A pedestrian link will be provided from the development parcel to this site for easy access. This walk has been shown on the Site Development Plan. I. Homeowners Association A homeowners association will be created for the maintenance of common open space areas, parking areas, roads and emergency access. Additionally, this association will pay for common trash pick up, and taxes on common space. A draft of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws were provided within the 25 3 f t original application. These will require revision for the current proposed development program and will be submitted in the Final application. J. Requested Variances As the architectural drawings represent, the units have been designed to maximize livability while provide the greatest level of efficiency within the least amount of square footage. The net livable square footage of the proposed units is less than that specified as a minimum by the 1995 Affordable Housing Guidelines. A variance is requested to allow for the decrease square footage for the following units; Table Three Unit Sizes Type Required S F Proposed S.F. Single Family "A" 11400 15092 Duplex "D" 15200 1,098 Duplex "E" 950 936 Townhouse "F" 950 902 It should be noted that the net livable square footage figures in Table One and above do not include the enclosed storage at the parking lot which is approximately 125 square feet per townhome unit. The duplex and triplex structures require a 0 foot side yard setback. Duplex structures will have one five foot side yard setback. Unit 8, the interior unit in a triplex structure will have two 0 foot side yards. This does not require a variance from the side yard setback requirements of the Public Zone District as they are set for all Conditional Uses by the adoption 26 of a Conceptual and Final Development Plan, pursuant to Article 7, Division 9, Planned Unit Development. The setbacks represented on the Lotting Plan are as follows; Table Four Setbacks Unit type Front Side Rear Single Family detached 0 0, 5 total 5 Duplex 5 05 5 total 10 Triplex 5 0 10 L. Construction Schedule It is currently anticipated by the Applicant that construction will begin immediately upon completion of the approval process and the recordation of all documents. This may permit construction to begin as early as fall of 1996. Construction will take place on one phase beginning with infrastructure and require approximately 24 months to complete. M. Fire Access/Prevention Fire access has been provided within the townhome site via a 20 foot wide dedicated fire access which loops through the site providing access to within 75 feet from the furthest point of a structure. The surface of this fire access will be made up of 10 feet of hard paving (concrete or asphalt) and 10 feet of a subsurface grass paving system. Specifications of the grass paving system will be provided to the Fire Marshall at Final Submission. All residential units within this development will contain a fire sprinkler system. 27 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS A. SPA (Section 7-804) This application requests review of Conceptual Submission. The review requirements have been met and are addressed below. The specific review requirements pursuant to Section 7-804 C & D have been addressed within the Proposed Development sections of this application. B. Subdivision (Section 7-1001) The specific review requirements pursuant to Section 7-1004 sub -section C, Review Requirements have all been addressed within the Proposed Development section of this application as well the drawing package (also see Engineering report Exhibit 6). C. GMQS Exemption (Section 8-104C) Pursuant to Section 8-104 C City Council can exempt developments from Growth Management if it complies with exemption clauses. Sub -section C of this category provides for exemption for affordable housing. Based on this provision, the Application requests exemption from GMQS based on the fact that this proposal represents 100% affordable housing. D. Conditional Use (Section 7-301) Affordable housing is a specified conditional use within the Public zone district. This application meets the standards applicable to all conditional 28 uses as stated in Section 7-304 of the Code (see Sections III and IV of this application). The production of family oriented sales units is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and Community Plan. As well, this particular location is directly adjacent to existing affordable housing (Castle Ridge, Twin Ridge and Mountain Oaks) therefore is consistent and compatible with the immediate vicinity. The design of the development has minimized adverse effect by locating units to minimize visual impacts, providing adequate parking and providing for adequate pedestrian and vehicular circulation. As presented in the General Site Improvements/Public Facilities section of this application, adequate public facilities exist to service this proposed development. Additionally the community will benefit by emergency response personnel living at this project instead of downvalley. E. Special Review (Section 7-404B) Parking, open space and the dimensional requirements governing this development are established by Special Review pursuant to the Public zone district. Parking for the seventeen townhome units has been located in a double loaded lot accessed from and parallel to Doolittle Drive which provides two spaces per unit and three guest spaces. Parking for the single family units will be provided via two car garages. Additionally guest spaces will be provided in the driveway tandem to the garage and hold two cars. 29 Open space has been provided by means of two parcels specifically designated for open space as well as all space within the individual lots less the unit and driveway. The minimum lot size for a townhome is approximately 2,000 square feet and for a single family detached is approximately 5,850 square feet. The maximum FAR based on a 748 square foot townhome on a 2,000 square foot lot is .37. The maximum building height is 28 feet measured from existing grade to half way from the facia to the roof ridge. The setback dimensions shall be per the Lotting Plan. Building envelopes have been identified rather than conventional setbacks. These envelopes will ensure that any future expansion of units does not adversely affect adjacent units. Setback dimensions can be found in Table Four of this application. F. 8040 Greenline Review (Section 7-500) Due to the horizontal and vertical location of the Water Plant property with relation to the City of Aspen, 8040 Greenline Review is required. The minimum submission requirements, while consistent with contents of other review sections, are contained within this application. The review standards are addressed below. This application requests 8040 Greenline Review approval for all deed restricted housing units as well as the Water Plant improvements. The project has been designed as a Specially Planned Area to take advantage of 30 the site and minimize the impacts of development. All new roads and deed restricted units will be constructed by the Applicant. Information as to the design of these components has been included in the application. To further minimize the impact of development on this site, all units have been reduced in size to the minimum for a livable floor plan. No development shall be permitted at, above or 150 feet (150') below the 8040 Greenline unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate to soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. This application has demonstrated the development capabilities of the proposed site. All development has been proposed within the portions of the site considered suitable for development. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. A grading and drainage plan and drainage report has been included in the Application to,the City. Based on these plans, all on site and off site drainage patterns will be preserved. Runoff generated by the proposed development will be contained and released at historic rates. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. The proposed use is strictly residential and will comply with all Clean Air Regulations in effect at the time of approval. It should also be noted that 31 the proposed development is located near an existing RFTA transit route an is within close proximity to the Aspen downtown area minimizing the requirement for auto traffic. The result of this proposed development not being constructed is that those families which would purchase and live here, will be forced down valley and must commute. This will have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. 4. The design and location of any development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Substantial effort has been made to "fit" the roads, walks and structures to the site. As the Grading and Drainage Plan depicts, this has been accomplished as grading is minimal for the construction of the road while still providing a road that meets City standard. Structures have been individually designed to their respective sites, allowing for units to accommodate grade changes. As an example, the townhome site contains approximately eight feet of grade change. The units accommodate this grade change by stepping into the slope rather than requiring a flat bench for siting of the unit. The result is significantly reduced impact to the site. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practical, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation, and natural land features. As stated above, the roads, walks and structures have been carefully designed to minimize grading. The applicant proposes to construct all deed restricted units. By doing this, the design and construction can be controlled to minimize site disturbance. The program alone lends itself to sensitive site placement, being predominately detached units and duplexes rather that multi -family. The design of the specific units, as described above minimizes grading. There is little vegetation on the site in the area of proposed development. Therefore impacts to vegetation are minimal. Large vegetation such as the mature oak have been saved as a result of the 32 location of the proposed structures. The natural land features will be preserved. Again, this is accomplished by means of sensitive architectural design and placement of the structures as well as roads. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. While the deed restricted units have been clustered into relatively tight development areas. The clustered deed restricted units are adjacent to the Castle Ridge Condominiums meaning visual impact will be minimal. As explained above, the structures have been designed to utilize the grade rather than ignore it, resulting in a proposed development that will preserve the overall land forms of the subject property. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. The proposed density decreases as the elevation up the site increases, providing more open space between structures. The structures are predominately single family detached, minimizing the bulk as compared to multi -family structures as with Castle Ridge. All structures will be a maximum of two stories. Maximum allowable building height has not been approached as the units all fall several feet short of the maximum. This has been accomplished by stepping the units into the slope and by shortening the second story wall top plates and extending the roof line. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. As Section III, Proposed Development - Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Section IV, Proposed Development - Affordable Housing Project states, all utilities are available and have sufficient capacity to service the project. 33 9. Adequate roads are available to service the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. As Section III, Proposed Development - Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Section IV, Proposed Development - Affordable Housing Project states, the roads providing service to this development parcel have the capacity to service the proposed development. Schmueser Gordon Meyer has provided a traffic impact report contained in the application. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. All roads have been designed to Pitkin County Standards for the quantity of units being served which will provide adequate service. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. The walk along Doolittle Drive will be within a dedicated R.O.W. providing public use. This proposed development has also included additional Common Space as represented in the application. These have been dedicated to public use. 34 1� City of Aspen Pre -Application Conference Summary 'roSP�- t 1 Applicants Representative Representative's I'hone Owner's Name--_L— ypc of Application Detscrip�ion Pf theVrojecit c velopment being req eXe N X r_:T l q w Planner Date' Date /0A L g610 The applicant has been requested to respond to the following items and provide the following reports: Laud Use Code Section Co[III11Clnls 7 -gam s � V,Q. Referral Agencies The review is: (P&Z only) ((CC 0111�y) (P&'Z and CC) 45&1 4csb Public Hearing: (yes)) (no) 2Cu�Q Deposit for the Application Review:APOZI 2 �� Referral agency flat fees: Eh -252 S 56 E44 --' '1'U'1'ALt)LI'USI'I'�L( 0o4 (Additional hours are billed at a rate of 163/lir.) To Apply Submit the Following liformalicm: 1. Proof of ownership. 2. Signed fee agreement. Applicant's name, address avd telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which also states the name, address and telephonc number of the representative. TOIL I deposit for review of the application aa(� n copies of the cvmplete application Racket and maps. �. Summary letter explaining the request (existing conditions and proposed uses), in street address and legal description of the property. 7. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Site plan shall include property boundaries, lot size, proposed access, and physical features drains ewa s, streams, rivers, etc. 9 G,8 t0 i 0. These items need to be subnnitted if circled: fee,, ,, r . s,,hiPrf nnhP.rty with addresses. a List of ad.iacent property owners within _r,r� 0� ,1.Tr- b. Site photos. C. Proof of legal access to the parcel. d. Historic Preservation Commission review/approval. THE CITY OF ASPEN OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Cite of' Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Aspen CO, 81611 To Whom it may concern. - The Stevens Group Inc. is hereby authorized to represent the City of Aspen on planning and zoning matters pertaining to the Water Place housing development. Sincerely, Steve arwick Assistant City Manager 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - PHONE 303.920.5212 • FAx 303.920.5119 Pnnted on recycled paper J.rcvt ULv uL........ .............Aj LiLAI n......... i.. .... .................... ......... .... ....................... Reception No ............. .............................................. .............. ....0 ...............Recorder. Made this 1.2LIj day ofF) QCc'M1)c'1',1972 ! between V I V I ANNE T110,N1AS `1 R I `IBLE Lpf the T County of and state of !�1und,6-, o(the first Part, and 'T11E CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado municipal corporation of the County of Pi t k i n and state of Colorado, of the second part, WIT\'ESSETH, That the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of iTEN DOLLARS and other good and valuable consideration -----h to the said part y of the first part in hand paid by the said part y of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, ha S remised, released, sold conveyed and QUIT CLAI:IIED, and by these presents do es remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said part Y of the second part, its bCics, successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said part y of the first part ha S in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the' County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit: See Exhibit A attached hereto. There is also conveyed all water and water rights, all ditch and ditch rights used in connection therewith or appurtenant thereto, in the ratio or proportion of 79.38/110.38 acres encompassed in the 1�larolt Ranch at the time of closing of the within sale. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoevei -f the said part of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behaof of the said part y of the second part, its Sib'rg '�rr�SLP.4 Ns forever IN WITNESS ` HEREOF, The said part y of the f'�-st p � ha S reunto set heV--hid and seal the day and year first above written. .�-.. t.. � -.. P.............:�. Z`_....`.... ...... �� ... I -SEAL] Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of IV IANNE THOMAS TRIMBLE i............................................................................................[SEAL] ................................................................................................ .......-•.........................._...--------..................--........---............ [SEAL] ............................................................... _...... .......................... ............... ............................................ .......... ... _............... [SEAL] New York STATE OF (Y XX& , ss. County of Neel York The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before aye this day of -Q 10 7 a 1.,; ` `, , ♦ ,• ,, •• ••• ,,,'. 11 '' , '1, •, •I •I '� '' r t'.i •t � r' � � .'hv-' 1'••" '•, ,' I ,/ ,• •.•I /.♦• • , 1 , , , •t , 1. , ,, , •, t •1 1 :,1 ,.•... ;•; 1.� 'r 1 , .i. r .Ire 1 '. . `i .t rti .. ,t' 1 • 1. 1• •' •,l ;/- t' • 't :'l:• '.1 't ', •1 t•'I'' r 1.1 .r•I' ,./ :'�''•�.t'I'a .l '1' 1'1 �• ; •� t rl `• .�' � • •l•�r,• • •. /. / .:r �I��}� ^y/'/y^/ •' 'i. ;t t �4' • t i, 1 ,,. .1 '\ 1, , t ✓1 ,•� J..'' • •,' ,I.r 1,•� •:;, •t• ',• November 29, 1/ 2 'I�r ,.. •' .,1,' + ^Job No 2334A ,''t,.'�;;t: 1 : • .j'`' r�'',;;' h� , ,�` �,'; , ;;;, �, ': ;.."�,:;'�''';;: Thomas Fat -ate Deacriptionoil ; t -1, i 1, ', �11 'r•'Ir'!,+ l � � �' , '.I � r ♦a � .• a! :t% ,'r�'1 , 1 ,. FXHIHTT A- '• "; of land being a'•p3rt of Lot 11 Sec. 11 T10S R85Tt 6PM described" . A tract , •• '1 1'''1 .'f• .t'as y, ,' I. oath -right of y Beginning at a point being the intersection of the S oloo State Highway NO. 82 and the West line Lot 11 Sec. llp line of Cu 6 f t • from the core Sec. 2.1 T10S R8571 6P1€, being S31 31 W 234.85 (1954 BLM Braes Cap 8 ft, along the West line Lot 11 to the Northerly ,;1 ;r: :►� .Thence So3`0o 2 9034 right of gray line of Maroon Creek RoadP 320 3 ft. along Maroon Creek Road right cC ray Theme R right of � ' Thence N00013'17 119e24 ft. Fong the Maroon Creek Road rig ,. oath right of tray line of Colo. State High�:ay No. 82, •. ., ,1 • to the S�• 0 1 glen th© South right of tray 11he of s , Thonc®• N50043 W 101 26 ft • g ' $2 tail Colo.. State Highway No. to this goint QY. b ginnings Containing � '.t,'t.:�:•', ,,�.•'t l 1, •a i•. '1 11! ''�. .n�y{�t}}� /�l e© more Vr. les�i•'. •,t, .,, I {•`,r,/ `'•' ,'i •',• `''ti;i•� •,,` It'••♦• • •`.• • •' ••, .•�••� ai►:�� .I.r;t .1', •O �347 a~ I '� 1 "i�• .t�•,••� '�• '•'i I•J•• •'f t' r• •t 1 •3 '�' �. '' \. t .. , ►:° Y i' '` , •a.••,' ,•'l }:.'.. ` �1 , t t�' '.,L t t' t'v.. ti' t{a . :�•'•' • ' �.1 1 t . ,[.r /i•Ui. •tea •I. i . , .', .I. t: l+ /"1•. .. . , .�+ 1 , 1•' •, J •, . r I .. .. .L• .11. • •• ' 1•:r♦ f ,, .1 ., ., •,; r.. 7 P.J, , r• •: .�•.� , '• 1 ' \' • • t. ,'!' •1.•'1, •�1'i., ,�1, •/ .,j ;t' yl• •' , -•. .,',� [' /' •1:''. " t�l., •1 ♦ , �' • .': 'r ,• 1• • 1 / 1 ,l ; .,I '; / '1: t:, ;,.' •.., .1 •♦ .'• 1. a � �t r►. :�• '�• f- •` •- •1 a� t`, j �• a ;' ; .�!' t. '.. , [• t' tJ' •-NIf ?' ' , .�. �i t..�.s .� t• II •,.:M.' ', t •t' ,.,, :�.tt {•t;l .rr. !1, :•'.(„ �. .h ,�•�-Il /_. Y Z" .i •l••, ' '•,••'�'• •,'. .. "+ .a' � '• ,"•{ .I �,• ',•{•�'- I a.• �. ;..Itl a, ,'"1 t .. •1•i, •'' :• ''� \• ''•ttC t, �i.'.. •�••' �/� era ''L It'�'l � •' • / • � : ''•1, •1. �. !t, •.�• t' , • .t, ••. .•,. ... 1. :1{ 1�.i'r.a�• J.J „•, ; . 1 t•'i. ' rl :/ttt.� .'' •r^,, •• .1, 1•. r{, .•t: •�' - .. :" ,� •1.•'-1: .�; Y t 'i' • I I'• S• i .t;!,',,! I' '1.'i _"••'�• -. ,'• t If •�• .1 , •ii:tt,.•• .t ,� _•i•� �'. 1 l ..la •• 'ti :l. • •' •, ,1 f • •., a. •r' t '4 .,• •'�, 1, {',r' - .\ \ •'r •1 •,'I: •' ,'. " 1'�, ' /� a,• v 1.• t • ', t •' . 1• ,1 � ' 11• '} ♦ : �.r'f.' •r••tr. t,t1.l • � . ,., ., •.5I'. .1. . • a • '�' •a` , 1 ' "" 1\ ' • t • i • •1 t• 11j ` aye/'. - ' ':.a 1 • ., t•.1 t+. ' .'. � •' 'Y.3• .i'.' �,�': r• t t, .` 1' ' ''l/ ,`'a-, : 1' ,,.. rl• t� •l.. •. ''y ' •I• :,,4 "; %t' '''\ � '1 `t - : Jai � •�r�• ,. ..�!�4 � !7.. / 'f - .� ►• '! /. ., {• 1 ,ate,•, ,' i t J.• •�. ft �.�1 .. .t' I, i'•,., .� ", •:t.%• •I'•.: ^�',,'"1 .;; .�•' i:f ,',. :i I< ..,. :i.:• .ti„••„ `t•`.v �l i', •• IN If ' '�. '/` — - •'!trl ,•.' '. .y"r �• '' r, .t�,J.r„�1:1' ,/ � '„'t\ :t 1, 1 •t' •. •r�•,,� =t• .�•,•,'► •/.,.i.'. � , a .,' t � �i. •!t 1': •.r "i •' '1! 1 •`' � i• ''a•' •,' tl•'" i� .•1 •••'I'' •'1 r '�' I '~, :a •, ./'' iy J j.•} .�'l •,. .;";i {' i , ,1' '� tl''"•.. .. '[". •`'t.�l 't. a� '1' .l :, ,; �.' '� �i'�'.t. +• t •� •�' � •t, --! ' •> • '1' 1'+ t• r• •` t�.. •' if '• ' - ' its,• { �i'- '' I„I • •• `;. ,'ir /.•ti �,,: (.,: (' I �'1'1'r ' ••.`" •'i�, ♦LI'' .•t.,, [ '� •.L.�Y��'••i-.. t' ..,• i`••` .'t•, ..1-,�•,�✓ ,t'1`�•Y,! � . • a,! .a •'•- •• L, . •.y �~ .,.. /1•', • ' ii• 'I�• 1 •1•',•/• ;t'•.1� �' 1 ar:r '.`/•!,`+, �'. ,.t• :1. 't'�. .'. t'•:, .i' '1' •i .1 ,).l! lil �t••l,\.1.,A..��.1',�. , _ �• :!� • �' �%}/. ,•' t' i aJt. �a:'1... tt.' . ' { i' '• i!,; Jlt:.. •1 t, .. 1 a bUUAP AGL ` November 29, 1972 Job No, 2334A Thomas Estate Description Land. Sale to City of ,Aspen • F JIIBIT A-2 • '' 11Vv LWj1f VL ua a�.uv� 1►Jv�. u+ � ++.+.•+..v. . Beginning at a point being the intersection of the South right of Tray line of State • Highway No. 82, and the East right of way line of the Castle Greek Road being 332.91 ft. S1003212011E from the Y14 eor. Sec. 12 T10S R85W 6PA (a 1954 ' Bureau of Land Management Brass Cap) , " thence S16036"E 135:87 ft. along the East right of nay fence: thence S20054' E 2006.31 ft. along the East right of way fence p , ` thence S320101 E 67.10 fte along the East right of way fenca, thence N180141 E 11.07.77 ft., thence N25028 1 E 715•43- ft-.. thence N21047' E 282:57 f t o, thence N100511 E .90.71 ft. to the South right of wav line of Colo. State Highway No. 82, thence along a curve to' the left, radius of 905.0 ft., a distance of 16.8 t. (chord burs S8'lo411W 413.21 ft.) along the South right of 1+ 8 f way line of Colo. State Highway No. 82, ` thence S74027117 272.30 ft. along the South right of nay line of Colo. State Highway- No. 82, `'. thence along a curve to the right, radius of 1196.0 ft., a distance of 919e54 • ft. (chord bears N83033I171 897.06 ft.), along the South right of way line of Cglo: State Highway No. 82, to the point of beginning, subject to telepl)cae9 t power, water, and ditch lines in .place, r " EXCEPT A tract of 1and formerly being Colo. Midland Rail Road Right of Play 3n Lots 8 and 10, and the SV:101w Sec. 12, described in Bk 175 -- Pg. 628 Pitkin County Records, more particularily described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of the Thomas Estate property being •' " 1823.79 ft. S400191E from the Vi cor. Sec. 12 T10S R85VI 6PM (a 1954 Bureau of Land Management Brass Cap), f.hPnnn ,S180i m 66�-r,14 ft. alone the East; line of the Thomas Estate prop©rtyp' t 11--29-72 job No. 2334A Thcc=e Mate Exhibit A-2 description cent. state roperty, .' o89011 f t. • to the East line of theTh omaH E A • j • '. • thence Sal �- E• ine of the �hemae Estate pro��yi "`' :�,. ' .. • thence 180l41Y? 131.35 ft• along the Eastl l ..� . r _ � � •t • 1. I ' thence N31021M 93.16 ft., the ri ht,' radius of 408910 fto, a distance of thence alon a curve to e 2 •) n�chord bears t115o49130�ih 16.46 ft221.14 a ciiHtanc6 0 ft. •' .' dies of 663.65 t , a curve to the right, ra •,:.' '•;^ ,, thence aloe bears NOk001tE 99.91 ft.), 100.00 ft.ctiord ,'�;, ' thence ND802019 245• 0 ft., • . Ai \ •l,• distance of 235e07 fte { : curve to thy: left radius of• 448•22 fta, a dine o4 tha L'ain► • ; thence along a cur ' o ' 23293 9 ft. � to the South right, of �� 1 1'' (chord bears N06 4l Yr line' of the railroad, _ t t ' ..Y.1.',.;+_ •, ;��,a, e t r9 distance of �3b.o7 f ' , •• '�� .. 1 � ,��;�t-. • � to the right, radiu® of 2964.Q f .e thence along a curve 6,07 t) chord bears N49 1�- 7 f . , ;•• thence N470521VI 458:00' ft • a the -••' - ' of 3'ai.l' oad »1� ,•�:I-� o �E 154;,18 ft. wo a pc;nt c the c$z,tvrl.ino of�� '. ,:•.; ;;;:. .. thence S88 ft or less. Eros the E :t ;.J•r •. being 2376 • more c. 12 (Kimberly Survey) ' 'T ' • o'r E 15t� 18 t • ,,., i� :•�,,;..::. thence Sft 88 thence S470521 E 215 goo•, r .O1 ' o f 2764 8 rt distance of 4�4 - ` {" "J'`',"►1'`�, t'• Curve to the left, radius • t • of Ihdt6�lae Estate thence along a 2034�F 453 50 ft) to the F,e►et line ft. (chord. bears S5 , propertyopert,`� :r . z;'• ' '• of the 'Tomly Estate thence. ; i,'�1 ,, •'.},a; o �� 7 5. along the East one ha -./ . . . ,l..�,ti:a,' �'. :�r: ;` : ; .' • thence . S25 28 � l40 fta • i. �®: prape��► ' :�t.•.f:. ' the FAst line of tile oma6Ei��. thence S1$ol�! 57•G6 ft. g • , .: - t '.. o' •'•� ♦ to they Point p beginrLing nni • - i �. �i'• (_\ ,• • .�.: t t•; 1. /.• `. .. , ..•�: t,"\r 1.+ - •a 1' \.•1. :''y• ••' I' ••'•lam (`'�� eQHa nett Ca ,�� + ., .�: • ., :'•.'♦`~. •�. )��. tt ' •• {/��: ■�lyp.�{♦ d•t�a' ,M�g81+ rr'+cr0ri iAo , •�•'/t. t ,1 1 .�, .'/. - L Yam. it �•�,• • �,�•/'- •••'••a. , '/ •��• ��• ' YI i/�p . • 1' ai• ,t•. t• a� ♦ ••;• �. .t•.. •.1.3�� ...' ,♦ i� t .1=• . •• �y •u.�.. ��t'/. {, •� 1 L ,; t.•; � 1. r.�• •.,•. `J �• (• 1t �'t' 1r' a� ', 't' •(• `L'(t,•1♦:�., ram• ,. '�„ r,!• ��•.�i� �,. �',/. -1 \. Jr' 'y-� �J.. ,'. •t.: :i. 't'. •.,�,. a•`i. •',.•.A �'� .,..� �� _ :r',�..:\.•„1 •►.•il�.•�, �-; �• . •i. 1 •, •�• .••1 /i,•i• �;'p• •1 `.,. j';.;:'/�'L '�, .i•; '.�; ,l-i .,! •'t.,•.. ,...,:i' ,ri i't ++.1' .1:ta ,. .• ,,. 1, •{'�. .. -5 a.t :''7� �••�. • �1 ,{ :•t `' �♦ .. F' 1'•. ;i �, �.' �,\' •'. ''.t' ..• i♦-.t� .:r(�_'�..•,:i '�•1' •tt �,'•i. 1' 1't �•tt• I ••.{-1 r''�. 1' i ,1 +•'Ja •, t' \'•a_ ri•_ ��.,4•,�:• �,. •' ••,/.t1 '.,i,�,:, li.t .. '!\4,'•j .•t � .1� �� •r•�1• •{, �1. • j1 t L..i •,•♦ . t•t -r t• ,'•\'•i4 .� ' 1,♦�,,`,. ••,•1,'`, �,'1,: •I.,'1• •t `.. :,,, ••ta•�t ,i i•If •'t'•• •' :�,��, ,,. .r'. �' i'I.' I�• ••a jil,�;. /t• , � '.a � �. ♦'' •/ � { , I '+.J a'1( ,,• .'�•.1 ' 1 t',1 { •. .li I ,.. �{� i1 �,•t•�' ''. •� '' •1 .1• .i: •••/I t 1: �j�•'t.� �,i 1,• .1,, t.• �:.!•a'I.t• ,•Ir • • ' 1 ' /. •A1. . '/...�.• r.f.� 'tt •l ••-'t '.� • �'' 'i •Ya•'1., i. , .•: •', . :, 1. ,' ��' i ••t, • �'� ''`I' 1 '' •,i "'' 1 .l '1 " • • i ' t• '' ti +, �'• •.i- � r 1-, 1 .:� .••,•, `'t'• •,1.. a�. ,,• 1.. ,. ../,., t ,t•, �. �' i. '' � 1 { �,' �, • .It a .�•�. tl� ,\� , 11'. Dec. 11, 1972 j Revises Nov. 29, 1972 . .. +• .'•� Job o --• N . 2334A Tnomas Estato Description, '�. Land Sale to City of Aspen Survey Description EXHIBIT A-3 A tract of land being part of N11k1Vf1 Lot 5 and Lot 6 of Sec. 13 and tS 'SW' Sec. 12 T10S R85r, 6PM described as follows: • Beginning at the NW cor of Sec. 13 T10S R85111 6PM- being the same corner as .. approved pp b theOffice-from- y General Land the official plat dated Novo �� 288g:.• ' whence an unapproved 1954 Bureau of Land Management Brass Cap bears . •.' N330581E 45,95 ft. , ' thence S00003',40!'E 875.00 ft` along the West line hti{ Secs. 23�� : ''. thence N90000TE 71.4.79 ft:r • '1 ; ; .. ' ;t :... thence ND0000' 208.11 ft. •, ;: : thence N90000' E 160.00 ft e thence S00000' 170.00 ft.., thence S90000 W 160.Q0. ft.' •, , _ ,, thence S00000' 38.1.1 ft.9 thence N900001E 85921 ft. ,, .'.. thence S000001 526.89 ft., �... f =. . • . .�" : thence N90000' E 24.79 f t . 9 -� ' •. , "- ' " '_ : , •";y •,' .. •. ',t • •' i thence IJ•. N00000' 120.00 ft.., - t •fir• ..I .. .r.. ,. -•• _ ..: ' thence N90o00'E 213.00 ftcF thence S00000' 300.00 ft.:_ :: ''; ,: • , , ' thence S900001W 480600 ftea thence N000.00 �.41d89 ft e, thence S90000'W 557.20 ft. to -the W line 'of .Lot 6 -See* 13, ' ' ; • .'` ': : -, -2- , KK11II /) ( • Thence S00°03140"L 1229.33 ft. along V1 lineof Lot 6 Sec. 13 to the S6c • 1.3 (1954 Bureau of Land Management Braso Cap) : • i' ; ::, �;.• Thenc© N89036 t L 671.87 f t. along the h line of the South 14W Sec, 13 to the intersection with the Ylest line of 'lie llamnouth Placer minezSal survey No. 6930 AM.,- �; '' �' ,. ;' • ' �: -,; �' Thence N440101 E 78.51 f t . along thei Nest line of the �amtnouth Placer '' •' ,• , to cor.5/01 P930 AU. 'a otone .,cor. in places ,,.� :, ,; 33 5 E 450.45 ft.i' along the Ydest line -of the Mammouth Placer to,' `• ''- '„'; ,�,: r , Ylest R,O.YI.' line Castlo Crdek Road, Thence N151J53tE 975,00 Me.along the West R , ' l®' r �, t�`' .,:�''�• .O.W. luao at Coen Roads _ Thence N09014' E 738f t Thence N07001-1W 262.69 f t. Thence ii33°27'Y1:181000 fte n • .. n n :'` n n ;.,: N.; •_• Thence N441009tW 150,70 fte.. n n : n „ e n ,'M ';' -;.;�,• :,� T,I-ence N520461W 276.67 ft. •, �,;;� �j.' ;:-:'�' . i.:� Thence N430171111.14 fto n Of n �i .f-�•• ` Thence S23°41"W"223.61 ft. to the N line of NW4 Sec. 13, ` ,�I'• '.::'�,':';;_'�; . �, ti Thence N89G52;,'l 738.67 ft. along N linef--6f Wi . 1 to t Sec 3 he point of �: :';•; ; ': beginning, Containing 57.835 Acres more or less., except that portion described " below which is -not being conveyed.**�•' + •' ' •'%''_'''•��' •'' • :r -::�� 'rl l , '►,:. • •,, y - Description qualified b ; - • ' � '` P q y intent and position of 1954 unapproved ' Hr�ss Cap.. '� ' • :',:-{ ;`: �•:�•,` ' ;''. boundaries and 1888 Sec. Q(or, as it refers to ies Af property described ' a - - •' Book 1.15 Pas 413 and Book 221 Page 10 f' e g 5 of Pitkir. Coup �y Records ' ' 1:::, ', : i-; •: -There . is m '0.212 Acre overlap of these -descriptions based on above note. "4'•�'' . ' 1' A tract of land being part, of N�'I NW- Sec•, 13 T10S R85W 6PM as follows • r Beginning at the NIY cor, of Sec. .13 T10S R85W 6PM, being the same 4''.: ,.j..cor, as approved by .the General Land Office from the Cutshaw Surve from the official ' plat dated Nov. 8, 1888,• whence an unapproved •s,„f �.' •'-,,',,',.,' :� 1954 Bureau of Land Management Brass Cap bears N 33'°58' B 45. 95 ff.. _/,;. thence -S 890.52' 9••738.67 . ft. 'long. the -North line of the NW1 Sac. • ._ �� ', . •. : �'`'" thence S' 23-°41' W 506,46 f t -- ' . thence ' 89 °52 W 534 72 N ` f't, to the West wine of the NWJ Sec. 13, •N,'00°031'4011 j'� '464.23 ft.' along .the. West line,..of 1, , NW ' .the r �' ' �''•.;�:' ' :Sec 13 -•4b` the point .-of ',be inning- containin :?86;.aGrea more,. / ,: .'. . •�•/ �•,•' •\.'; .ti .l. �. .i• '•.' •I. ill ',''•` •,• '\'•• ;{'1.\1. ��' ., . 1 •1 i •, •,1• :i MAR 21 ' 95 12 : OePM G I�B;S'�7O'N & RE � 1 - J w I low� � l c � cor-��11/ h J ♦� 0 (� P� 5 �G order No. A95-004 J ADjheXNT OWMRSNXP CUTIMATS AS,VZX TV= CpRPORAT=ON a corpo sati= organised and existing under and by virtue of the lags of the state of Colorado. ! ZRW CEATIFIRE careful and diligent search of the records ain has That it has made a Colorad office of the Clerk and Recorder for 8 or emit ee� ,or forth on the determined thmt those pereoas, t " a hen hereto and by this reference incorporated erein Exhibit A attac ®a part hereof � reflect the apparent owners0eet t the seal and mad P State of parcels and condominium units, lying thet County of Pitkin, roperty situate, lying and being in Colorado, to -grit LEGAL DESCRIPTION SET FORTR OTT THE NXXIBIT ug,i ATTACi�D XBg.ETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE INCORPORATED HEREIN AND MILDE A PART IMREOF- been reparsd for the use and bensf i Of Of ne This Cezti.ficate has RA ZS gYpRR6SLY med -applicant cant end t e City of ABpen 'in BRiiR0ID tY above as PP sA8=LZ'rY pF Tgg C01�A�C state of Colorado, TXZ L A " 8F8 PAID VOR T=9 =TtPIC,%Tg PLUS LnaTSD TO TXV , MOMIT $250*000 DASB: aadamber 22. 1994 jjPMt TZTLS CoRPORM X0 aColoradodorporatLoft MAL) , By: MAR 21 '95 12:08PM GIBSON & RENO J r11 1 ..Aw .W ... A. L I Lcr I1 MQr_ W 1 11 1 IL[. P.2 EXHIBIT "B" situated in the southwest one -quarter (n 13 4 both Of A parcel of land arter (NWl/4) of Section , Section 120 and the Northwest 10a 8 the Range 85 West of the 6th Sections being in T°aaship Colorado and besz't�g more gully principal Meridian, pitkin County► described as follows: ' nt on the Southwesterly right -of -� of CaB from Creek Begint►ing at a poi 522.4 8 feet Road, aa9.d point being South 79' l0' 17 �� Sagt pp 78) Bureau of Land Management brags uth ne85 ur�approVe rthmesGerly corner vg Sect 13 , Township 10 Bo Range for the No al Meridian; West of the 6th PrfnciP thence South 23' 41' W68t, 730.07 feet; West'534.72 feet more or less to the westerly thence North aid Section 13; Section 13, South bounda=Y the Westerly boundary of thence Southerly a1on9 one -quarter " SaBt, a, 20b . to feet more or lees► to the West nea� Land 00 03 40 a =approved 195 (W1/4) corner of Section 13, Menagemant brass capSastumen o 87 feet thence north 891361 � � ]3.0 , qS®t , 7 B . 5l feet; thence North set 450,g5 feet more or less to the WesCe=ly thence North 33 15 last, t-of •way right -of _Way line of Castle CreekRoad; and Southwesterly righ thence NOstherlY 81o� the line of Castle Crssk Road North 15 ' 5 3 � �aet , 97 5.00 feet; North 09,141 Bast, 262. 69 feet; 736-34 feet; North, 07 O1 West, North 33127f West, 180.00 feet; 0 feet; North 44`09' West, a�6,67 feet; North 5 Z' 4 6' W e s 43 ` l7 1 W4st, 111, l4 feet to the Point of 8eginn Ciq North _ MAR 21 195 12:09PM GIBSON & RENO J HN 41 14; C'(h"M HSNtN I I I LL P P. Order No. A95-004 pen/pitkin Housing Authority 10 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 eadowocd Homeowners ABSOCiatiOU Rebecca Ayerrc - Treasurer a e 'Larkspur Lane Aspen, CO 81611 amee E . Moore and Alberta L. Moore ecx 126 Woody Creek, CO 81656 trivia Rapper 1 Grove Island Drive #1501 Miami FL 33133 ward H . Nacht , Jr.. Box 405 Aspen, CO 8161; 4,s. Department of Agric 1 u Forest Service No address City of Aspen 30 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 7atricia 0. Patterson_ and Paul T. Patterso>n . D. BOX 3905 Aspen, Co 816.12 • MAR 21 '95 12:07PM GIBSON & RENO J rU 1 rJw 7J 1L c. r rri P1zrL11 I l I LC P P.1 Post -it" Fax Note 7671 cer T � Flom `rPhone � open Valley Hospital District Phone# Oa00 Castle CrQ*k Road FU# Fax# ASpen, Colorado 61611 (John Swim and Stephanie swim 433 west Sallato papen, Colorado 81611 Sherry Mikoe Tomb and William N. Tomb 112 Luke Short Court Aapen, Colorado 81611 /! Elizabeth J • Rvans 134 East Sleekertseet Aspen, Colorado 81611 .oRogemazy Strong p 0 Box 11938 61611 Aspen, Colorado 0(Philip A. a l o®mama and Barbara L . Mink 810emmU 0.0. Box 3392 Aspen. Colorado S. Burson, Jr, and Kathie L. Surson 1eorge .0. Box 9S36 Aspen► Colorado 81613 eborah Harder l20 Maple Lane Aspen, Coloradd ' 81611 hn D . Walla and Jean D . walla Too. Box 161 Aspen, Colorado 81g1Z ltRion Weil and Set®y Scheinkman Weil - p . 0 . Sox 4111 Aspen, CO 91612 obart C. Merritt and Jeanette R. Da=auer r0. Box 5046 Aspen, Colorado 81611 fleLtins s J. O i Ne i t and Sharon J. 0' Nei 1 15 a Pacific Avenue p�pen, Colorado 61611 Ian Long arLd Barbara Long 11 .0. Box $603 Aspen.., Colorado 8161,P--. MAR 21 '95 12:07PM GIBSON & REN6 JAN 30 '95 12:27PM ASPEN TITLE P.4 /B ruce L . Lee and Mark H . Gagnon 320 Teal Court Aspen, Colorado 81611 oria Conf l end and Mindy Conf lent' Q . Box 3305 61612 AaBen, Colorado �Goha L. BOYd, III and Judith K. Soyd " �� . 0.- Box 522 Aspen, Colorado 81612 ....�._____ Jaoao 8nq1 e r and JoJoanEagle= P.O. Sox 6013 Aspen, Colorado 81612 arc yiernan land Amy V , Rintoul p.0. Hox 5831otado 81654 s nowma s 6 , Co ula K`urt6 P.p, 8ox 9642 Aspen, Colorado 81612 chie S. . XaCl eon, Jr . and Ankle Maclean vArP.O. Box 1132 Aspen, Colorado $163.2 4..Ri chas d J. Magill and Linda Spada -Magill 0240 Rabbit Road Carbondale, CO 81623 an L. R a and Michael R• KaShfne r Ymki r 5 West FOanBo®816 * Aspen, Col David L. P010vin ' IG O Box 4362 ABp�, CO 81612 �aelin. M afan )Gael''and ts�6taBia 5 North Mi eet Colorado g1611 Aepas�, F=egrik BiiVes and Sllen arch Silver 4$brtcn 45 East 89th Street 10128 New York. New York rl R. 8eX9Manm,=d Catherine M. Sssgman jpK%p"w Sox 1365612 Aspen, Colors � 61 ally K Mer�rsmer attd Charles W . Mencimer sox 5 'City of Aspen MAR 21 '95 12:08PM GIBSON & RENO P.3 it Q r11 r-larrui 1 1 I Lt. P. 5 1�ro1 Suffer 4 3 7 Meadowooao 61611 va Aspen, Colord Nancy Kirsch Rubin, ifoz-�nia Los Angeles, Maryellen 1). Secrist 174 Larkspur Lane • Aspen, CO ®1612 ,Tad N . Lathrop and Stephanie M . Lathrop p ,O. Sox -i - 2779 Aspen, CO 81613 . Carol ShermanDaks, as Co -Trustees of the Daks italvin Z• Daks and Family Trust 2916 Via la Selva paloa Verdos Estates, California 90274 d �on.a 1 d F . Laug , Trusts* of the Ronald F . Laug Trust V/T/A date August ll, 1977. 12032 East Fad Road da 334D6 North palm Beach, Florida �P'.O. ary A. DuffeY Box 3652- Aspen, Colorado ichael M . Sus80" p.0. Box 295 xingsbri4q Station qro=, N'y 10463 � Yon S . PodihurSt arfd DosothY E • podhurst l 25 West Flagler Stseet Miami, FL 33130 b4arold A. Thau , and DorothY A-Thau 8 0 0 East Kopki ne , 6B4 Aspen, CO $1611 lsie P. worobec and Rum®ell N. WorcbeC �640 Oak]. glace o�illiss�►eport PA 17701 propertics, zac • I a co3.orado corporation �� 601 gaet Ryman Avenue Aspen, CO $1611 and oration �lub Properties , =ne .. a Colorado corp C l prove Isle Drive #1 cozdin3 to C°utticy Assessor's record® ) Miami rL 23133 (Ac (970) 925-67 27 FAX (970) 925-4157 March 21, 1996 Mr. Tom Stevens THE STEVENS GROUP 312 Aspen Airport Business Center Aspen, CO. 81611 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS SCHAIUESER GORDON AIEYER P.O. Box 2155 Aspen. CO 81612 �O I� W RE: City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Affordable Housing Project, Conceptual Subdivision and SPA Plan Submission, Engineering Report Dear Tom: This letter comprises an engineering report regarding the proposed Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Affordable Housing Project in Aspen, Colorado. This report is being provided in conjunction with existing conditions mapping, a Specially Planned Area (SPA) zoning amendment map, access plans and profiles and preliminary utility schematic plans for the conceptual submission to the City of Aspen review process. The Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Affordable Housing project has been significantly revised from prior iterations of the Water Place Affordable Housing project in response to input from a variety of sources including members of the public, the Planning and Zoning Commission, Water Department staff and City Council. This work represents the results of many site visits as well as discussions and meetings with project neighbors, representatives of the various utilities and our meetings with the architect and members of the Aspen City staff. Introduction The project site is located on Doolittle Drive off of the Castle Creek Road and south of the existing Castle Ridge Housing complex. The property proposed for construction of the affordable housing comprises a portion of Lot 4 of the City -owned Thomas Property as defined in Amendment 1 to the SPA map. Lot 4 currently comprises a total of about 54 acres and ne housing proposal would utilize approximately 4.58 acres including 0.86 acres of road right-of-way to accommodate 23 housing units. The proposal now comprises 23 individual sale units (22 new units and the renovation of the existing on -site residence) with a total of 47 new bedrooms in units ranging from studios to four bedrooms in size. The site plan incorporates 61 off-street parking spaces including covered "car port" spaces, garages and driveway and guest parking as well as a van shelter and pedestrian access to the bus stop at the Health and Human Services building and the Marolt property trail. In addition, the project now includes additional improvements as well as identifying future uses for the upper portion of the City's Water Treatment Plant site within the remainder of Lot 4. In part to accommodate the construction of the affordable housing and in part to anticipate future 118 West 6th, Suite 200 - Glenwood Springs, Colorado - (970) 945-1004 March 21, 1996 Mr. Tom Stevens Page 2 needs for storage by a variety of City of Aspen departments, the submission now includes: • Approximately 12,000 square feet (s.f.) of designated outside storage areas for materials storage and to accommodate materials that will need to be relocated to accommodate the housing project. • New enclosed storage building space including both a new building and potential expansion of existing storage structures. • A location for a future storage building of about 2,000 s.f. • Identification of a possible future expansion of the raw water storage reservoir. • The addition of a second floor to the west treatment plant to accommodate additional office, reception and storage space. • Revisions and additions to the plant security fencing. • Relocations and additional utility line construction up into the area of the treatment plants. • Grading of an electric transformer storage area. • Remodeling of the East treatment plant. I have endeavored herein to identify engineering related elements of the development plan and to present the results of my discussions with relevant agencies. Water We have met with Phil Overeynder and Mark O'Meara of the City of Aspen Water Department with regard to this proposal. Water Department involvement in this project is really at two levels. First, the provision of service to the proposed housing units and related water main relocations and security fencing revisions. Second, the inclusion of several improvements in the upper p. int area both to accommodate the impact of the housing project on the Water Department's operations, storage and access as well as to anticipate future needs within this revision to the SPA plan for the property. From the standpoint of service to the proposed housing units, the site is located on the boundary of the City's gravity system and the pumped pressure zone for Meadowood. Service to the 17 units located in the yard area east of Doolittle Drive would be via a main extension from an existing 8 inch diameter main in Doolittle Drive that is fed from the pressure side of the Meadowood pump station. Service to the 6 units to the west of Doolittle would also be via a shorter main extension into the cul-de-sac area. Individual tap sizes would be determined when detailed designs can be reviewed by the Water Department but I would anticipate that one tap i SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. March 21, 1996 i Mr. Tom Stevens j Page 3 per building would be needed. The townhouse and duplex units would then split into individual shut -offs and meters for each sale unit. One possible opportunity at this site would be to utilize available raw water rather than domestic (treated) water for irrigation purposes. As you may be aware, there are substantial raw water flumes that bring Aspen's water supply to this property. While we have not, at this time, looked closely at the improvements that may be required to make raw water irrigation available within the project itself, there are ditches in close proximity capable of providing the necessary flow. As you are probably also aware, the City of Aspen has a policy of waiving a portion of its water tap fees for 100% affordable housing projects. Once the Water Department has had the opportunity of establishing a specific figure from the architectural plans, it is appropriate to request a tap fee waiver through the City Manager's office. Capacity is generally available to supply the additional housing units without significant improvement to the existing water distribution system other than the extension of lines into the project site. The site is also bisected by the two main water lines into town. The current site development plan will require a relocation of approximately 350 linear feet of the westerly 24 inch diameter transmission main in the area of the single family homesites. This main will also be replaced an additional 250 feet to the vicinity of the existing 2-million gallon clearwell at the request (and expense) of the Water Department. For the general benefit of the water system, a 12 inch diameter raw water line will be extended from the vicinity of the west treatment plant in the same trench as the relocated 24 inch line and capped beyond the limits of the housing project for future extension into the Meadowood area. Also, the 8 inch diameter pressure line that will be tapped to serve the housing project will also be extended at its south end to add a fire hydrant at the treatment plants and provide pressure service to the plant buildings. - The amended SPA plan also incorporates changes within the remainder of Lot 4 for the Water Department including road realignments and regrading, construction of outside storage areas and additional storage buildings in the vicinity of the existing treatment plant. Construction of housing at the current yard site will require changes and additions to the treatment plant fencing and access gates to prevent general public access into sensitive or potentially hazardous areas. Phil has expressed a preference that pets be prohibited from the property and that pedest, an access down the hill be incorporated into the site plan. Sewer I met with Tom Bracewell of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) on March 21 st. Tom indicated that adequate capacity is available from the ACSD to serve the housing project although service to the specific sites will involve fairly extensive main construction totalling about 825 feet with manholes. An existing collection main is located in the east end of the upper loop of the Castle Ridge Housing site. A proposed 8 inch diameter sewer main extension is shown in our utility schematic and profile plans accompanying this report. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. March 21, 1996 Mr. Tom Stevens Page 4 Sewer service is available to the project subject to construction of the necessary extension, payment of appropriate tap fees (ACSD does not waive tap fees for affordable housing projects) and payment of a nominal tap fee surcharge for needed improvements to downstream lines that service this specific area. One new addition to the current plan involves an extension of the sewer line, probably in a 6 inch diameter size, to replace the current 4 inch service to the treatment plant site. This line represents about 600 linear feet of additional construction and is shown on the utility plans along Doolittle Drive from the housing site up into the plant area. Miscellaneous Utilities Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. Electric service to the Castle Creek area is provided by Holy Cross Electric Association, a rural cooperative. The main primary electric line to the Castle Creek area passes through the Water Plant property as an overhead line aligned approximately parallel to the Castle Creek Road and just to the west of the proposed units as reflected on the utility plan. Based on my discussions with Holy Cross field engineer Jeff Franke, there is sufficient capacity within the existing primary line to provide service to the affordable housing units. The only required extensions of the electrical distribution system would be buried primary lines to transformers located within 200 feet of the individual building envelopes. Service from Holy Cross would be provided subject to normal connection and meter charges as well as appropriate service agreements. Improvements now proposed in the upper plant site area will require minimal electric service which is, again, available at the site. U.S. West Communications The existing telephone feed for the City of Aspen water treatment plant currently runs through the property as an overhead line on the electric system poles. There is probably not sufficient capacity within the existing line to provide service to the housing project, although Gary Gibson of U.S. West informs me that the necessary upgrades to the main line would be undertaken by U.S. West. The only internal extensions of the system required would be underground sei ;�e lines to the individual building sites. Service would be available from U.S. West Communication subject to normal connection fees and service agreements. Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company Gas service to the Castle Creek area is provided by Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company (RMNG) with a 4 inch diameter gas line and was recently extended up the Castle Creek Road corridor to supply the Castle Creek Valley Ranch Subdivision. There is also a 1 1 /4 inch diameter line into the City Water Treatment Plant from the southwest. Ray Patch, RMNG Superintendent for the Aspen area, indicates that service capacity is available to serve the affordable housing project. Service would require extension of a gas line, probably down from the existing water i SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. March 21, 1996 Mr. Tom Stevens Page 5 treatment plant site, and service stubs with meters to each building envelope. Service is subject to normal connection charges and service agreements. Cable TV The cable TV system currently ends within the Castle Ridge Housing site directly to the north of the project site. Cable extensions of about 400 feet are required to serve the housing project. Access and Traffic Impacts Internal Roads Access to the 23 units of the affordable housing project will follow the existing Doolittle Drive that serves the water treatment plant. The existing road is 14 to 20 feet in width, has maximum grades of up to 11 % and extends some 650 feet from the existing access into Twin Ridge to the upper unit access. With the full development of all 22 new residential units, increased traffic volumes of up to 88 vehicles per day (vpd) can be expected based on Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority trip generation figures for comparable affordable residential units with an available transit option. From the intersection at Twin Ridge, improvements are recommended to improve width, sight distances and drainage on existing Doolittle Drive. Curb and gutter on both sides of the street into the property as well as borrow ditches for drainage on the uphill side of the road and culvert crossings for drainage as shown on the grading and drainage plan are recommended. We have shown a widening of the paved platform from current conditions to a 24 foot width overall to accommodate two-way traffic including trucks more easily. Some concerns were expressed at the neighborhood meetings regarding sight distances, speeds and safety issues for Doolittle Drive. Based on our discussions within the project team, we are recommending widening of the paved road section and speed limit and relevant caution signing in response to neighbor concerns. Another aspect of the current road condition to be addressed by the City of Aspen, as the project applicant, will be to improve winter plowing and maintenance practices and provide safer driving conditions for residents of the affordable housing project. The site plan incorporates 61 parking spaces to accommodate a project of 47 bedrooms or 1.30 spaces per bedroom. This ratio exceeds normal code requirements for parking spaces and should avoid guest parking along Doolittle Drive. Current plans are to improve lower Doolittle Drive to a full -width two-lane standard with a centerline curve radius of 100 feet (compared to the approximately 65 foot radius of the current road) and under 10% grade meeting the current regulations for City of Aspen streets. Traffic Generation In reviewing the potential traffic impact of the Water Plant Improvements and Affordable Housing proposal I have endeavored to assess the relative traffic impacts of the proposed subdivision as SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. ^' March 21, 1996 Mr. Tom Stevens Page 6 it relates to existing and future traffic associated with current development and build -out of the Castle Creek Valley corridor. Based on the general concerns for impacts to the Lower Castle Creek Road, as well as traffic impacts at the intersection of Maroon Creek Road and Highway 82 where traffic from Maroon Creek and Castle Creek combine at the intersection with the highway, I have attempted to compile all available, relevant data regarding traffic on Castle Creek Road itself, combined traffic impacts at the Maroon Creek/Highway 82 intersection, and needed improvements to the Lower Castle Creek Road from the hospital campus entry down to the intersection with Maroon Creek Road. As this work has shown, improvements to the Castle Creek Road have been, and continue to be, appropriate from the Hospital Campus entrance to the intersection with Maroon Creek Road where the vast majority of traffic volume is concentrated. This traffic impact report is based predominantly on a review of existing data including traffic counts generated by Pitkin County in 1985, 1990, 1993 and 1995, as well as projected traffic impacts for several projects recently completed or currently under construction in the Castle Creek Valley area, such as the Twin Ridge and Marolt Ranch affordable housing projects and the Castle Creek Valley Ranch. I have also incorporated extensive data from traffic studies dating back as far as 1981 for the Castle and Maroon Creek Road corridors as well as the intersection of Maroon Creek Road and Highway 82 and recent data from the Colorado Department of Highways draft Environmental Impact Statement for Highway 82. Existing Conditions The Castle Creek Road from the Doolittle Drive entrance to the intersection of Maroon Creek Road comprises approximately 2,000 linear feet of two-lane roadway with a pavement width which varies between 24 and 26 feet. The roadway currently meets a Pitkin County Class III Local Access Standard with two 11-foot through lanes, one to two -foot paved shoulders and additional gravel shoulders from six inches to four feet in width. Current design capacity of the existing road pursuant to Pitkin County Standards is between 700 and 1100 vehicles per day with a suggested speed of 35 mph. The Lower Castle Creek Road (between the Aspen Valley Hospital campus entrance and the intersection with Maroon Creek Road) is also encumbered with intersections accessing the Meadowood Subdivision, the Pitkin County Assisted Living Facility, and the Marolt Ranch Housing Project. Current traffic volumes on the lower Castle Creek Road, based on traffic count studies undertaken by Pitkin County as recently as February of 1995, show a 24-hour traffic volume for that date of 4,633 vehicles at the Maroon Creek intersection. Converting this figure to annual average daily traffic (AADT) utilizing the Pitkin County AADT adjustment factors results in an AADT for Castle Creek as of early 1995, of 4,123 vehicles per day (VPD) (Calculating the AADT from limited, often one -day, traffic volume information is certainly tricky. I do feel that the additional data is useful in that it indicates that the true AADT on the lower Castle Creek Road may not yet exceed 5,000 vpd.) By averaging the more recent data, it would suggest that the current AADT on the lower Castle Creek Road is probably closer to 4,675 vpd than the 5,226 indicated in my March, 1995 report regarding the Water Place project. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. I March 21, 1996 Mr. Tom Stevens I Page 7 One of the consistent features of prior traffic reports dealing with the Castle and Maroon Creek i corridors was the need for a traffic signal controlling the intersection of Maroon Creek Road and I State Highway 82. This traffic signal was installed by the Colorado State Department of Highways in the summer of 1987, and has resulted in significant improvements to the level of service (LOS) of that intersection. The Maroon/82 intersection now functions at an LOS "C" (stable flow) with only intermittent queuing problems for traffic attempting to turn left into Maroon Creek Road from the highway, or turn left onto the highway from Maroon Creek Road. The existing Maroon Creek/Highway 82 intersection is currently constrained by two major factors including its proximity to the Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road intersection and the limited queuing capacity of the left turn lane from Maroon Creek Road onto Highway 82. Traffic Impacts of the Affordable Housing Project The 22 new residential units of the proposed affordable housing project will put up to 88 vehicles per day onto the Castle Creek Road based on Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority trip ' generation figures for comparable affordable residential units with an available transit option. It is expected that peak volumes departing and accessing the project will occur during 7:45 - 8:45 a.m. for the morning peak and 4:45 - 5:45 p.m. for the evening peak with traffic from the affordable housing generally traveling in the opposite direction as the peak flows for the existing i roadway, that is, outbound to Highway 82 in the morning and inbound in the evening. We could reasonably expect, based on peak hour estimations generated, once again, by the Housing Authority, that up to 20% of the daily traffic volume, or 18 vehicles, could be expected to impact the Castle Creek Road and Maroon Creek/Highway 82 intersection during peak hours. Future Impacts on Castle Creek Road Table 1 lists the anticipated traffic impacts of several projects either recently completed, under construction or under consideration for the Castle Creek Valley. I have included estimated figures for the available units in the residential build -out category from the Pitkin County Owl Castle Maroon Buttermilk Comprehensive Plan Existing Conditions Report as prepared in 1987. 1 have reduced the number of build -out units anticipated in 1987 from 64 to 45 to account for the thirteen free market homes an 4 affordable housing units to be constructed in the Castle Creek Valley Ranch as well as a few homes recently constructed in the valley. These figures for future build -out result in a total average daily traffic volume of over 5000 VPD for the Lower Castle Creek Valley from the hospital campus entrance to the intersection with Maroon Creek Rk. ad. While this calculated traffic volume is in excess of 5000 VPD, I do not consider the numbers here precise enough to state with certainty that traffic on Castle Creek Road will, at some point, significantly exceed 5000 VPD on an annual average basis. Current traffic volumes on Castle Creek Road undoubtedly include the impacts of temporary conditions such as on -going construction in the valley that would not be a major factor at build -out. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. i March 21, 1996 Mr. Tom Stevens Page 8 Table 1 Lower Castle Creek Road Future Traffic Impacts Existing AADT, 1995 4,675 VPD Castle Creek Valley Ranch 120 VPD Residential Build -out - 45 units 430 VPD Total @ Build -out 51225 VPD While I was initially skeptical of the calculated build -out traffic figure as being somewhat low, on further scrutiny, I would note that the construction of the Health and Human Services Building represents substantial completion of the potential build -out of the Aspen Valley Hospital Campus Area. In addition, as reflected in the Owl Castle Maroon Buttermilk Comprehensive Plan Existing Conditions Report, the limited available, developable private property further up the Castle Creek Valley limits the potential for additional units as reflected in the OCMB Report. Clearly, the majority of the higher density uses are clustered in the area of the Aspen Valley Hospital, Castle Ridge Housing and Marolt Ranch Housing projects. With completion of these various developments I would consider the calculated figure of 5,225 VPD at build -out to be a reasonable estimate. Required Road Improvements - Lower Castle Creek Road Pitkin County, in their County Road Service Area Report, of 1985, identified the need to upgrade the Lower Castle Creek Road from a Class III Local Access to a Class II Collector. While the calculated traffic volumes reflected above exceed the 5,000 vpd level somewhat, in my opir'-n, the proposed upgrade remains appropriate today based on both current and projected build -out traffic counts. Utilizing the Pitkin County Road Standards and Specifications issued in December of 1990, the upgrade would be to a Class IIA Main Collector status. The Class IIA offers a design capacity of up to 5000 VPD with two 12-foot travel lanes as well as six-foot paved shoulders resulting in a very functional section for vehicular traffic, pedestrians and cyclists. While a Class I Arterial standard provides capacity in excess of 5,000 vpd, it is our belief that the additional width and pavement associated with the Class I standard would not be acceptable to the community for the Castle Creek Road and that the additional paved shoulder width does not offer significant functional advantages over the Class IIA section. With regard to estimated cost of improvements to the 2000 linear feet of Castle Creek Road from SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. i March 21, 1996 Mr. Tom Stevens Page 9 the Maroon Creek intersection to the curve at the Aspen Valley Hospital entrance, I have included the following items; 1. Stripping and grubbing. 2. Dirt work to widen the roadway platform. 3. Construction of paved shoulders. 4. Overlay (optional). 5. Drainage improvements. 6. Re -striping. 7. Engineering and contingency at 10% The total cost of these items is estimated to be $300,000. Items of particular note that are not included in the above figure include landscaping, right-of-way acquisition (given the public nature of many of the abutting properties, I have not anticipated that right-of-way would represent a significant cost) and guardrails which may be appropriate when a widened platform is constructed on the high bank overlooking the Marolt Property. We have analyzed a cost approach based on a proportionate share of road reconstruction costs for the net additional traffic volume associated with the affordable housing project as it relates to the anticipated build -out traffic volume of the Castle Creek Valley corridor. Using this approach, the affordable housing project pro-rata share would be $5,052.63 toward improvements to the lower Castle Creek Road. Potential Improvements to the Maroon Creek Road/Highway 82 Intersection The Colorado Department of Highways Draft and Environmental Impact Statement included an analysis of the Maroon/Castle intersection with Highway 82 as it related to the future four-laning of Highway 82 itself. Based on feedback from Centennial Engineering, Inc., the consulting engineers who worked on the draft EIS, the only improvement of any significance to handle projected traffic volumes to the year 2010 was the addition of a second left -turn lane for traffic turning left onto Highway 82 (down valley). One of the main reasons that Centennial Engineering recommended the addition of a second left -turn lane related to the short available length of the existing left -turn lane due to the conflict with the Castle Creek Road. More recent design work for the Highway intersection has been undertaken by our firm in coordination with Bob Fellsburg of Fellsburg, Holt and Ulliveg Consultants on behalf of the Highlands and Moore projects in .'-Ae Maroon Creek valley. Estimating the costs of improvements to the Maroon Creek Road/Highway 82 intersection is somewhat complicated due to the unknown aspects of the specific four -lane design and revised entrance to Aspen, if constructed, as well as the potential need to relocate utilities and traffic signal systems. I would certainly note that the upgrade of the intersection is not warranted at this time nor would it be warranted by the impacts associated with the affordable housing project alone. Certainly, improvements to the intersection at Maroon Creek and Highway 82 become appropriate at such time as either the four -lane is constructed or traffic volumes from the combined roadways begin to, once again, degrade the level of service of the existing intersection. Reconstruction of the Castle/Maroon/82 intersection is currently estimated at SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. March 21, 1996 Mr. Tom Stevens Page 10 $500,000.00 and could be fully funded by the Highlands and Moore projects based on current discussions within Pitkin County. Drainage I have also evaluated the affordable housing project with regard to internal drainage design. The main development site in the existing yard area sits on a minor ridge and knoll in an area that accumulates little runoff volume under natural conditions. Based upon my analysis, it is my opinion that the . project will have minimal impact on the historic drainage patterns, peak flows and runoff volumes. Currently, runoff is generally west to east or west to north off the property. This historic drainage pattern would be unaffected by the proposed construction. The roadway system will generally cross perpendicular to the major drainage basins on the property. These basins will be culverted and kept in their historic channels. Surface sheetflow would be intercepted by the roads and directed toward the major drainage basins. Typical drainage considerations such as uphill drainage swales, foundation drains and sloping backfill away from the sides of the structure will be adequate to provide satisfactory drainage at all building sites. I have identified potential locations for small detention ponds for sediment removal, groundwater recharge and to delay any actual runoff until after the storm peak. In summary, it is our opinion that the proposed affordable housing project on the City of Aspen's Water Plant property will not result in any changes to historic runoff patterns or volumes in the area. Because of the density and project location well above area streams and water courses, we do not anticipate the introduction of any pollutants into area stream systems. I trust the above comments are sufficient for conceptual submission purposes. Please feel free to contact me if I may provide additional information or detail. Very truly yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. Jay iN. Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/jh 95030ER4 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 11:54 No.007 P.01 HEPWORTH-PAWLA.K GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood SPdnp, CO 81601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945.7988 SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED WATER PLACE HOUSING NORTH OF WATER PLANT, DOOIXrTLE CIRCLE ASPEN, COLORADO JOB NO. 195192 MAY 89 1995 PREPARED FOR: CITY OF ASPEN ATTN: CRIS CARUSO 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Post -its Fax Note 7671 Dale 1 ,9_3 0 01 0-1 �r To S e.. I -E-% From Q AIJ / ik D / ri CoMept Co. Phone # Phone # 9Ks- ~r9g1K Fax # �� [>"'� Fax # HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 HrP'wORT14-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. May 8, 1995 Jan 23 96 11:55 No.003 P.02 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945.7988 City of Aspen Attn: Cris Caruso 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Job No. 195 192 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Water Place Housing, North of Water Plant, Doolittle Circle, Aspen, Colorado. Gentlemen: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed housing development at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed building area consist of up to 3 1/2 feet of topsoil and fill overlying medium dense to dense silty clayey sand and gravel with cobbles. Groundwater was encountered in the borings between 6 and 10 feet below the ground surface. The proposed buildings can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural granular subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3, 000 psf. The report which follows describes our investigation, summarizes our findings, and presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. Rev. By: SLP DEH/rr cc: Gibson Reno - Scott Smith HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 11:55 No.003 P.03 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . • • • • . • • • • • . . . . . . . 1 SITE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 FIELD EXPLORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 FLOOR SLABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 SITE GRADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 SURFACE DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . 7 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 & 5 - GRADATION ANALYSES TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 11:56 No.003 P.04 PURPOSE AND SCOPE of STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed Water Place Housing development to be located on Doolittle Circle, North of the city water plant, Aspen, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to City of Aspen, dated March 28. 1995. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine the engineering characteristics of the on -site soils. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundations. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geocechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. Prior to drilling the borings for our study, we spent a day drilling shallow auger holes for Waste Engineering as part of their Phase II site assessment. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed development will include 8 single family houses, two duplexes and a four-plex. The buildings will be 2 story wood frame structures over possible basements or crawl spaces. Ground floor will be structural over crawl space or slab -on - grade. Grading for the structures is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 4 to 8 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical : the proposed type of construction. If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS The site is occupied by a wood frame house west of Boring 1 on the west side of Doolittle Circle. The majority of the site, to the east of Doolittle Circle, is a storage HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 11:56 No.003 P.05 -2- yard for equipment, electrical transformers, pipe, etc. The area is relatively flat with a gentle .slope down to the east. There are steep slopes down to the north on the north side of houses 8, 9 and 10 and steep slopes down to the east in the area of houses 5, 6 and 7. There is a steep slope down to the north from Doolittle Circle to the area of the proposed four-plex. Vegetation at the site consists of oak brush in the four-plex area, and deciduous trees around the north and east sides of the storage yard. An existing large pit was observed in the vicinity of House 5. We understand the pit is used by the City as a sump for street sweepings and vehicle wash down. Snow cover was patchy over most of the site but was on the order of 2 feet deep in the four-plex area. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on April 17, 1995. Four exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The proposed four-plex area was not accessible to drill equipment due to the steep slopes, trees and snow cover. The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck -mounted BK-51HD drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. In addition, we assisted Waste Engineering on April 14, 1995. by drilling several shallow auger holes as directed by them. Samples of the subsoils for our study were taken with a 1 3/8-inch I.D. spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 1 to 3 1/2 feet of topsoil or fill overlying medium H-P GEOTECH HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 11:57 No.003 P.06 WE dense to dense, silty to clayey sand and gravel containing cobbles and boulders. Drilling in the dense gravel with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content, Atterberg limits testing and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 1/2-Inch fraction) of the natural coarse granular soils are shown on Figs. 4 and 5.. Atterberg limits testing indicates the clay and silt portion of the subsoils is of low plasticity. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. Free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling between 6 and 10 feet. When checked ten days later, water levels were between 6 and 8 feet. Borings 2 and 4 had caved off at depths of 3 1/2 to 5 feet indicating water may be encountered near that level. The subsoils were moist to wet. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils. Shallow groundwater may impact basement construction. In general, floor levels and crawl space grade should be at least 1 foot above the water level. The existing pit area should be avoided for building houses unless it is properly excavated and backfilled with structural ill. We have assumed that the subsoil conditions in the area of the four-plex are similar to those encountered in our borings. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. H-P GEOTECH HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 11:57 No.003 P.07 -4- 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to relatively dense natural granular soils. Structural fill can consist of the on -site granular soils excluding topsoil and oversized rock, compacted to at least 100 % of Standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. If water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete placement. Soft areas may be encountered and require their removal or stabilization. 6) A representative of the soil engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed fora lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf for backf'll consisting of the on -site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are free standing and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the f; ' active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site granular soils. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an H-P GEOTECH HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 11:58 No.003 P.08 -5- upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95 q of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected even if the material is placed correctly and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earrh pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bortoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.50. Passive pressure against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pcf for properly compacted backfill and non -buoyant conditions. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of satety snouwa ue incivaea in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4-inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material H-P GEo rmm HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 11:58 No.003 P.09 -6- should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2 % passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 % of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on -site granular soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. UNDER.DRAIN SYSTEM Free water was encountered during our exploration at depths of 6 to 10 feet. We recommend below grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawl space and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2 % passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50 % passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 1 1/2 feet deep. The under slab gravel in basement areas should be connected to the perimeter foundation drain with interior lateral perforated drains. SITE GRADING The risk of construction induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the buildings are located away from steep slopes and cut and fill depths are limited. We assume the cut depths for basement levels will -not exceed one level, about 8 feet. 17"7:s should be 1 imited to about 8 feet deep, especially at the downhill sides of the development (Douses 5 to 10) where the slope steepens. Embankment fills should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to 95 % standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20% grade. H-P GEOTECH HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 .Ian 23 96 11:59 No.003 P.10 -7- Permanent unremined cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. if seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. We should review the grading plans for the development prior to construction and perform additional analysis for slope stability, surface and subsurface drainage as needed. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residential buildings have been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free -draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on -site soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Surface water should not be concentrated and directed into the steep down sl : -.s without adequate erosion protection. 1 This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations H-P GEOTEGH HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 '11:59 No.003 P.11 submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on -site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Z Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. Reviewed By: Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 12:00 No.003 P.12 EXISTING HOUSE 0II (ItIz." -,- EXISTING • MAINTENANCE ,, BORING I BUILDING�� Ir�I W J V cr W J F- J O 0 0 CN MAR,O% pSSUM i E�- to BORING 4 � I 2 -3 7- 4 PROPOSED BUILDING 00 .01 BORING 2 9 1 APPROXIMATE SCALE PROPOSEDi I" = 40` BUILDINGS' t (TYPICAL) � � I ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER ` STORAGE AREA BORING 3 8 • ROUGH LOCATION OF FORMER �'- DYNAMITE STORAGE BUNKER ROUGH , I__.; LOCATION 5 OF EXISTING PIT 6 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK 193 I92 �EOTECHNICAL, Inc. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING �• I HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 12:00 No.003 P.13 c 3orina L Borinq 3 boring 1 Rorinq 1 v,_97.6 feet r] ._°�.7 -`e`°t �lev.=97.6 feet Fl�v, 98.Q feet r1e 0 5/4, 12/0 * 48/12 8/12 WC-16.7 -200=48 � D_ ll1 5 Q 77/12 -20�1=33 0 1( o• ° -200=32 •�200 22 i7 10 L.L=23� _ O: PI=6 L , V - 52/8 �' 0 17/12 ze 4 -- 1S 38/12 r �1/8 70 27/8 WC=10.9 -1-4=30 _ -200=3I 52/ IQ !NC=f3.7 +4=33 -200=32_ i05/8 0 5 /0 37/7 5 TqC=5.8 +4=4A -200=17 70/ .12 �2/11 NOTE.'; ExDlanation of ;symbols is shown on .3. 195192 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. Logs of Exploratory Borings 9 Fig. 2 1 k G t h TEL'303-945-8454 Jan 23 96 12:01 No.003 P.14 mepworthPaw a eo ec LEGEND: FILL; Driveway road base in Borings 1 and 4; clayey silt and sand with scattered gravel and cobbles, mottled browns in goring 3. TOPSOIL; silt, sandy, gravelly, organic, soft, moist, dark brown. SAND AND GRAVEL (SM-GM); silty to clayey, scattered cobbles, medium dense, moist, reddish -brown. GRAVEL (GM); sandy, silty, with cobbles, possible boulders, medium dense to dense, moist to wet, reddish brown to brown. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch 1. D. California liner sample. Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8-inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586. g/ 12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 8 blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. 0,10 Free water level in boring and number of days after drilling measurement was made T Practical rig refusal. Where shown above bottom of log, indicates multiple attempts were made to advance the boring. Cave depth at time of water check, 10 days after drilling. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on April 17, 1995 with a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were measured by instrument level and refer to the Bench Mark on Fig. 1, 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between materiel types and transitions may be gradual. 6. Water level readings shown on the logs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Moisture Content (%) -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve DD = Dry Density (pcf) LL = Liquid Limit (%) +4 Percent retained on No. 4 sieve PI Plasticity Index (%) �- HEPWORTH-PAWLAK 195 192 � GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 W1, ��1 �� Jan 23 96 '12:03 No.003 P.17 HepworthPawlak Geotech TEL:303-945-8454 N Q� r Ltd cn r— Z m o U � J Q J � W U cc U w w I-- O >- w -o � Q J Q m � ~ m Q J a LL o O Q A� W W > > > W (7 C m 0 cc 0 '0 c .o ro c m c c ry � `° `° W C� c in cGo eCa to U eo � > to _ (n W S S v 0 o z IP � u u x n c 10 ° - N v 0 q � N d may, '� h LO N eco� chi M G r Q O .. = co m m m co 0 ct CO co a 8 �— O O C6 t6 O � Z = lbM tC) LLB C Lt) LA ° W 0 Ln U If j CONFIDENTIAL x i` PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT April 13, 1995 City of Aspen Property Castle Creek Water Treatment Plant Aspen, Colorado Prepared for: Mr. Chris Caruso City Engineer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Prepared by: Waste Engineering, Inc. 2430 Alcott Street Denver, Colorado 80211 (303) 433-2788 i SITE DESCRIPTION The property investigated for this site assessment consists of a parcel of land located southwest of Aspen, Colorado (Figure 1). This tract of land is more accurately described as land situated in the NW1/4 of Section 13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West, of the 6th P.M. The site consists of several buildings associated with the Castle Creek water treatment plant (Figure 2). The maintenance shop is situated near the center of the property. The maintenance shop is used by the City of Aspen for storage of tools, machines, and limited vehicle maintenance. No grease traps or other similar devices were identified by WEI within the maintenance shop. Numerous electrical transformers have been or are currently stored east of the maintenance shop (see photograph 3). According to Ron Ferguson with the City of Aspen Water Department, this site has been used for electrical transformer storage for at least 20 years. A sediment trap is situated near the east end of the transformer storage area. This area is used to collect and detain stormwater sediment and sludge from city street -sweeping operations (see photograph 6). City personnel were observed discharging materials during WEI's site visit (see photograph 5). Two above ground storage tanks (ASTs) were previously stored outside of the maintenance shop. According to Mr. Ferguson, these tanks were used for storage of diesel and regular (leaded) gas from approximately 1985 to 1990. There were no visible indicators (i.e., soil staining) of these two ASTs during WEI's site visit. However, a complete investigation of this area was precluded by several feet of snow. Physical Characteristics Aside from the buildings associated with the Castle Creek water treatment plant, the majority of the site remains undeveloped. Vegetation on the subject property consists primarily of scrub - oak and other native vegetation. The property has fairly steep relief throughout, which is typical of tributary canyons to the Roaring Fork River in this region. The topographic relief at the site and adjacent land is varied, with an overall slope toward Castle Creek. Surface water resulting from storm events or snow melt in the region generally flows toward Castle Creek. Groundwater at the subject site was not directly measured. United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps indicate that groundwater depths vary, with the shallowest groundwater closest to Castle Creek. Groundwater movement in the vicinity varies depending on specific topographic conditions but is inferred to be toward Castle Creek, located approximately 0.3 mile east of the subject property. According to the preliminary "Geologic Map of the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado" (B. Bryant, 1971), the site geology is comprised of surficial deposits which are -2- described as "poorly sorted moraine deposits ranging from silt to boulders. In many places it has hummocky or ridge -and -trough topography." According the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey of f Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado, the property is dominated by the Yeljack-Callings complex with 12 to 25 percent slopes. This unit is described as "deep and well drained, on ridgetops, benches, and mountainsides. It formed in alluvium and colluvium derived dominantly from sandstone and loess. If this unit is used for homesite development, the main limitations are a modified shrink - swell potential, low soil strength, the restricted permeability, and the depth to stones, sand and gravel. " Adjacent Properties Adjacent properties are primarily residential and undeveloped and include the following. The City of Aspen is located approximately one mile northeast of the subject property. Castle Creek Road borders the subject property to the east. Further east, down a steep canyon, is Castle Creek which flows to the north. The land to the south of the subject property is essentially undeveloped forested land. Similarly, most of the land to the west is undeveloped. Aspen Highlands Ski Area is located approximately one mile southwest of the subject property. To the northwest is the Aspen Valley Hospital property is the Castle Ridge Housing subdivision. located north and west of the subject property. Historic Conditions facility. Immediately north of the subject Additional private residence buildings are Regional and site -specific historic documentation for the subject property including USGS and Pitkin County maps., aerial photographs, and Pitkin County Assessor's records were also reviewed in an effort to reconstruct the developmental history of the subject site and adjacent areas. Historic aerial photographs were reviewed at the U.S. Forest Service office in Aspen, Colorado. August 1990 aerial photographs showed the developments surrounding the subject propei,y to the north and northwest were 80 to 90 percent completed in comparison with current conditions. The Castle Creek water treatment plant site appeared similar to present conditions. July 1973 aerial photographs of the subject property and adjacent lands showed that the subject property appeared similar to present-day conditions, except that the maintenance building did not exist. The current transformer storage area was cleared of vegetation, but no signs of significant equipment storage were evident from this photograph. -3- October 1939 black and white aerial photographs of the subject property and adjacent lands showed that the subject property was basically undeveloped except for two round buildings near the current maintenance shop. There was only one road on the subject property which led to the site from the south. REVIEW OF REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASES Our investigation included, but was not limited to, a review of the following lists prepared and maintained by environmental regulatory agencies for the area around the subject site. These lists were searched for sites up to a one -mile radius of the subject property: • Underground Storage Tank (UST) list, July, 1994 list from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Oil Inspection Section, • Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) list, October, 1994 list from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), October, 1994 list from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), • Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) list, December, 1993 list from EPA, • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) list, November, 1994, from EPA, • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) April, 1994, from EPA, • National Priorities List sites, Colorado, August, 1994, from EPA, and • Solid Waste Sites and Facilities list, December, 1994, from CDPHE. This regulatory list review was performed by Environmental Data Resources, (EDR) Inc. The EDR report is included as an attachment. A review of the above records from the EDR report and other sources of information revealed that no RCRIS or CERCLIS sites were identified on or near the subject property. No USTs or LUSTs were registered at or near the subject property. There were no records of any registered potentially hazardous materials stored hydrologically upgradient from the subject property from the data reviewed in the EDR report. 13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the size of the property and the presence of several feet of snow during WEI's site visit, a complete site reconnaissance was not possible for this assessment. However, all "accessible" areas, including areas of development and human activities, were inspected. The primary areas of concern regarding potential contamination are: 1. The electrical transformer storage area. 2. The sediment trap and associated pond. 3. The area near the historic ASTs. WEI recommends that a Phase II site assessment be performed to determine the extent of subsurface contamination on the subject property, if any. A combination of three methodologies described below is recommended for this Phase II assessment, in order to fully ascertain the extent of soil contamination at the subject property. Time constraints may alter these recommendations and we would be glad to discuss them with you at your request. Because the firm HP-Geotech is scheduled to drill on the site for geotechnical purposes, WEI recommends that borehole drilling for the proposed Phase II site assessment be coordinated with this firm. Drilling a minimum of three boreholes to initially characterize subsurface contamination is recommended. A preliminary cost estimate for a drilling Phase II investigation is outlined below: TABLE 1 - PRELIMINARY COSTS FOR PHASE II DRILLING Description Estimated Costs Standard* Rush** Travel and Expenses 1 $1000 Preliminary Site Preparation $ 200 Drill Rig Time for 3 proposed boreholes*** $1500 WEI field time $3000 Laboratory Analyses $2250 (EPA methods for PCBs, BTEX, TVH and TEH) Summary Report $500 Phase II Drilling Estimated Cost $1000 $ 200 $1500 $3000 $3400 $6,950 $8,100 * Standard time to complete equals 4 weeks. ** Rush time to complete equals 1.5 - 2 weeks. *** HP Geotech proposes to bill the City of Aspen directly, therefore, drill rig costs are not included in the total estimate. -5- Immediately following drilling (or on the same day if time is available), WEI would perform additional field tests to further characterize contamination on the site. This would be accomplished by performing a "Soil -Gas" analysis of subsurface soils. The soil -gas samplers must be buried in the ground for a minimum of seven days. The laboratory results from the Petrex samples would further define the areas of potential contamination and allow for more accurate drilling of potentially contaminated areas. Petrex samplers with analysis cost approximately $200 each. WEI recommends that a grid pattern with 15 Petrex samplers be used. The total cost for the standard Petrex analysis would accordingly be approximately $3,000, not including WEI field time. Additional field testing in the electrical transformer storage area may be performed using the field test kits for PCBs. These tests cost approximately $50 each. WEI recommends that 20-25 samples be tested. Additionally, WEI would recommend sending a selected few of the "positive" soil samples to a laboratory for confirmatory analysis. Laboratory cost for PCB analysis is approximately $150 each. WEI recommends that three soil samples be sent to the laboratory for confirmatory analysis, totalling $450. If the Petrex results or the PCB field test results indicate significant contamination zones in areas outside of those in the initial drilling, it is possible that a follow-up drilling investigation would be recommended. WEI would be able to define the scope of this only after the initial results are obtained. The following is a preliminary cost estimate for the total Phase II site assessment. TABLE 2 - PRELIMINARY COSTS FOR COMPLETE PHASE II SITE ASSESSMENT Standard Rush Drilling and Soil Testing 6,950 8,100 Petrex Analysis 5000 6000 Field Screening for PCBs 1450 1450 and lab analysis Interpretive Phase -II report 3000 4000 TOTAL PHASE II COSTS $169400 $199550 WEI would be glad to discuss these recommendations at your convenience. L e \ AM Red >>u Butte Aker '828t , Rudr•r� irroxurd, ' R�d Butte t ` '�'It c.,• F . Oemeterv. • , Sterre� (Gulch �� I• '�. •y IL 40p CP-Wa et l 'SUBJECT PROP5RTY k y`� y 'r �0 — 3 _ a • J ; /� •f f , y- WASTE ENGINEERING, INC. DRAWN DSS 2430 ALCOTT STREET CHECK PRA DENVER, CO 80211 DATE 4/95 (303)433-2788 SCALE 1" = 2000' FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP 952-034.000 ,ter CASTLE RIDGE HOUSING TRANSFORMER SEDIMENT STORAGE AREA, •POND MAINTENANCE BUILDING HISTORIC AST LOCATION BACKWASH POND 2 MG. 0 CLEARWELL 0 WEST EAST PLANT CDPLANT L7 �\ 14 NORTH NOT TO SCALE WASTE ENGINEERING, INC. DRAWN KAL CITY ASPEN FIGURE 2 2430 ALCOTT STREET CHECK PRA COUNTY PITKIN SITE MAP DENVER, CO 80211 DATE 4 6 95 STATE COLORADO CITY OF ASPEN (303)433-2788 SCALE N.T.S. JOB NO. 952-034.000 PROPERTY ACRONYMS • Above Ground Storage Tank (AST) • Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene (BTEX) • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) • Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) • National Priorities List (NPL) • Parts per Billion (ppb) • Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) • Total Extractable Hydrocarbons (TEH) • Total Volatile Hydrocarbons (TVH) • Underground Storage Tank (UST) • United States Geological Survey (USGS) • Waste Engineering, Inc. (WEI) PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG City of Aspen Property 1. View of maintenance building at left and entrance to property. 2. View of gazebo where AST was historically located. 3. View of electrical transformer storage area. 4. View of transformer and location of one soil -PCB sampling site. 5. View of vehicle dumping sediment from street sweeping activities. 6. View of sediment trap/pond. 7. View of office for water treatment plant at south end of property. 8. View of water holding structure at treatment plant. Am whom - Nor . .. � ,ail` ��' •�> t%, - • �tr'�rar•i.i' ..' �'• �:e'rZ his � _' rw�,'a• ' , :'� t: �:�L�• � ` - , �-�.�"'�.--...� _' it `�\��-+�. .. Q'�••.- �. ,�'.�;• 1 •` •, , ��•� y� Y + + ,p sIM1r H �f �• � N '. ., t r �' r �, � .^ t. ' •" ter. � ._ a ♦' •Y. `• r r • ~` «- •. r `Jr•. .. 1 .'ice is ,-•«. :-.. ' •--ter ..r �.w�,.� Y� ��,. .�, , • ��. `'• , �-- f . C I �T .+� •; ,�, i • � �-^r�'�a.w• a iy�C{f !y M4 ¢p'^j - .'tea ,..r.: S�w�.,. � _. yS•-y ,',rT1 '�." u�Y•1..W, -� �'.,Oaf w �..�� %�' '.+JI.,...•~ '^�6'i�w 'i rCs rt �il: ��•r. 1�-� IN T •Y :�.y( ♦ ��+I��. y\'apt 2`M.`' � � - �. /a a , ` ...ti � � '.ems 'r"�ti •A►� .. y.v -'' , � v - '. • ••y •'�'i�„Yk' r � ! ti� i.• •F�Z4�ir,-••` . *�i: .:r. F 'L _t��t, ''•�'�,•��ti .�• �44� J•M 1!'v"•F+� •TY''�f °S tf Y ,��, ; • • �+ r r t � •, I� x =* Exhibit D EDR REPORT The EDR-Radius Map with GeoCheckTM Inquiry Number: 70698.3s Alarch 13, 1995 Ej? Environmental Data Resources, Inc Creators of Toxicheck/,, The Source For Environmental Risk Management Data 3530 Post Road Southport, Connecticut 06490 Nationwide Customer Service Telephone:1-800-352-0050 Fax: 1-800-231-6802 THE EDR-RADIUS MAP" The EDR-Radius Map1m is a screening tool which maps sites with potential or existing environmental liabilities.. Specified government databases are searched in accordance with the ASTM Standard (E 1527) or custom specifications provided by the user. The EDR-Radius Map7m includes the following three maps: Topographic Map: • displays a two mile radius around the target property • displays the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic contours and selected road features (i.e., major street names, and hydrographic data) Overview Map: • displays a one-mik (ASTM Standard) or customer specified radius around the target property • includes major geographic attributes available in EDR's computer mapping system (Le., street names, available hydrography) Detail Map: • displays a quarter -mile radius or customer specified radius around the target property and provides the user with a close-up view • includes all geographic attributes available in EDR's computer mapping system (i.e., street names, address ranges) • helps the user locate "orphan" sites, those sites with insufficient address information such that they can only be identified as within the zip code, city, or county of the target property Please call EDR's Nationwide Customer Service at 1-800-352-0050 (Sam - 8pm EST) with questions or comments about your report. Thank you for your business! Disclaimer EDR makes no representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, quality or completeness of any data provided by governmental or other entity used by EDR in the preparation of its reports. The customer shall take full responsibility for the use of EDR reports. No «arranty of merchantability or of fitness for particular purpose, expressed or implied, shall apply and EDR specifically disclaims the making of any such warranties. In no event shall EDR be liable to anyone for special, incidental, consequential or exemplary damages. :K�i .....{ ' :jt. � � .. .�. r '.•t �! -X < � �i` �.:.: :. i••i��•: v .� ri v , v �'`xw. i.l F'�"�' .�.: . , .... � a . : i�v. ,> •.i '•♦,k`•::p •C;�. • / Ei�1n1. i�#y r,. '�`',�`< '�Ft.:,'ar,X.�fr�.'.1'f•0..vYx -j1, r 'A.�E•'nC''u'ru©✓r..w,y,�,� DS•r�AN '�'M'r✓'tr ,.Y. Ycrr;"•� Er.J� ykv�YB.. kn t.w :�EvfEOF 9 00 it s.r'x X „V'Zx.:/,`�. • �.... (.`+ .•. AGO ERNMENj4EhfCIESIDRCESy:fi:�=.:::�' r. ��'...� �.�Y �` .%' 'vK.Y•Nr....,C V. ..•:v �: : �'vYcv,; � *.. 'a ..Y.ir4rc• .A..v+• -..... .. .. �.._ . . ,.[ rlJ. ..Y'... ,r.... , .. A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). The search met the specific requirements of ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessmerrts, E-1527-94, including those associated with governmental databases, search distances and data currency. The detailed EDR report, dated 03113/95, is included as an appendix to this summary report The address of the subject property for which the search was intended is: 298 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET v ASPEN, CO 81611 No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ( 'reasonably ascertainable ') government records either on the subject property or within the ASTM E-1527-94 search radius around the subject property for the following Databases: RCRIS-TSD: ----------------- Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System State Haz. Waster---------. CERCUS . State LFL-------------------- Solid Waste Sites & Facilities LUST_______ ------------------------ Leaking Underground Storage TankUst RAATSL--------------------- RCRA Administrative Action Traddng System RCRIS-S•QG:----------------- Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System HMIRSL--------------------- Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System PADS: ----------------------- PC8 Activity Database System ERNS---------------------- Emergency Response Notification System TRIS:------------------------. Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System NPL Liens:------------------. Federal Superfund liens TSCA:-----------------------. Toxic Substances Control Act Unmapped (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis. Search Results: Search results for the subject property and the search radius, are listed below: Subject Property: The subject property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. TC70698.3s • ,+ ' � EV.IEW�'OkF �r� :;. ` '�'t: ." `. ...:, :..: � � v. '.., •• '.Y••• :/:..J�'":'•�'N^%: ; :�: �isa'�,�� -6 !�^+'. �� •'��r �{'E�p-4VIRRO;NMEi��',!AL- RECORDS -MAINTAINED 6 �✓ y<. •.� � ,i�b{Q%ir��},4^r9�f*FYT?rir'%S"iY:`:�'S'i•�'Y•� r�S"•�'.�'7.�.w�c�* � y;;.� ��:,>,✓J;�j�t:..o il��•"�� .. x�, •� N``.�,+1.i5'�`�nw � •iA01/-FRNM �...y .4;?� EN ►GENCIES+AND PRIVATE SOURCES*., Surrounding Properties: Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the subject property are in the left hand column; those with a lower elevation are in the right hand column. Page numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report (attached as an appendix) where detailed data on individual sites may be reviewed. Sites listed in bold HWIcs are in multiple databases. NPL: Also known as Superfund, the National Priority List database is a subset of CERCUS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund program. The source of this database is the U.S. EPA. A review of the NPL GsL as provided by EDR, and dated 12/16/1994 has revealed that there is 1 NPL site within approximately 1 Mile of the subject property. Equal/Higher Elevation Page I Lower Elevation Page CERCUS: The ��' Environmental Response, Compensation and Ua xTity Information System contains information on sites identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as known or suspected abandoned, inactive or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that may require cleanup. The source of this database is the U.S. EPA. A review of the CERCUS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/31/1994 has revealed that there is 1 CERCUS site within approximately 0.5 Miles of the subject property. Equal/Higher Elevation Page ( Lower Elevation Page UST: The Underground Storage Tank database contains registered USTs. USTs are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The source is the State Oil Inspector's Office's Tank List. A review of the UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/01/1994 has revealed that there is 1 UST site within approximately 0.25 Miles of the subject property. Equal/Higher Elevation Page Lower Elevation Page ASPEN RANGER STATION 4 RCRIS: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act database includes selected information on sites that generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Act. The source of this database is the U.S. EPA. A review of the RCRIS-LOG list, as provided by EDR, and dated 11/30/1994 has revealed that there is 1 RCRIS-LOG site within approximately 0.25 Miles of the subject property. Equal/Higher Elevation Page I Lower Elevation Page TC70698.3s R 1?*13ECORDSWAINTAINED REVIEW 9f,;�RV _IRONM Opt ,G VERNMENTAGE I D PRIVATES Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped: She Name Database(s) SMUGGLER MTN SUPERFUND SITE CERCUS,FINDS,NPL RCRIS-LQG PITKIN COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVER State LF GRIZZLY RESERVOIR LUST CHEVRON USA INC LUST CITY OF ASPEN STREET DEPT LUST ASPEN TRUCK MAINTENANCE UST CDOH - ASPEN UST RENTAL CAR FUEL FACILITY UST TC70698.3s GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACK1NU To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases. EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required. Elapsed ASTM days: Provides confirmation that this EDR report meets or exceeds the 90-day updating requirement of the ASTM standard. FEDERAL ASTM RECORDS: CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation. and Liablfrty Information System Source: EPAJNTIS Telephone: 703-416-0702 CERCUS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System. CERCUS contains information on sites identified by the USEPA as known or suspect abandoned, inactive or uncontrolled hazardous waste sties which may require cleanup. Date of Government Version: 10/31/94 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12116/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 01/30/95 Elapsed ASTM days:45 ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260 -2342 ERNS: Emergency Response Nottficafbn System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. Date of Government Version: 12/31/93 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 04111/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 05/25/94 Elapsed ASTM days: 44 NPL: National Priority List Source: EPA Telephone: 703-6034W2 NPL National Priorities List (Supertund). The NPL Is a subset of CERCUS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, It is EDR's policy to plot NPL sites greater than approximately 500 acres in size as areas (polygons). Sites smaller in size are point-geocoded at the site's address. Date of Government Version: 12J16/94 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12J21/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 01/30/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 40 RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Source: EPAJNTIS Telephone: 202-260-3393 RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System. RCRIS includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Date of Government Version: 11/30/94 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/19/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/14/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 57 FEDERAL NON-ASTM RECORDS: FINDS: Facility Index System _r Source: EPA/NT1S Telephone: 800-908-2493 € FINDS: Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and -pohtt me to other sources that contain more detail. These inciude: RCRIS, PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometrlc Information Retrieval System), ` FATES (FIFRA (Federal Insecticide Fungicide Roden**Ie Act) and TSCA Enforcement System, FTTS (FIFRAJTSCA I Tracking System]), CERCLIS, DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial enforcement cases for an environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), FRDS (Federal Reporting Data System), SIA (Surface Impoundments). CICIS (TSCA Chemicals In Commerce Information System), PADS. RCRA-J (medical waste transporters/dispbsers), TRIS and TSCA- Date of Government Version: 09/14/93 Date of Next Scheduled Update: 03/13195 PADS: PCB Activity Database System Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260-3992 PADS: PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers of PCB's who are requirled to notify the EPA of such acttvWes- Date of Government Version: 07/11/94 Date of Next Scheduled Update: 03/20/95 RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4104 RAATS: RCRA Adminlwx on Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records be on anforoarrtent actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators and ktdudes administrative and cM actions brought by the EPA. Date of Government Version: 04/06/94 Date of Next Scheduled Update: 04/01/95 TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 202-260-2320 TRIS: Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS Identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313. Date of Govemment Version: 12/31/92 Date of Next Scheduled Update: 10/02/95 TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 202-260-1444 TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and Importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. 11 includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant site. USEPA has no current plan to update and/or re -issue this database. Date of Govemment Version: 05/15/86 Date of Next Scheduled Update: 03/27/95 HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Telephone: 202-366-4555 HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT. Date of Govemment Version: 06/30/94 Date of Next Scheduled Update: 05/02/95 NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260-3733 NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner receives notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens. Date of Government Version: 10/15/91 Date of Next Scheduled Update: 04/18/95 STATE OF COLORADO ASTM RECORDS: LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank List Source: Department of Health Telephone: 303-6923450 LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an Inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank Incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the Information stoned varies by state. Date of Government Version: 10/01/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 01/30/95 Date of Data Arrival at EDR 12/05/94 Elapsed ASTM days: 56 sHWS: CERCLIS Source: Department of Health Telephone: 303-692.3300 SHWS: State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous waste site records are the states' equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites mayor may not already be Usted on the federal CERCLIS Gsi. Priortty sites planned for cleanup using state funds (state equivalent of Supertund) are Identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially responsible parties. Available information varies by state. Date of Government Version: 10/31/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 01/30/95 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12116/94 Elapsed ASTM days: 45 SWF/LS: Solid Waste Sites 6 Facilities Source: Department of Health Telephone: 303-692 3432 SWF/I.S: Solid Waste FacINWs/Landfill Sties. SWF/LS type records typicely contain an Ir ventory of solid waste disposal faciltties or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state. these may be active or Inactive facilities or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Section 2004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal sites. Date of Govemment Version: 12/01/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/14/95 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01/05/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 40 UST: Tank List Source: State Oil Inspector's Office Telephone: 303-289-5644 UST: Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST's are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available information varies by state program. Date of Govemment Version: 04101/94 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/02/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 11/02/94 Elapsed ASTM days: 61 Historical and Other Database(s) Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites: The existence and location of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to EDR by Real Property Scan, Inc. ®Copyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. For a technical description of the types of hazards which may be found at such sites, contact your EDR customer service representative. Disclaimer Provided by Real Property Scan, Inc. The information contained in this report has predominantly been obtained from publicly available sources produced by entiti- other than Real Property Scan. While reasonable steps have been taken to insure the accuracy of this report, Real Property Scan does not guarantee the accuracy of this report. Any liability on the part of Real Property Scan is strictly limited to a refund of the amount paid. No claim is made for the actual existence of toxins at any site. This report does not constitute a legal opinion. Area Radon Information: The National'Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Is a compaation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey. The study cowers the years 1986 -1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by Information collected at private sources such as universities and research institutions. FRDS: Federal Reporttng Data System Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water FRDS provides Information regarding public water supplies and their compliance with monitoring requirements, maximum . contaminant levels (MCL's), and other requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1 %6. OII/Gas PlpettnestElectrlcai Transmission Unes: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. It is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Une Graphs from 1:100,000-Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil, but primarity gas pipelines and electrical transmission vines. Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals who, due to their fragile immune systems, are deemed to be especially sensitive to environmental discharges. These typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the exact location of these sensitive receptors cannot be determined. EDR indicates those fma ties, such as schools, hospitals, day cane centers, and nursing homes, where sensitive receptors are Iilkely to be located. USGS Water Wells: In November 1971 the United States Geological Survey (USGS) implemented a national water resource information traddng system. This database contains desc ro vie Inkmi attiort on sites where the USGS coUKU or has collected data on surface water anglor groundwater. The groundwater data induces information on more than 900,000 weds, springs, and other sources of groundwater. Flood Zone Data: This data. avallabie In select counties across the country: was obtained by EDR in 1994 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and WO -year flood zones as defined by FEMA. GEOCHECK, VERSION � � . � ?n;.xr�.. ' ��'��1?Vv.�,r�i,'rt .1.��,c�,1C�' y / ,/=�: •;r,ir SUMMARY �� „ y ��. ci: � / ,�.r �,�� .> :rj.,�>,•� �'c: �•��,, X :�yS ��, � ✓ r • �vx .. ,. GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATIOW Geologic Code: Yg1 Era Precambrian System: Precambrian Series: Older Y granitic rocks ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT Category: Plutonic and Intrusive Rocks GROUNDWATER FLOW INFORMATION General Topographic Gradient: General North General Hydrogeologic Gradient: no hydrogeologic data avallable. Note: in a general way, the water table typically conforms to surface topographyA FEDERAL DATABASE WELL INFORMATION WELL DISTANCE DEPTH TO QUADRANT FROM TP LITHOLOGY WATER TABLE East 1/2 - 1 Mile Sedimentary (undifferentiated) 59 fL AREA RADON INFORMATION PITKIN COUNTY, CO Number of sites tested: 28 Area Average Activity % <4 pCVL % 4-20 PCVL Living Area 3.820 pCi/L 46% 43% Basement 3.310 pCi/L 38% 54% PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION Searched by Nearest Well. Location Relative to TP: 1/2 - 1 Mile East PWS Name: KRABLDONIK P.O. BOX 5517 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 Well currently has or has had major violation(s): No % >20 pCVL 11% 80/0 t Source: P.G. Schr ben. R.E. Arndt and WJ. Bavnec. Geo1M d •+e Conierrninous US. at 12,500.000 Scaie . A dotal reptesenmon d the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beckman Map, USGS Oigal Data Sues DDS • 11 (1994). S U.S. EPA Ground Water Handbook. vd I: Ground Water and Contanwnauon, ot(ce of Research and de.reiopment EPAJ625/&9=16a.Chapter4, page 78, September 1"0. TC70698.3s Pagel of 1 ,k - Indicates TARGET PROPERTY. 0 1/4 1/2 i �. - Indicates environmental sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property. Mites - Indicates environmental sites at elevations lower than the target property. - Coal Gasification Sites (if requested) - National Priority List Sites - Power transmission lines (USGS DLG, 1993) - Oil & Gas pipelines (USGS DLG, 1993) TARGET PROPERTY: CUSTOMER: Waste Engineering, Inc. ADDRESS: CONTACT: Paul Avant CITY/STATE/ZIP: INQUIRY #: 70698.3s LAT/LONG: DATE: March 9, 1995 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY SHOWING ALL SITES Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-1 > 1 Plotted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 1 RCRIS TSD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 State Haz. Waste 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 1 State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 UST 0.250 0 1 NR NR NR 1 RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 RCRIS Sm. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 RCRIS Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 1 HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 1 TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 NPL Liens TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 Coal Gas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TP - Target Property NR - Not Requested at this Search Distance Sites may be listed in more than one database TC70698.3s Page 1 of 4 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY SHOWING ONLY SITES HIGHER THAN OR THE SAME ELEVATION AS TP Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 1 /8 1/8-1/4 1 /4 -1 /2 1/2-1 > 1 Plotted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 RCRIS-TSD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 State Haz. Waste 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CERCUS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 State Landfill 0sw 0 0 0 NR NR 0 LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 UST 0250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 RAATS TP NR NR NR NR. NR 0 RCRIS Sm. Ouan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 RCRIS Lg. Ouan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 NPL Liens TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 Coal Gas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TP - Target Property NR - Not Requested at this Search Distance " Sites may be listed in more than one database TC70698.3s Page 2 of 4 MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number Coal Gas She Search: EDR does not presently have coal gas site Information evallaNe In this state. NPL SMUGGLER MTN SUPERFUND SITE CERCUS 1000234566 Region SPRUCE ST FINDS COD980806277 ASPEN, CO 81611 NPL RCRIS-LOG CERCUS Classification Data: Stte Incident Category: MINES(TAIUNGS Federal Facility: NO Ownership Status: OTHER NPL Status: CURRENTLY ON THE FINAL NPL EPA Notes: ZN,PB,CD,CONTAM. IN OLD MINE_ TAILINGS, BLOWING DUST,GROUND AND SURFACE WATER CONTAM. HRS - 33.121N 3/84. NPL SITE APPROK 110 ACRES, NEAR ASPEN COLO. CERCUS Assessment History. Assessment SCREENING SITE INSPECTION Completed: 12101/84 Assessment DISCOVERY- Completed: 03/01/83 Assessment PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT - Completed: 12/01/84 Assessment FINAL LISTING ON 14PL Completed: 06/01/86 Assessment PROPOSAL TO NPL Completed: 10/15/84 Assessment REMOVAL ACTION Completed: 09/17/85 Assessment REMOVAL ACTION Completed: 08122191 CERCUS Site Status: This site Is currentty under investigation by the government to assess the extent of further action CERCLIS Alias Name(s): ASPEN NPL_ ID: 08CO020 Date Listed: 6/10/86 (FINAL) EPA/ID: COD980806277 Haz. Rank Score: 31.31 Status: LISTED ON NPL Rank: 929 Group: 19 Ownership: Private Permit: Not reported Site Activities: Mining Site, Subsurface Site Condition: Damage of Flora/Fauna Site Condition: Contamination of Soil Site Condition: Contam. Ground Water Site Condition: Contam. Drinking Water Waste Type: Metals Waste Type: Mine Tailings Waste Form: Not reported Contaminant: Media Affected: CADMIUM (CD) Ground Water ZINC AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (ZN) Ground and Surface Water IRON AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (FE) Surface Water MANGANESE AND COMPOUNDS, NOS (MN) Surface Water LEAD (PB) Not reported MAP FINDINGS Map ID Dkection Distance Elevation Site SMUGGLER MTN SUPERFUND SITE (Continued) EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1000234566 Distance to nearest Population: Not reported Population within a 1 Mile Radius: 3,001 to 10,000 People Population within a 2 Mile Radius: Not reported Population wttNn a 4 Mile Radius: More than 10,000 People Vertical Distance to Aquifer. Not reported Ground Water Use: Not Used as Drinking Water, Alternative Source Available Distance to nearest Surface Water. Not reported RCRIS: Owner: US EPA (999) 999-9999 Contact:PAULA SCHMITTDIEL (303) 293-1527 Waste Guanttty Into Source Waste Quantity Info Source D000 Not reported Notification D006 Not reported Notification D008 Not reported Notification ' Other Pertinent Environmental Acttvtty Identified at Site: civil Judicial and administrative enforcement cases against facility 1 ASPEN RANGER STATION NNE 806 W. HALLAM STREET 1/8-1/4 ASPEN, CO 81611 Lower UST: UST 0000086877 N/A Facility ID: 0002258 Tank ID: 1 Facility Tel: (303) 945-3274 Facility Type: Federal Non -Military Age: Not reported Total Tanks: 1 Date Installed: Not reported Date Last Used: 12/01/1960 Date rinsed: Not reported Owner ID: 5558 Owner Name: U.S.F.S. - WHITE RIVER DIST. Owner Address: P.O. BOX 948 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 Owner Tel: 303-945-2521 Owner Type: Federal Status: Permanently Out of Use Removed from Ground 12-01-60 Construction: Steel Tank Capacity: UNK Tank Chemical: Gasoline TC70698.3s Page 4 of 4 Q c- s J Cl cr a z ai p z R C6 LL J ¢t; t;LL w a m ODD CD m F m m CO aD N m } 0 cc � a m o ui cc a Z U co tz o a Oz . g } O w 75a Q=a .� W n�Z_>wc~i)c�aua. Z N O Q> W o> Q W U W D Clcl N N cn cn N CD O Q W W O F-- U W 11J p � a Z w p t o p a: W W w U F- w a LL cn a Oz0¢cU) W > zcn w¢ w ~ N V� a W Q Z m }F-OLLw< JO W N Z Q o s_< Zui _ Z N 0- W >- p O Z Y m Q (n 2 p w in o a cn U ¢ a 0 o ao rn o c o 0) M cD co cp W M Lo o o 00 0 0 0 0 o co 0 0 0 Cl o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pw cn in cn to Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z w w w w w w w w aaa.aaaan. (n (n cn cn (n cn U) a a Q a a a a a EPA Waste.Codes AddendutYii::� Code Description D000 NOT DERNED D006 CADMIUM Do08 LEAD TC70698.3s - Page 1 of 1 GEOCHECK VERSION 2.1 ADDENDUM ,' ..:: FEDERALDATABASE WELL INFORMATION Well Closest to Target Property (East Ouadrant) BASIC WELL DATA Site ID: 391113106490301 Distance from TP: 1/2 - 1 Mile Site Type: Single well, other than collector or Ranney type Year Constructed: 19W County: Pitkin Attitude: 7930.00 ft. State: Colorado Well Depth: 159.00 ft. Topographic Setting: Alluvial or marine terrace Depth to Water Table: 59.00 ft. Prim. Use of Site: Withdrawal of wafer Date Measured: 10011973 Prim. Use of Water. Public supply L THOLOGiC DATA Geologic Age ID (Era/System/Sedes): Cenozoic-Ouatemary-Holocene Principal Lithology of Unit Sedimentary (undifferentiated) Further Description: Not Reported WATER LEVEL VARIABILITY _ Water Level: 58.86 ft. Water Level: 65.00 ft. Water Level: 58.62 ft. Date Measured: 10/03173 Date Measured: 10/16(74 Date Measured: 09/26/75 Water Level: 69.65 ft. Water Level: Not Reported Water Level: 68.35 ft. Date Measured: 08/11/77 Date Measured: 09/05/78 Date Measured: 10/09/79 Water Level: 61.13 ft. Water Level: 59.73 ft. Date Measured: 08/21/81 Date Measured: 08/25/82 Water Level• 60.65 tL Date Measured: 09/09(76 Waw Level: 58.16 tL Date Measured: 08/26/80 TC70698.3s Pagel of 2 .a GEOCHECK VERSION 2'i PUBLIC WATER SUP 1.Y SYSTEM`iNFORMA�'tON Searched by Nearest Well. PWS SUMMARY: PWS ID: C00249455 PWS Status: Active Distance from TP: 1/2 -1 Mile Dir relative to TP: East Date Initiated: June / 1977 Date Deactivated Not Reported PWS Name: KRABLDONIK P.O. BOX 5517 SNOWMASS VILLAGE. CO 81615 Addressee / Faditty Type: Not Reported Fadltty Name: Not Reported Facility latitude: 39 11 24 Facility LDngttude: 106 49 06 C1ty Served: Treatment Class Not Reported: Not Reported Population Served: Not Reported: Well curnerttfy has or has had major vlolation(s): No TC70698.3s Page 2 of 2 h1AY. -Ol.' 95 NON) 16:55 WRIGHT WATER TEL:303 480 1020 P. 002 k CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM TO. Cris Caruso City of Aspen - Engineering Department FROM: Paul Avant RE: Update of Phase Il Site Assessment Results Date: May 1, 1995 This memm orandusummarizes the field investigations and analytical results to date for the City of Aspen property at the Castle Creek Water Treatment Plant. t� Waste Engineering, Inc. (WEI) performed the Limited Authorized Phase II field z investigations at the site on April 14, 1995. Three areas were the focus of this Ik 0 investigation: Z 1. The electrical trmuformer storage area, 2. The water/sediment pit used for disposal by City street- 'r sweeping vehicles, and Z 3. The location of two historic above -ground storage tanks W (ASTs) which have been removed from the site. W F ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER STORAGE AREA The electrical transformer storage area is situated northeast of the maintenance shop and is within the area for proposed housing development. Numerous electrical transformers are scattered throughout this area. The transformers' estimated ages range from 20 ,_,;rn to very new (i.e, 1 to 2 years old). WEI collected ten surficial soil samples within the electrical transformer storage area Field test kits were used to screen for possible polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) soil contamination from leaking transformers. Three "positive" test ldt soil samples and one "negative" sample were sent to Phoenix Analytical Labs in Broomfield, Colorado for confirmatory analysis. All four samples were below detection limit for PCB coutents. The positive readings from the field test kits may have been caused by chlorinated compounds other than PCBs. Phoenix Labs is currently reviewing the lab reports to determine if any other regulated chlorinated compounds such as solvents were present in these samples. Y. - 0 F 95 NON) 16:55 WRIGHT WATER TEL:303 480 1020 P. 003 Cris Caruso Page 2 The PCB contents of the individual transformer units were not investigated by WEI. In the event of transformer disposal, each transformer is required to be tested for PCB contents. The PCB contents will dictate the proper disposal method. WEI recommends that any transformers which have not been tested for PCB contents be tested to determine their regulatory status. WATMSEDIMENT PIT The water/sediment pit is used by City of Aspen street -sweeping vehicles for disposal of stormwater and sediment. The pit is approximately 800 sq=e feet in dimension. The water within the pit is estimated to be three to four feet deep, with six-foot banks to top of ground, WEI drilled two boreholes at the upgradient and downgradient end of the pit. Soil samples were tested in the field for organic vapors. The soil sample with the highest OVM reading was sent to the lab for analysis of fuel -related compounds and metals. All metals were found to be below detection limits, with the exception of barium which was found at a level far below the regulatory limit. Fuel -related compounds were also primarily below detection limits. Those compounds which were detected were in compliance with remedial action category (RAC) level 1 limits. This is the most stringent category the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment uses when the soils are in contact with groundwater that can be used for municipal water supply. A sediment sample for the bottom of the pit was also analyzed for fuel -related compounds and metals. The analytical results were very similar to those for the borehole sample. No hazardous levels were identified. HISTORIC ABOVE -GROUND STORAGE TANKS Two above -ground storage tanks were used at this site from approximately 1985 to 1990. The tanks were used to store fuel. One borehole was drilled during WEI's investi� ._€ion to check for possible soil staining. No fuel readings above background levels were observed at this one location_ 'Therefore, no soil samples were sent to the lab for confirmatory analysis. Due to the presence of approximately two feet of snow and not having the knowledge of the exact location of the two ASTs, WEI can not confirm that no soil contamination occurred in this area. WEI recommends that a follow-up visit be performed after snowmelt to investigate possible soil staining and subsequent contamination. 95 (MON) 16:56 WRIGHT WATER TEL:303 480 1020 P. 004 Cris Caruso Page 3 ITEMS TO COMPLETE THE WFA-RECOMMENDED PHASE II ASSESSMENT Items yet to be completed as a part of WEI's presently -authorized Phase H limited investigation include final analysis of soil samples for chlorinated hydrocarbons and interpretation of these analyses. In addition to the limited authorized work, WEI recommends going forward with the remainder of the Phase II work originally recommended by WEI. WEI also recommends testing of all transformers at the site that have not previously been tested for PCB content. This last item is outside the original recommend scope presented by WEI. A cost estimate can be completed for this additional work after an accurate accounting is supplied to WEI of which transformers have recently been tested. MAY, - 0 V 95 (MON) 16:56 WRIGHT WATER TEL:303 480 1020 P. 005 3034693130 PHOENIX ANALYTICAL P-917 T-214 P-002 APR 25 '95 16t56 PHOANALYn'1L 25—Apr i 1--9� 1ABC j� ES Paul Avant Waste Engineering, Inc. 2430 Alcott Street Denver, Co Bm311 P.A.L. PROJECT: 7290 CLIENT PROJECT: 952--034. 010 Dear Pauli Enclosed ere the results of the rush TCLP Metals analyses for the soil samples from your Aspen Housing Phase 2 project. The sirpies were received by Phoenix Analytical on April 181 1993. No metals were detected at levels greater than the TCLP maximum contavinant limit. Please note that due to poor ■atriX spike recoveries for Selaniue, the sanplms were analyzed by the Method of Standard Additions. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerelyq 3401 industriA1 lane • broomfield, Colorado 80020 0 303/469-1101 MAY. -01' 95 (MON) 16:56 WRIGHT WATER TEL:303 480 1020 P. 006 3034693132 PHOENIX ANALYTICAL. F-91? T-214 P-003 APR 25 '95 16:56 PHOENIX ANALYTICAL LABS LAB � PI S SUHMARY REPORT REPORT DATE_ 04/25/95 CLIENT: WASTE ENGINEERINGo INC. ANALYSISt TCLP METALS by SW-84G 1311'%mod. 3010%7000 SERIES CLIENT PROJECT: 952-034.010 ASPEN HOUSING PHASE 2 P. A. L. PROJECT t 7290 DATE SAMPL.EDa 04/14/95 DATE RECEIVED: 04/18/95 DATE EXTRACTED: 04/18/95 DATE DIGESTED: 04/19/95 SAMPLE I. D. 2 WE-1 PAL# 68390 SAMPLE MATRIXt SOLID EXTRACT MATRIX: WATER FOUND SPIKE R EG ANALYSIS/ CAS NO. CONC. RECOVERY LEVEL DATE ANALYZED ARSENIC 04/21/95 7440-38-2 <0.002 ae 5.0 BARIUM 04/21/95 7440-39-3 0.6 80 100.0 CADMIUM 04/20/95 7440-43-9 <0.02 S8 1.0 CKROXIUM 04/20Y95 ' 7440-47-3 <0. 02 83 5.0 LEAD 04/24/95 7439-92-1 1<0.1 103 5.0 MERCURY 04/21 /95 7439-97-6 <0.0005 100 0.2 SELENIUM 04/20/95- 7782-45-2 40.01 S -- 1.0 :SILVER 04/20/95 7440-22-4 'CO. 05 100 5,0 S s Sample analyzed by Method of Standard Additlona due to low matrix spike recoverion. REPORTEDY - 8Y REVIEWED p : � 3401 industriAl line • broomfield, colorido 80020 • 303/469-1101 MAY. -OF 95 (NION) 16:57 WRIGHT WATER TEL:303 480 1020 P. 007 3034693130 PHOENIX ANAL`rTICAI. F-91? T-214 P-004 APR 25 '95 16:5? PHOENIX ANALYTICAL LABS I"A'A`^' SUMMARY REPORT REPORT DATE: 04/23/95 CLIENT: WASTE ENGIHEERIHG, INC. ANALYSIS s TCLP METALS by Sal-B46 1311%=o . 3210\7000 SERIES CLIENT PROJECT& 952-034.010 ASPEN HOUSING PHASE P.A. L. PROJECTj 7290 DATE SAMPLED: 04/14/95 DATE RECEIVED: 04/1B/95 DATE EXTRACTEDt 04/18/95 DATE DIGESTED: 04/19/95 SAMPLE I. D.: MPS-1 PAL# 68391 SAMPLE MATRIXI SOLID EXTRACT MATRIX, WATER FOUND SPIKE RES ANALYSISI CAS R.O. CONC. RECOVERY LEVEL DATE ANALYZED imp/1� �X� stag/1) ARSENIC 04/21/95 7440r-38-2 im• 002 85 5.0 BARIUM 04/21 /95 7440-39_3 1. 2 98 100.6 CADMIUM 04/20/95 7440-43-9 <0.02 96 1.0 CHROMIUM 04/20/95 7440-47-3 <O.02 a9 5.0 LEAD 04/24/95 7439-92-1 <0.1 iO3 5.0 MERCURY 04/21/95 7439-97-6 <m.0005 110 0.2 SELENIUM 04/20/95 7762-49-2 <0.01 S♦ -- 1.0 SILVER 04/20/95 7440-22-4 -Co. AS 3,00 5.0 S Samp1Q nns►lyxed by Method of Standard Additions do& to low matrix mptka recoveries. ♦ t Correlation Coslficient 0.995. Avtual value = 0.993. < Implication ie that valve Could be,biaeed slightly lvv. REPORTED SYt REVIEWED BYt 3401 Industrial lane • broomfield, colorado 80020 • 303/469-1101 MAY. -01' 95 (MON) 16:57 WRIGHT WATER TEL:303 480 1020 P. 008 3034693132 PHOENIX ANALYTICAL F-920 T-215 P-002 APR 25 '95 17:03 21-Apr-95 PHOEMX ANAL.YM AY. I ABORN I nRIES Paul Avant IN. Waste Engineering, Inc. 2430 Alcott Dcnve.r, CO 80211 P.A.L. Project: 7290 Client Project: 952-034.0I0 Dear Paul: Enclosed are the results of the EPA 82.60 BTEXfIVH analysis for the soil samples submitted on April 1S, 1995. please note that in addition to toluene, several terpenes were detected in sample WPS-•1. All of the terpenes were at very low concentrations _ (<104gXg). Their respective values are listed in the rater data for the sample.. . The BTEX/ TVH analysis encompasses hydrocarbons ranging from. C4 - C14 in carbon distribution. The TVH value includes the BTEX analytes, other aromatic hydrocarbons, aliphatic and olefiuie hydrocarbons, and oxygenated petroleum additives, such as MTBE, if they are present in the smple. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, nie F Laboratory Manager - 00i +Y�3401 industrial lane broomfield, Colorado 80020 303/469-1101 MAY. -0.195(MON) 16:57 3034693130 WRIGHT WATER PHOENIX ANk-YTlCAL TEL:303 480 1020 P. 009 F-920 T-215 P-003 APR 25 '95 17:03 SUMMARY ANALYTICAL FORM CLIENT: CLIENT PROJECT: P.A.L. PROJECT: ANALYSIS: DATE SAMPLED: DATE RECEIVED: DATE ANALYZED: DATE REPORTED: Waste Engineering 952-034.010 7290 STEXITVH by EPA 8260 04/14/95 04/18/95 04/20/96 04/21/95 MATRIX: Soil-r'v/7 = Q(.� ,k �i� P-4- �,�tt,•�, C% .� f n, �r CONC: UNITS: Ng/Kg -f leg CLIENT ETHYL, TOTAL TOTAL VOL. SAMPLE ID: BENZENE TOLUENE BENZENE XYLENES HYDROCARBONS WE-1 J < 0.8 < 0.8 < a _8 < 0.8 310 ��n.t'�� i�r �.J^ ttr ,•:. r>rr u•^r.ur•rr•s�r�:l'i. ""iiw••' r. W'�•�w•.•�o:::F1:. tip''. ""'1f.".r.•�•r-•...a�:►as:'s�,1►�,w • 't ".' r 'i:.VK� i==j p;k• � (.tl Y r a7 .1� vL in.+� •-. ; �......��ua.M« v►�•i► %�Y X!� if_ J, 'j� .. .�1��+5� /i�wh � :►L::1 '.a' 1 �fii; �4.: ;y .ir� � M1�•'• r•r :�r :r.:!{•,'�ie 3 �:h�"!. t.7 lY Vi2��ti��L�'►:{i.B�WIS:i�•t��•"V.tV r� �: � . �' • �l3rG;; t.rv•!. a'�y:: ��'� ,�I U�J+ .. . �. �:... .. •�.. 'i � :�'.'".... ....... ... ..�� . �..��• .-d. ..,,Y �,'rr +�MY»tiMr: .Yam► ir..� � « . . .J �� ♦••.K�•.�:.: 1,l.': • All " <" values are MDLs. QUALITY CONTROL.: ' % This method is a GCMS technique, and the quality control is as in the SW-848 capillary column volatiles method. This includes deity tune checks, daily caPbretion checks, daily blanks and appropriate spikes. All such QC was Conducted as required and found to be within acceptable limits. REPORTING QUALIFIERS: "J": Indicates that the analyte concentration was found betmen the quanthation limit and the detection limit or otherwise outside of the calibration limits. The valkle seen is therefore an estimate. "B"! Indicates that the anelyte was present in the daily blank. The value seen has been corrected to re-flect this. i' 'oat REPORTED REVIEWED BY; . .3401.industrial lame broomfleld, coiorado ,80,020,. s, 303/,469 -1101, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing PUD Rezoning - Work Session DATE: April 2, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicants are requesting approval to rezone the property to AHl/PUD (Affordable Housing) in order to develop fifteen deed -restricted affordable housing units (12 Category 4 one -bedroom units, 2 Category 2 one -bedroom units, and one Category 4 two - bedroom unit). PUD review is a four -step review, which requires conceptual review and final development review by the Commission and the City Council. The applicants have requested to consolidate the conceptual and final development reviews into a two-step review. Staff is requesting a determination from the Commission as to whether consolidation of this application is appropriate, or whether the proposed project should be processed as a four -step review. Staff has scheduled the Commission's initial review of the application on April 16, 1996. The application is attached as Exhibit "A". APPLICANTS: Ted Guy and David Guthrie LOCATION: 810 South Avenue; Lots 13, 14, 15 & 16, Block 3, Williams Addition. The property is located on the corner of South and Spruce Streets, across from the entrance to the Smuggler Trailer Park. ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.84.030(C)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code allows consolidation of conceptual and final development review if staff determines that because of the limited extent of the issues involved in a proposed PUD in relation to the applicable review procedures and standards, or because of a significant community interest which the project would serve, a full four -step review would be "redundant and serve no public purpose." Staff has opted to forward this request to the Planning Commission for a determination. Staff agrees with the applicants that the project is consistent with the AACP and the intent of the AH1/PUD zone district by providing affordable housing for permanent residents of the comunity in close proximity to the downtown core. The project is also consistent with the mixed character of the surrounding area (single-family and multi -family development and the Smuggler Trailer Park). Water and utilities are already in place, and access and parking will be from the existing alley. However, staff notes that this project proposes 15 units within 7 structures, and the impact EXHIBIT A SMUGGLER AFFORDABLE. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AFFORDABLE. HOUSING/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. CAHl/PUD) MARCH 15, 1996 ................. THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1640 BASALT, COLORADO B 1621 (970) 927-31 B7 Table of Contents: Letter of Submittal Minimum Submission Requirements: Letter of Consent from Applicant Street Address and Legal Description Certificate of Title (Warranty Deed) Vicinity Map Description of Development Application Listing of Submittal Drawings Dimensional and Off -Street Parking Requirements Development Schedule Outline Section 26.84.030 B. P.U.D. Review Standards Section 26.84.030 C. Procedure for Review Conceptual Development Plan Section 26.92.020 Rezoning Review Standards Exhibit 'C' - Listing of Category Units 1 N 3 4 5 4 ON 9 10-16 16-17 17-18 19 TC-1 March 15, 1996 David Michaelson Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 130 S. Galena Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing 810 South Avenue Aspen, CO SUBJECT: Development Application Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH1 /PUD) Dear David: Herewith, please find the Development Application for the Planned Unit Development. The application also seeks an exemption from GQ,MS and an underlying zone district designation to Affordable Housing (AH 1 /PUD) zone. We have enclosed a check in the amount of $2,800.00 as total deposit for processing of the application. Please notify us of our scheduled hearing date. Sincerely, 14 uce Barth THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC 96106 PS1 BB/JP 1 March 15, 1996 David Michaelson Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 130 S. Galena Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Smuggler Affordable Housing 810 South Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 SUBJECT: Development Application Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH1 /PUD) Dear David: This letter is to inform you that I as the applicant, Theodore K. Guy, have authorized Theodore K. Guy Associates P.C. to act on my behalf in this development application. All questions regarding this application can be directed to: Theodore K. Guy Theodore K. Guy Associates P.C. P.O. Box 1640 Basalt, CO 81621 (970) 927-3167 Sincerel T dore K. Guy N STREET ADDRESS: 810 South Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 13 and 14, Block 3, Williams Addition to the City of Aspen, as shown on the special review plat for separation of Substandard Lots, Recorded September 12, 1979 in Plat Book 8 at Page 39. Together with that parcel described in deed recorded July 29, 1983 in Book 449 at Page 391. Less and Except that Parcel described in Deed Recorded July 29, 1983 in Book 449 at Page 390. AND Lots 15 and 16, Block 3, Williams Addition to the City of Aspen as shown on the special review plat for separation of substandard lots, recorded September 12, 1979 in Plat Book 8 at Page 39. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. 3 CERTIFICATE OF TITLE (WARRANTY DEED) See Exhibit B 4 VICINITY MAP Park L V4 1 r S �y,_ � C 'hra Mounfoln New Dr r 9y Ssww unny Ct Aspen Sall �i� Inetttule 1. Muele NSF V� 2 S 5 Tent a lot Air FId .Lood k Lit Hallam tr Lake 9. N � L Hunter r �'Ro7�GT 61TE j Not all streets or roads are shown on maps or In / guides. Construction of no 61 streets and roads may in progress In certaln.areas. 'Aspon Maroon Creek Rd e yv A $ Av ¢ q Maple Ls......0.6 ! o p U s Marolt Pl...11.2.3 Y ,. r Sys Maroon CC Dr..........P-1 q. Maroon Cis Rd......QH-I.2 A / t... i0 l 7 MatchlessDn............0•11.6 Y 9l Q �r Aa prlrn►oeePA roe Mayflower 0 ............:....H-1-7'. � IIenrs/ M roonLake \( (- McSkimmingRd..........H•1.7 one Meadow Dr.. .......... 0.11.2 �bo otl if boolittte Cir, De........_............H•2-3 Meadows Rd............P OJ Mel t `t)r}r Dt ,.................................E-4-5 Mldhnd Av...................H•6 7 0 tie LerkepUr EDatl#a Av........•.......................N•4 6 Mill St .............. .... ..... .....0.1-! 8� ' [h....»....._.nd ...................1.7 Monarch SL...... .... ....... ......0 1- Aerie Ct. Pk ................ ................. H-6 7 s Its 0.3 6 Mountain view Dr...... ...... ».P.2 Ajax Av...........................................0.6 F4ed .s............. ................. 1 67 Mtn Laurel Ct. D .............» J•1-t Of till Alice Ln........................................11-7 lied Sllra C1 »......................... 0.6 7 Mtn Oaks PI...............:»..........H-2 Alta visa Dc..............................F-2-3 Oalena St................. ...................... H4 Nale Av............................................H-6 ` 2.r Ardmore Ct, Dr.............................11.1 Oarmisch SL..:....5................0 11.4-3 Nicholas tA................................... 0 6-1 j "IT Ye Aspen St ........... .......................... 0-H-3 Oibson Av.»........... ............... 0-H-5.6 Nighthawk Dr ................................ ... &3 ( A S Aspen Alps PL............................H-i-7 OiIbMSt.... ».......:........................H-5 North St....................»...................F-3.4 River Dr........... ... E.7 MeP) A O4 w tw t Bamud Park C ............................0-3 011ie Is St...........I......................IF4 OakLn...............................:...............06 Riverside Av......1.............._.H-6 Bay St.............................................0.6 Grove 9t......._.............................11-2 Original St.....................................H-i-6 Rlvrnide Ih........................16 7 :: Ufe ti i` 9 i Bennett Bench Ct. Pl. Rd............E-4-3 Halton SL....:...........................0•ld Overlook Dr. ........... .:.......................9-3 Roaring Fork De....................1.7 BIack ' /y �htDr Black Birch Dr .......................E-F-2.3 Hasher»:..........................0•H-2 Park Av, Clr.......................................H 6 Roaring Fork Rd.............». .. P� 3 O•t i Q r Bleaker St...................................0.3-3 ' Herron 11 0~...............................E-4 Paul St. ............................................. F-1 Rol Ct.............. .. E. Bleaker SL..........................0-f}.3.6 i. Holden t........0.7 Peck Rd.............................................E•5 Sabin Dr........... �.............»... .D-&6 Sax6AK.. A A 6 ��17d + �i Bluebonnet Tr...............................11.2 Homes Dr. ................................ E-2 Pitkin Wy....................................... E-F 4 Ss6e Ct..............I.........................E-! Spring St.......................... Brown Ln.......................................0.6 .: HcpkigAv................... .......... 0-11.3-6 Pitkin Mesa Dr ............................. QE-2 Salva[Ioa Clc.....j.......»...................E-2 Sprndr 31...................................:....0-6 a 9- Bunny Ln....................................B-2-3 Fiun$$t........................................If3 Placer Ln......•................................. F-3 Saw Mill Ci....... 0.3 Summ11 5t. .. 11-3 Q- t.......»................ . Castle Creek Dr.:........................F-3 i; tfun Creek Rd........................E-F•6 Power Plant Rd............................F-O-3 Sesame St...............................0.11-7 Teal Ct........�..........:.............. ......0-6 \\ \ Castle Creek Rd.....................0-1.1.3 ;: 1 an Av...............................0.11.4-6 Primroxe Path ................................... Shadowood Dr..�......................1.1.1.1 Toby Ln............ .`...................... ......IIJ Cc tennislCir............................... ►.6-7 7 Ian St..: ..................................... t1-4-3 Puppy. Smith SL.................... .......... 0.5 Shady Ln........... I ....................... F.0.1. Truscon PI............. ................ E•F-1.2 .i 82 Chatrield Rd...................................B-2 ? King St..........................................11.6 anmid Rd.......................................F•1 Short p...•..........f..........................0 6 Twin Ridge Dr.............`.:.. .. _.._.11.2 Circuit Av........................................1-7 !.aces Ct, Ln ............................ 11.1-6-7 etn St ........................................... H-6 Silver King Dr..............................E•2 Ute Av, PI ..................................... 1.5 6 Like Av.......................................F-O-I 1 Cleveland St...................................lf-6 Race St...................................:.........0,6 Skimming t n....._..........................fl-7 Vine St ............................................ 0-6 ' �\ Cooper Av...................................H-¢Y Larkspur Ln....................................H-2 Red Butte Dr. ............................ D-E-2J Smuggler St.......I................... P•OJ-3 Walnut St ....................................... 0-6 ttonw C000d Cir...................... r t9 4� Laurel Ln........................ 4............... 11.2 Red Mountain Rd ............. .......D-O-S-6 Smuggler Orove Rd......:........:...11.6-7 Waters Av......................................... 1.6 Q \` Cottonwood In .................. ........0 6 Lont Pine Rd ............................. 0-3.6 Red's Rd ..................................... D-8.46 Smuggler Mountain Ad.........E-11-61 West End SI................................. H•1 6 Crystal Lake Rd ............. .............. I-7 Lupine Dr. ..................................... i•1-1 Regent St ....................................... 11.61 Snarls St..................... It•3 Wesiview Dr. ............................... 1.7-1 Dale So ..........................J..............11.6 Magnifico Rd .................................. B 4 Ridge PI, Rd ...................................... 8.3 Sneaky ls...........a.................... P•0.3 Willoughby Wy ........................ E•F-3•S To Twin LakpfJ 0 Dean St ............... ........ (((.....:...........If-5 Mein St ................................... .11.3•5 Rio Orsnde PI ............................ 0.11.3.E Snow Bunny C4.......................... &3 Wright Rd ....................................... E-3 Independence a!! ]a TO Acroft II A II II 1 n II Al.rlt\ MAYS n ,. 5 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION The development application is requesting approval for- rezoning from Medium Density Residential (R-6) to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH1 /PUD). The proposed development will consist of a total of fifteen deed -restricted affordable housing units; one Category IV Two Bedroom, twelve CategorylV one -bedroom units and two Category II one -bedroom units without parking, contained in seven separate buildings. The application does not propose development of free market or Resident occupied units. The applicant is currently involved in discussions with the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority to identify final sales prices of these Category units. Detailed graphic description is included as a part of this application to illustrate how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 2 LISTING OF SUBMITTAL DRAWINGS Cover Sheet/Vicinity Map A1.0 Information Sheet Survey A1.1 Site/Landscape Plan A2.1 Building 1 Plans A2.2 Building 1 Elevations A2.3 Building 2 Plans A2.4 Building 2 Elevations A2.5 Building 3 Plans/Elevations A2.6 Building 4 Plans/Elevations A2.7 Building 5 Plans A2.8 Building 5 Elevations A2.9 Building 6 & 7 Plans/Elevations A2.10 Building 6 & 7 Elevations 7 DIMENSIONAL AND OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS 1) Minimum Lot Size 3,000 S.F./Actual Lot Size: 13,465 S.F. 2) Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling/Actual Lot Area Per Dwelling (1)Bedroom: 400 S.F (1)Bedroom: 897 S.F. (2)Bedroom: 800 S.F. (2)Bedroom: 1795 S.F. 3) Minimum Lot Width: 30 FT./Actual Lot Width 120 FT 4) Minimum Front Yard Setback/Actual Front Yard Setback Primary Building: 10 FT Primary Building: 10 FT Accessory Building: 15 FT Accessory Building: 15 FT 5) Minimum Side Yard Setback: 5 FT/Actual Sideyard Setback 5 FT 6) Minimum Rear Yard Setback/Actual Rear Yard Setback Primary Building: 10 FT Primary Building: 10 FT Accessory Building: 5 FT Accessory Building: 5 FT 7) Maximum Height: 25 FT/Actual Height: 25 FT 8) Minimum Distance Between Buildings: 5 FT/Actual Distance Between Buildings: 6 FT Minimum 9) Open Space Percent: By Special Review/Actual Percent of Open Space 44.5% 10) External F.A.R.: 1.1:1 /Actual External F.A.R.: 0.84:1 11) No Internal floor Area Ratio Requirements 12) Off Street Parking Requirements: Least Of Either 1 Space/Bedroom or 2/Dwelling Unit Actual Off -Street Parking Provided: (17) Total Spaces - One Per Bedroom w/(5) Guest Spaces DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE OUTLINE August 1, 1996 Begin Construction June 1, 1997 Complete Construction Proposed Public Facilities: The application proposes to construct the public sidewalk extension on Spruce Street and the common open space landscape as a part of the building phase. 9 B. SECTION 26.84.030. PUD REVIEW STANDARDS. A development application 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. The proposed development is currently zoned R-6; directly across the street from the Smuggler Trailer Park, zoned MHP/PUD, and is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed development is consistent with the character of the immediately surrounding area. c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The proposed development will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQs allotments are obtained by the applicant. The applicant is concurrently seeking approval for GMQS exemption for the proposed development. 2. Density a. General. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced if: The applicant is concurrently seeking approval for rezoning from Medium Density Residential (R-6) to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AHl/PUD). (1). There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the proposed development; All existing water and other utility services are in place and available to service the proposed development. (2). There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development; Existing roads are in place to service the. proposed development. 0 (3) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of its slope, ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers; The site is suitable for the proposed development and not subject to extreme slopes, ground instability, mud, flows, rock falls or avalanche dangers. (4) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff. The effects of the proposed development will not be detrimental to the natural watershed of the site. (5) The proposed development will have a deleterious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the city; or The proposed development will not have a deleterious effect on air quality of the surrounding area. (6) The design and location of any proposed structure, road driveway, or trail in the prosed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. The proposed development is compatible with the existing terrain and will not cause harmful disturbance to the natural features of the site. b. Reduction in density for slope consideration. (1) In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent in the underlying zone district; The existing site slope is less than 20 percent. (a). For lands between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone districts. The applicant is concurrently seeking approval for rezoning from Medium Density Residential (R06) to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH11PUD). (b) For lands between twenty - one (21) and thirty (30) percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50) percent of that permitted in the underlying zone district; N/A 11 (c) For lands between thirty -one (3 1 ) and forty (40) percent slope, the density shall be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone district; and N/A (d) For lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope, no density credit shall be allowed. N/A (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. See Item la above. (3) For parcels resting in more than one (1) underlying zone district, the density reduction calculation shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district. See Item 1 a above. (4) Density shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04, Definition of Lot Area. The lot area of the of the existing site is not reduced by lands dedicated to the City of Aspen for the public trail system however, it is reduced by a below surface sewer easement. 3. Land uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlying zone district. The applicant is concurrently seeking approval for rezoning from Medium Density Residential (R-6) to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH1/PUD). 4. Dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the Underlying zone district; provided that variations may be permitted in the following: a. Minimum distance between buildings; 5 FT./Actual Distance between buildings: 6 FT. b. Maximum height (including viewplanes); 25 FT./Actual Height: 25 FT. C. Minimum front yard; Primary Building. 10 FT/Accessory Building:. 15 FT d. Minimum rear yard; Primary Building: 10 FT/Accessory Building. 5 FT. e. Minimum side yard; 5 FT 12 f. Minimum lot width; .30 FT./Actual 120 FT. g. Minimum lot area; (7) Bedroom: 400 S.F./Actual (7) Bedroom: 897 S.F. (2) Bedroom: 800 S.F./Actual (2) Bedroom: 1795 S. F. h. Trash access area; NIA i . Internal floor area ratio; and NIA j . Minimum percent open space. By Special Rmiew/Actual Percent of Open Space 44.5% If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided the total area of all lots, when averaged, at .least equals the per minimum for the zone district. Any variation permitted shall be clearly indicated on the final development plan. 5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations. a. The probable number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations. 12 cars b. The parking needs of an nonresidential uses. NIA C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. NIA d. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile distinctive techniques in the proposed development. The site is currently on an active bus route. e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities in the city. The site is within a five minute walk to the Commercial Core and recreational facilities. Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the city shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change. 6. Open space. The open space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed planned unit development (PUD), and if the proposed development shall include open space of 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 park or recreation area if it: a. It is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and Common open space has been provided and intended to be used for landscape purposes, refer to Sheet A 1.1. 13 b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom the common area is intended. The Common Open Space is accessible to all units. NOTE: A legal instrument insuring the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces together with a proportionate undivided interest in all common open space deeded in perpetuity to each dwelling unit within the PUD including deed restrictions against future development will be submitted as a part of the development application for final development plan. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD), together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or. industrial development. Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned facilities. 7. Landscape plan. There shall be approved as partof the final development plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. A landscape plan is included as a part of the graphic. description of the application submittal, refer to Sheet A 1.1. 8. Architectural site plan. 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 stifled 'in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon 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 natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. An Architectural Site plan as well as detailed floor plans and exterior building elevations are included as a part of the graphic description of the application submittal, refer to Sheets Al. I - A2.10. 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glaze or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All site lighting shall be maximum 3' high walkway and landscape lighting. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encourage. The proposed development is designed to evoke the character of a small scale village of individual dwellings set in a pedestrian oriented common green space linked by walkways. 14 11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Common public facilities with the exception of the landscape open space and the sidewalk extension on Spruce Street are not a part. of the proposed development. The arrangement of buildings within the development will allow emergency vehicle access to all buildings from the street or the alley. 12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation. a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. All dwelling units are linked to a public street by a system of walkways through the common open space. b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the planned unit development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. Auto traffic will access the proposed development from the existing alley. The development does not require new curb cuts to the existing public street. C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved sot that they will not be adversely affected. The proposed development is designed to utilize the existing vehicular alley access and will not adversely affect the surrounding road system. 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. All buildings within the proposed development are a maximum 58' distance from the driveway area providing vehicular access to a public street via the existing alley. e. 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. N/A f. Streets in the planned unit development 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. N/A 15 The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application, and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this chapter and this title. C. 26.84.030 Conceptual Development Plan. Procedure for review. Prior to development as a planned unit development (PUD), an applicant shall receive approval for a conceptual development plan and then a final development plan pursuant to the procedures of this section and Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. 1. Conceptual development plan. a. Contents of application. The contents of a development application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following. (1) The general application information required in Common Procedures, Section 26.52.030; The general application information is provided in pages 1-9 of this submittal. (2) A conceptual description of the proposed planned unit development (PUD). This shall include but not be limited to a statement of the objectives to be achieved by the planned unit development and a conceptual description of proposed land uses, building heights and locations, landscaping, open space, natural features, and access ways; The development application is requesting approval for rezoning from Medium Density Residential (R-6) to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH1/PUD). The proposed development will consist of a total of fifteen deed -restricted affordable. housing units; one Category IV two bedroom, twelve Category IV one bedroom units and two Category II one bedroom units without parking, contained in seven separate buildings. The application does not propose development of free market or resident occupied units. The applicant is currently involved in discussions with the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority to identify final sales prices of these category units. Individual building heights will not exceed 25 FT and are arranged to evoke the character of a small scale village of individual dwellings set in a pedestrian oriented common green space linked by walkways. (3) A statement conceptually outlining how the proposed PUD development will be served with the appropriate public facilities, and how assurance will be made that those public facilities are available to serve the proposed development; and Common public .facilities with the exception of the landscape open space and the sidewalk extension on Spruce Street are not a part of the proposed development. The common landscape open space is accessible to all units. A legal instrument insuring the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces 16 together with a proportionate individual interest in all common open space deeded in perpetuity to each dwelling unit within the PUD including deed restrictions against future development will be submitted as a part of the development application for final development plan. (4) A conceptual site plan, illustrating: (a) Existing natural and manmade features. Refer to Sheet A 1.1 (b) General configuration of proposed land uses, access ways, and existing and proposed utilities. Refer to Sheet A 1.1 (c) A general landscaping plan and elevations or other architectural renderings of the proposed improvements, which at a conceptual . level, depict general site design features, building mass and height, and relation to natural features of the site. Refer to Sheets A 1.1 - A2.10 b. Effect of approval of conceptual development plan. A development application for a final development plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless an extension is granted by the city council, failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of a conceptual development plan. The applicant will submit a development application for a final development plan once approval for a conceptual development plan is granted. 26.92.020. REZONING REVIEW STANDARDS. STANDARD OF REVIEW A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. The proposed amendment for rezoning of the property for the development is not in conflict with the applicable portions of this title. B. Whether the prosed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment for rezoning of the property for the development is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. The proposed development site is currently zoned R-6; directly across the street from the Smuggler Trailer Park and is consistent with the character of the immediately surrounding area. 17 D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. The proposed development is designed to utilize the exiting vehicular alley access, does not propose new curb cuts to the existing public street, and will not adversely affect the surrounding road system. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the prosed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. The proposed development will not exceed the capacity of the existing public facilities including those identified above. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. The site located within an existing subdivision, is suitable for the proposed development and, will not, ' as a result of its implementation significantly adversely impact the natural environment. G.. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. The proposed development is consistent and compatible with the "historic" small scale, wood frame dwellings typical of the community character- in the City of Aspen. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. The rezoning of the adjacent Smuggler Trailer Park to MHP/PUD and the City's goal to house 60% of its work force within the city limits supports the proposed amendment for rezoning of the subject property. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. (Code 1971, 7 1102). The proposed development is not in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Regulations. EXHIBIT 'C' LISTING OF CATEGORY UNITS Memorandum TO Community Development Department FROM Bruce Barth, THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC DATE March 22, 1996 RE Affordable Housing The following and attached information is a response to the concerns expressed in your letter dated March 21, 1996, sent upon completion of your preliminary review. The layout of the units by category is as follows: Building 1: Unit la - 1-bedroom, Category 2 Unit lb - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Unit 1 c - 1 -bedroom (loft), Category 4 Unit 1 d - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Building 2: Unit 2a - 1-bedroom, Category 2 Unit 2b - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Unit 2c - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Building 3: Unit 3a - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Unit 3b - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Building 4: Unit 4a - 2-bedroom, Category 4 Building 5: Unit 5a - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Unit 5b - 1-bedroom, Category 4 Unit 5c - 1-bedroom, Category 4. Building 6: Unit 6a - 1-bedroom(loft), Category 4 Building 7: Unit 7a - 1 -bedroom (loft), Category 4 Please see the attached information as it pertains to other issues. Lo loot 11810"Skyj 19 51TE DATA: LAND USE: EXISTIN6 PROPERTY, WBDIVVW INTO A 511,161.P FAMILY AND A CtUPLEX LOT, TO BE REZONED TO ACCOMODATE AFFORDABLE HOUSIN6. FOURTEEN ONE BEDROOM UNITS (12 - CATE6ORY 4 ANO 2 - CATE60RY 2) AND ONE TWO BEDROOM UNIT (CATE6ORY 4). DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: 1.) MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 3,000 5.F./AC'TVAL LOT SM. 13,465 S,F. 2.) MINIMUM LOT AREA PER VYIFLLIN6/A4-TUAL LOT AREA PER DWELLIN6 (1) BEDROOM: 4005Y. (1) BEDROOM: 841 S.F. (2) BEDROOM: 800 S.P. (2) BEDROOM: 1682 S.F. WMINIMUM LOT WIDTH: SOFT/ACTUAL LOT WIDTH 120 PT 4.) MINIMUM FRONT YARD 5MACK/ACTUAL FRONT YARD SETBACK PRIMARY BUILGIN6: 15FT PRIMARY BUIL.DIN6: 15 FT ACCESSORY BUILDIN6: 10 FT ACESSORY BULOR46: 10 FT. W MINIMUM SIDE YARD SEETBAK: 5 PT/ACTUAL SiPrYARD SETBACK 5 FT 6J MINIMUM REAR YARD 5EMACK/AG7UAL REAR YARD 5ETBACK PRIMARY BUIIJ:;IN6: 10 FT PRIMARY BUILCAN6: 10 FT A6CE55ORY BUIL0IN6: 5 FT AGES'.•ORY SULDRJ6: 5 FT 7.) MAXIMUM HE614T: 25 hT - SOFT THRU SPECAAL REVEW/ACTUAL HE64T: 30 FT TO MAX, POINT e.) MINIMMUM DISTANCE BETraaN Buiux,64k 5 FT/ACTUAL INSTANCE BETINMN 001-1;IN65: 6 FT MINMUM q.) OPEN SPACE FERC.ENT: BY SPEGAAL R1 AFIWACTUAL PERCENT OF OPEN 5PAGE: 44.5% 10.) EXTERNAL FAR: 1.1:1/ ACTUAL EXTERNAL F.AR: 0.840 11.) NO INTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO REOIIREMENT5 12.)OFF-57REET PARKN6 R50UI1REMENT3: LEAST OF ETT'HER 1 SPAS OR 2/DWEI-JNb UNIT ACTUAL OFF-STREET PARKIN6 PROVIDED (17) TOTAL 5PACE5 - Ot,E PER 5EDRO0M(CAT560RY 4) YV(W 6UE5T SPAC 5 SQUARE FOOT CALCULATIONS: BULMN6 ONE: (4) ONE BEDROOM UNITS UNIT 1 - 727 S.F, UNIT 2 - 127 5,F. VISITS - 727 5.F. UNIT 4 -103 5.F, TOTAL - 2e04 S.F. SUIL.0I11,16 TWO: (5) ONE BEDROOM UNITS UNIT 1 - 100 5.F. UNIT 2-113ar UNT S - 711 9.F. TOTAL - 2,24 5.F. BULDIN6 THREE: (2) ONE BEDROOM UNITS UNIT 1 - 715 S.F. UNT 2 - 115 S.F. TOTAL - 14506.11. BULDN6 FOUR: (1) TWO BEDROOM UNIT TOTAL - 1Oq& S.F. BUILMN6 FNE: (S) ONE BEDROOM UNITS UNIT 1 - 724 5.F. UNIT 2 - 703 S.F. UN 3 - 100 S.F. TOTAL - 2132 S.F, BUILCIN6 51X: (1) ONE BEDROOM UNIT TOTAL - BOq 5.11. BUILOIN6 SEVEN: (1) ONE BEDROOM UNIT TOTAL - 7"15 S.F. TOTAL OVERALL BUILT SQUARE FOOTA6E - 11250 5.11. PLANT SCHEDULE: sym. tatty. Botanical Name/Common Name 51ze SmIng Cord. Symbol Trees Efj PT 28 Vump--0pulus trembldes/GLakIN Aspen 2.5'-3.0- Gal. O.S. 81B , PF 3 PIcea pungers/Colorado Spruce 12-13, as. 91113 Existing trees as shown/ir+dicated on survey • Slnvbs and Groundwvers *0 COR e8 COrrus servfcearRed-osier Dogwood 5 gal, a.s. FUJI 4750 5.1'. Sod 10'-O" 5LTBf iCK 0 A9 --- ------- ............... Q................. ______---__ 4.J J • • •-� . • • BUILDING 2 ; Lt, Ill -- -_-r----- - -----J BLDG.HT.-29'-0 W P4�.•,• ;, .•.•.;.,. . . . . . . ' , • BUILDING 1. i -. •) • , SLAB. HT. - 3t7-0 N Pro:r .-PT,, ......... f • MON PEN SPACE ---- ff0' .'.BUILDING 3..:... . • . .. - . I . ��i�r�� • • • • BLD6. WT. 26'-0 . Pq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I u`� •BUILDING � �, ;f� I HLD6.HT.- i .. , . YYALK• j ti�l �-�-�------• I. .• � '.'fir -- BUILDING 4- --- ----- I I ... •• ,.. BLD6, HT. - 24'-O cr . P1Q: " • . 1 BLD6. HT. - 2q'-0 . . I. T----- -BUILDING 6; . . 'P13 BU76;11T. = 25',O 1 • . . ;P1i . •/.. ./ LK Lu P1q i NG SDK NOTE: LIMITS OF EXCAVATION FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL BUILDING NOT TO EXCEED 5'-0* BEYOND THE EXTERIOR PERIMETER OF THE FOUNDATION Y4ALL5 - � LE67AL PE50RIPTION: LOTS 15,16 AND PART OF LOTS 15,14 BOUT BLOK 5 YVILLIAM5 ADDITION PHY51CAL. ADDRE55: 510 50UTH AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 6RAPHIC 5CALE 51TE/L ANLISCAPE PLAN O 5 10 20 ®r=1a-o'� NORTH THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER5 P.O. BOX 1640 23280 W%Y, 52 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 PHONE C-03) q27-316-! FAX (303) 92'1-4513 2h= - •.. ..._.....•..... 3-15-06 REZONE 3-23-9b RE�JI31=D REZONE 5WOOLER AFFORDABLE HOU5INO ASPEN, COLORADO .JOB #: 46103 VRAM: BNB CHECKED: PRINTED: SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN All COPYRI6HT THEODORE K GUY A5500ATE9 PC, UFFER LEVEL MIDDLE LEVEL GARDEN LEVEL 6RAF+410 SCALE 0 4 a, 18 BUILDIN6 ONE pp- 0-101, THEODORE K GUY A550CIATF-5 FIC ARCHITECT5 AND 5TRUCTURAL FEN&INFER5 P.O. 130/ 1640 252e0 HWY. 62 BASALT, WL0;ZADO 61621 PHONE 003) q27-316-7 FAX (303) q2*7-4513 REMASU --------------- ----- --------------- ----- --------------- ----- --------------- ----- --------------- 5M000LER AFFORIDA5LF- HOU51NO ASPEN, COLORADO J05 t; C;6105 DRAWN: E3NI3 'OHECKED- MNTED: BUILDING ONE A:2-01 COFM6HT THEODORE K GUY A950CIATE-9 PC PIN 1. 1 1 I I i 1 Akm a I 1 0 -11. t L_J T 10Z'-5.5 TPI-XI 11Y 4110'-b 1 3' 102'-5.5 I 1 I 1 i I i I i 1 I I I I L--------------- I rl f --------------f 1l L _ J ^E5T ELEVATION I I I 1 1 I I I i--^------^^------------------^—^-----^------------------------1 EA5T ELEVATION srri� 1 3'b 102'-5.5 I I I i 1 I i I I 1 i I I I I I I I I 1 1 L--^------------------^-----^--^------ 1I f----------------'-------^^^—_^—^^^^1 l NORTH ELEVATION I i I I I I 1 I I i I L--------------------------------- —^1 1 n ff-----------^-----^--^---^^----^—^^( -11. SOUTH ELEVATION 6RAPHIC 5GALE � � 5UILDINO ONF 0 4 e 16 THEOOORE K GUY A550GIATE5 PG 5TRUGTURAL EN6INEER5 P.O. BOX 1640 23260 HYV'f . 52 BASALT, COLORADO 51621 PHONE (303) 92-1-3161 FAX (BOB) 92-7-4813 26= REMARKS 3-td-9b RI=TONE: ppy,, � ..... ............... 5MUOOLER AFFORDABLE HOU51NO A5PEN, COLOR 400 Joe #.a 416103 CRAM: BNB CHECKED: PRINTED: a,uMT T1T1 . BUILDING ONE ELEVATIONS A:20:2 C-OPM(5HT THEODORE K GUY A550GATE5 PG CIL STOFZ v v T 13EDRoomq Refrig W'g .,d kKITCHEN UPPER LEVEL im THEODORE K GUY A550CIATE5 PC ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS P.O. E30X 1640 23260 HY%Y. 82 BASALT, COLORADO 51621 PHONE (303) 121-3167 FAX(303) 927-4513 26M REMARKS 7 - - - - - - ----- --------------- ----- --------------- ----- --------------- ..... ............... SMUOOLER AFFORDABLE HOUSING A5FEN, COLORADO BNB PRINTED: SHEET TITLE: BUILDING TWO PLANS A:2*3 COPYRIGHT THEODORE K 6UY A990CIATES PC I f r1-----------------------------^--J 1 -------------------------------1 �I L-J L-J WEST ELEVATION 1--------------------------------� I r1 r------------------------------, i L_J L_J EAST ELEVATION L_J L-J NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION GRAPHIC 5CA -E 0 4 e 16 BUILOIN0 T1NO THEODORE K GUY A55OCIATE5 PG ARCHITECTS AND 5TRUG7URAL EN6INEER5 P.D. BOX 1640 23280 HYVY. 52 BASALT, COLORADO 51621 PHONE MOB) 1127-916"1 FAX ('03) 92T-4613 2&M REMARKS -... ............... 3-1S-�ib REZONE ----- ............... --------------- 5MUOOLER AFFORDABLE HOU5INO ASPEN, C OLORAIDO -IOB #- %103 PR.AYVN: BNB CHECKED: PRINTED - SHEET TITLE: BUILDING TWO ELEVATIONS A:2,04 COPYRIGHT THEODORe K c5UY ASSOCIATES PC f f I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I L-J L-J SOUTH ELEVATION 1 1 I ! I I 1 ! I I I f f I I 1 I I I ! 1'4 �`I NORTH ELEVATION I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 L - i EA5T ELEVATION I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I i I 1 1 I I i I I I 1 1 1 I r' Ll I� L-J L _J lNE5T ELEVATION UFFER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL (5 A RPHIC L.E 5—'A R 1 (_ 0 a a 16 BUILO)ING THREE THEODORE K GUY A550GIATE5 PG ARCHITECT5 AND 5TRUCTURAL ENGINEER5 P.O. BOX 1640 23280 HNY. 82 B,&6ALT, COL.ORADO 61621 PHONE ('303) d121-316-T FAX (303) 92 7--4813 SMUOOLER A FFOFVA5LE HOU51NO ASPEN, COLOR 4-V O X)a #: ribb103 DRANN: BNB CHECKED: PRINTED: EHI'ET *nTLI!: BUILDING THREE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS A:2.5 COPYRIGHT THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PO 001, L—J EAST ELEVATION UFFER LEVEL L—J kNE5T ELEVATION M100LE LEVEL WNW 0 ELI", i ml�l -TT(57--o� L -j NORTH? ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION GRAPHIC SCALE BUILEIN& FOUR 0 4 a 10 THEOIDORE K GUY A550CIATE5 PC ARCHITECT5 AND 5TRUCTURAL EN(51NF=FR5 P.O. E30X 1640 25250 Hvmlro 82 BASALT, (;CLORADO 51621 PHONE (3039 9273167 FAX (303) 92T-4613 2&M REMARKS ----- ------------ ..... ............... ..... ............... ----- -------- ...... ..... ............... 5MUC76LER AFFORPAOLE HOU51NO ASPEN, COLOR -ADO DRANK: BNB CHECKED:;': PRINTED: SHEET TITLE: BUILDIN6 FOUR. FLAN5 AND ELEVATIONS COPYRIGHT THEOOORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC, UFFER LEVEL MIVVLF- LfVEL &ARDEN LEVEL GRAPHIC SCALE a e s BUILDING FIVE ILppp- A THEODORE K 6U.r A55OCIATE5 PC ARCHITECT5 AND 5TRUCTURAL ENGINEERS P.O. sox 1640 23260 HV4Y. 62 SA6ALT, WLORAVO 81621 PHONE (303) 927--316*T FAX (303) 927-4513 5MU66LFR AFF0FZDAE3LF HOUSING ASPEN, COLORADO -ce #: 06103 MAML BNB CHECKED: PRINTED: SHEET TITLE: BUILDING f9VI! PLANS AND ELE\/A"nCN5 A:2,v I COPYRIGHT THr=ovopx- K 6uy ASSOCAATES PC I I I I I I I I I I L-------------------------------------------_---------------I I r----------------------------------------------------------I EAST ELEVATION I I I I I I i I i i L'-----------------------------------------------------------I r---------------------------------------------------------- L_.J L_J WE5T ELEVATION fI-------------------------------r L-J L-J SOUTH ELEVATION I I I I II II I I I I I I I I I L--------------------------------- 11 4 L - J NORTH ELEVATION 6RAPHIC SCALE I I FIVE, 0 4 a le BUIL I1 )IN0 THEODORE K GUY a550CIATE5 PG 5TRUCTURAL EN6INEERS P.O. Box 1640 23280 HWY. 82 BASALT, COL OKADO 81621 PHONE (3O3) 92T316l rAX (303) G2-1-4813 SMUOOLER AFFOR ABLE HOU51NO A5PEN, COLOR o VRAM BNB CHECKED: PRINTE77: SHEET TITLE: BUIL.DIN& FIVE EL.EVATION5 A:2,05 COPYRIGHT THEODORE K GUY A950UATE5 PC 112-o.s too'-o.5 lob.-OT 100'-0 qa•-i,. aq-4.5 I I I 1 I I I I i I I I L_J L_J NORTH ELEVATION na-6.5 YCL- l0q,-0.51 i '-o aq-q.9 NORTH ELEVATION LOWER LEVEL UPPER LEVEL GRAPHIC r.^GAL.E BUIL.I�)INO 51X BUIL DIN& 5EVEN O a a 16 Iro THEODORE K GUY A550CIATE5 F C ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL. EN(5INEER5 P.O. BOX 1640 23250 H►NY, a2 SA6A-T, COl-ORADO 61621 PHONE C303)12?3167 FAX =3) 92 7-4813 26M REMARKS ---- 8-1Ssi6 REZGNE 322�v_ •-----------r 5MUOOLER AFFORPABLE HOU5INO ASPEN, COLORADO -ce It: 46,o3 DRAI^Pt: BNB CHECKED: PRINTED: BUILVIN6 THREE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS A:2*cl COPM6HT THEODORE K 6UY ASSOCIATES PG WrAMMIN mnirNaa WrOm"t r 2 T Pi Yl 1001-01 .Tm I -0`11-tIT Z.-W AAI p7--q5-T SOUTH ELEVATION ri NE5T ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 6RAPHIC, 5CALE BUIL17)IN6 51X BUIL17�IN6 SEVEN Luau. -L IM ARL Fq s IjL THEOPORE K GUY A-'550CIATE5 PC ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL EN61NEER5 P.O. E30X 1640 23:2e0 HPNY. 62 E3A6AL.T, COLORADO 81621 PHONE (3O3) q27-3167 FA>< (3O3) q27-4513 26= REMARKS ----- --------------- ----- --------------- ----- --------------- ----- --------------- 5M066LER AFFORDABLE HOU51NO A5FEN, COLORADO -ce #- %105 DR.Am: BNB 04ECKECI: PRINTED: SHEET TITLE: BUILDING THREE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS A:2,010 COFI'M64T THEODORE K GUY A9900ATES PC. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director DATE: April 2,1996 RE: Conclusions and Recommendations from The Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey SUMMARY: Due to uncertain information regarding the utilization of ADUs, the Planning Commission directed staff to conduct a survey of existing units to determine construction and occupancy rates. In January of 1996, George Krawzoff completed a survey of the 81 known approvals for ADUs following the implementation of Ordinance 1, and provided a summary to staff. The preliminary results were of concern due to the return of only 30 responses (37%). The Housing Office and George refined the results of the survey by referencing building permit files to determine if these units had been completed. Staff has included the survey and research results as Exhibit A. Dave Tolen from the Housing Office has also responded to the conclusions of the survey, and his March 27, 1996 memo is attached as Exhibit B. Staff agrees with the Housing Office perspective that although the program is not perfect, it should be continued. Planning staff has suggested some changes that may improve the livability and potential occupancy rates of the unit. Conclusions from Survey: Staff has summarized the more important elements of the survey results below: • The Housing Office and George are both confident that the qualifying tenant occupancy rate is near 50%. • Property owners have significant concern regarding the potential for additional regulatory approaches, including mandatory rentals and the potential for management by the Housing Office. • The majority of units (58%) are in the range of 300 to 500 square feet, with 40% of units greater than 500 square feet. • Over 35% of units are below -grade, and only 11% are detached from the primary residence. Comments from the Housing Office: Dave Tolen has responded to the Planning Commission's request to summarize the Housing office's position on the ADU program based on the survey results (see Exhibit B). Dave's response frames his position in light of the ability of the public sector to produce housing when compared to even a 50% occupancy rate. For example, the 1 Benedict Commons project produced 27 studio and one -bedroom units at a cost of $1.7 million. The ADU program, which was started in 1990, has produced 23 occupied rental units, which are more affordable than the Benedict units, at no cost to the public sector. Staff is in agreement with Dave's conclusions, primarily based on the ability of the ADU program to produce affordable units in the City. Dave goes on to suggest that further regulation or intervention by the Housing Office or Community Development is not necessary, and in fact may be counter- productive. He suggests that local property management firms may be a tool to market units that are currently unoccupied. Staff Recommendations: Based on conversations internally and with the Housing Office, staff would suggest that although not a perfect system, the ADU program creates more units faster and more efficiently than if the City relied on crib -in -lieu to produce affordable units. However, staff would suggest that the livability and neighborhood impact criteria could be improved. Staff would suggest the following modifications to the ADU program be considered by the Commission: 1. All ADUs should be above -grade or at garden level; 2. All ADUs should have exclusive access, and not be internally linked to the primary structure; 3. As is required by Ordinance 30, all one bedroom and studio units shall provide one on - site parking space; 4. Private property management firms should be approached to assist in marketing these units to encourage full utilization of existing ADUs. If these requirements were not met, the applicant would be required to pay the applicable cash - in -lieu. Staff has also attached several pie charts depicting the data from the survey. Exhibits "A" - Survey Results Memo from George Krawzoff "B" - Memo from Dave Tolen PA Date: 27 March, 1996 As we discovered in our recent survey of aaxssory dwelling units in the City, approximately half of those units that have been constructed are occupied by employees. The survey was done in response to concerns from the Planning and Zoning Commission that the units are approved, but largely do not serve their intended function. I believe that the occupancy figure of about 50% is cause for some concern, however I would like to put that in perspective, and suggest some appropriate actions that might increase the occupancy level. We might compare the performance of the ADU program to a public sector project of similar scope. The Benedict Commons project consists of 27 studio and one bedroom units, offered as ownership opportunities. The project was undertaken during about the same time that the ADU program has been in existence, i.e. starting in about 1990. It was constructed at a public cost of about $1.7 million. In that same amount of time, the ADU program has produced approximately 23 occupied units, which are rented rather than owned, and are less affordable that the Benedict units, but with no public funds having been spent. Taken from this point of view, I would call the ADU program fairly successful, relative to other programs for producing affordable housing. I would suggest that the program could be more successful, but without further regulation or intervention by the Housing Office or City. I believe there is a strategy for increasing occupancy of ADU's, relying on private organizations. Specifically, I believe that a local property management firm would be interested in obtaining the names and addresses of owners of unoccupied ADU's, and marketing those ADU's as rental units on behalf of the owners. Clearly, not all owners would wish to take this opportunity. However, I believe that a substantial number of existing, unoccupied units could be rented. Beyond this strategy, I don't believe it would be productive to tighten the requirements for ADU's, and I believe it has been productive enough that it would be appropriate to continue approving new ADU's. .... _................ . Memorandum To: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission From: George Krawzoff Through: Dave Michaelson Sub3ect: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Survey Update, ?&Z Worksession on March 5. Date: February 27, 1996 ----------------------------------------------------------------- OVERVIEW. The Accessory Dwelling Unit legislation is providing needed employee housing in Aspen but not at the 80% occupancy rate projected for ADUs in the community plan. Occupancy, w],.thout respect to qualifying tenants, is closer to 50°s. ,656 maximum, making generous assumptions about �.he ADUs which Haven't responded.) The property owners have mixed a.ou-- -ne ADUs - some str ong1Y suppor = he program, others feel they were f CrCed to build the unit , and others , n the enure spec tr-.:n _ n be -�_-ireen . Overall , the,,, ' re nappy . o '�'.': Lid another room in souse to A? J specificat_ons, but don't tell -ahem how --o use It. The proper t r -7wi ers have cj ea_ rega_ d_ Ig g-cvernmenz regulation - they don'_ want any more of They do no .pan help locating tenants and tney say they wouldn't Nave built the ADU i.f rental to cxuaiiJiea tenants was mandatorv. -Their tai ure „O I �la "eases as r 2 ML:1� �'u an 7-ne poc_ e-spo nse = _C Lr a survey lurtner evldenceS _ e o We have less aaequa _9 responses from the Lena: tS , wn o muS be contacted L�irough the owners unless we' re w? -�_n_ co :�nocri en their door - which was considered too intrusive fcr the firs_ survey. The 9 tenants who did receive the survey from the-.r ADU owners say they are genera:ily nappy to :save a decent place to stay in Asper., although some report suprisyngly high rents. Overall, the survey process has established a valuable and necessary database for the ADU program and judgements can LegIn to be made on facts rather than supposition. However, the facts gathered to date don't make an overwheming case for or aga-.nst the ADU program. Homes are deeply personal. If the ADU legis'.atlon becomes more intrusive - with mandatory rentals, inspect:.ons, or annual surveys - it will fail. Without more regulation, high vacancy rates, occupancy by non -qualified tenants, occasional rent gouging, and other negative aspects of the program will continue. I recommend that we do a follow-up mailing to those that didn't respond the first time, eliminating the files that did not result in a built ADU. This mailing will be less than nalf t.e number required for the first mailing and our information is much better now. With a good handle on the ADU occupancy rates, staff should next analyze what could be produced through cash -In -lieu, with the associated difficulty of locating appropriate sites for higher density housing. Then policy makers can determine whether to continue the ADU program based on complete information. ADU DATABASE. The first step in producing the ADU survey was to establish an adequate database of ADUs. Searching the C.ity's files of special reviews, 97 files were labeled as ADUs. Reviewing these files with Dave Tolen, we purged 16 files which clearly predated the current ADU legislation, i.e. Ordinance 1 of 1990. The remaining 81 files form the basic ADU database whicn you have received. The records are arranged alphabetically by -Line file title, just as the files are kept in the Clerk's off-ce. Eacn record is divided into 4 sect-ons as 10--Cws: Information f r cm she Ci7:v' s Dies. The maJc- I o%a -1:11es were yOCa:aC = L e special review f =1es but, as notea on -pie ecoras , some ere i n Leslie among 's oft use . Staf- . .was not �sr�a' e �� I locations were AD files might oe so - ,_s shce a comp_e e :i- . Information from the Pitkin Assessor's To obtain Curren- ownershia and mailina addresses, -ne Ci-_Y �.j.eS were cross -re terenced wit-. ::ne Court'"' Assessor ' s database. Problems with incorrect parcel numbers, eaa. descriptions, or recent sales arose in 10 out of t1e 81 files. As a resin-, on1v 71 surveys were mallet. Since tie initial mailing, additional research has all but two of these problems. Information from my research and notes taken while gaing through the abo-.le f Iles . Since only 30 responses to the survey were received, additional research was necessary. By searching phone directories and contacting pro3ect architects or Other representatives, basic information regarding -ne construction and occupancy of the ADU's was obtained Tor another 37 of the projects. At this time, there are iu projects for which no contact has been made. I believe I have correct mailing addresses and phone numbers for all but two of the projects but additional effort is necessary to get a response. SURVEY RESULTS_ — Owner Survey Questions. The foliowina results are for the 30 surveys returned by mail plus one more which was taken over the phone. 1. Your ADli may be used in different ways: which statement best describes how vour ADli is used:' i (a) The ADli is rented For periods of 6 months or longer to qua 1. i f i ed employee-. 5 (b) The ADI; is occupied bl, a caretaker, nanny, or a person providing other services within my home. 4 (c) The ADIL: is used Ov my �,,ue,sts. 4 (d) The ADU is used as a study, home office. or other extension of the house. 1 (e) The ADU is used as a home by a member of my family withou� Pent. i (f) Other :' pieas;e describe The own rs a 1 so nro 1 _-i o ::.;, r ;;;rrrr�rn • ( IF 3 Th i s Ai"U, i', for a D , 0r)c,1e64, i,e% lnrrre Wn c1_1 11aS ve t i DU i i T,y l: :. r .. :l t_i �%y '1 . '�' _ .. t, .: •.7 Prospective err.p Toff• ees 01 G months or lon�eT �G i i, been ou i i f. �'� 1. •(f) Nothing has been bUi1t on the proner-ty. ( 1 ) occaS iC 1� a t i `ti' 'scu OV • ( C This auu i s s un�tr foals t ruc t n . �i�he.1 i :.n _ s �:�c.. be renteu t,� a fu i i �.ne ems <<o��ee ?_ `Tear . • i b) v4 i i i b,-e ased as a ::ire t- ::t er s un i t as of appro ? • (f) Bui lain under cony tr�.ct icon. • (a) It isn't rented ye,' Ou-. i t .gill be. •(a) But it isn't rented at this time. 2. If you do rent the ADS" on2 term (u months or more; to q u a I fled tenants,.piease check all that apply°: (a) i was not aware of my ob1iastion to quaff i C-v resi le*nts and file a cop o C the lea ,e wi th the �4 ous_n2 Authority. 1 (b) I expected rn%. -lenants t: communi.cace %v; t l Authority-. J (C) inCl Li1C q lra.11 Jill'? Jt i'esidenis an Cilit�' o the lease a nuisanc-e, 4 (d) if the deed restrictions are enforced, I woclid rather not rent out the ADU than bother with the restriction;. (Other responses include "I filed the first lease but not renewals." Two leases were enclosed were enclosed with surveys.) 3. Do the occupants of the ADU have access to the main house. i (Yes) 5 (No) 6 (Sometimes) 4. If you had it to do over, would you: 16 (a) Bu i i d the ADU the same way . 3 (b) Build a larder ADU. how many square feet'1000/5,00/800 1 (c) Build a smaller ADC. How many square feet? 6 (d) I would not build an ADU. �. How do you fee-i about the ADU'. (a) I t" s a bent l it and adds t o t he va i ue of my home. 13 (b) It's a benefit to the City of` Aspen since it provide, employee housing. (c) It's just another room in my home that happens to have an outside entrance- 3 (d) Other`? We would ntht bu? 1 it if t: e Ca>"I I i It kv' rlt)T re- a6onab We s h o u 1 d no t . a e been � �u _ _ �:�- we ar.' ± �t . _ � ::1 :�o .y Work p. 7 . I ti i,� t� J ! C. _ i i e r e = +J C .1 �� t` �' O 'J . Tt? ,I L� ? tai o • I t WILi, in a few years provide employee ,`]c�us ing . re orui • Oc:u7�_ s space we would have put to of .er Ljsac _-:cot_ rental, wOu >unCOCut Gic_ • u s t another Teo:.. in ;r .l , e <=�;� _to.�-] �e :^L i ]]c2. • Provides extra roo,n for my l :mi! v sti le tine .re housing. 6. W o u i d ,,ou h a v le,�U I i t " h�! _iDT� rent u 1 t o a quDl i 4L ilan t mandatorv? 9 (UNCERT_ i N ) Would It be helpful 'f the H o u s i ng Authority provI er you Whin a list of quaiiiied tenants':' ? (YE ) ?1 (NG) 5 (U,NC'ERTAIN 8. Please provide any comments -that you would line the Aspen Cite Council and the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority to hear regarding this survey, your ADU, or employee housing in general. • Aspen has created a model program for other communities. Lowest cost answer to affordable housing. • Additional restrictions will reduce the probability of more units being built. • Survey information. The bottom section of each record details the responses to the survey questions, including any comments, for the Properties that returned the survey. ,. took one owner's survey responses over the phone at their request so there are 31 records with survey answers. Please note that "-0-" indicates that there is no information for this aspect of an ADU record. CONSTRUCTION AND OCCUPANCY INFORMATION. There were limits to the information which could be obtained from project architects or managers. They typically knew wheher the ADU had been constructed but were less certain regarding current occupancy of the units. From these phone calls, plus -ne completed surveys, we have the following bas-.c construction and occupancy informat-on: • Constructicr� Information. s__LDIJ-s gnat are buI_ '_ =v G!�,i:. 23 files did not result in an ADU be�na built. 14 files require additional research. 81 -:I ' es total • Occupancy InIormazior . 2: are '-Us are oc;.upied generally as iztendea. 3 are ADUs which may soon be occupied. 2 are ADUs whic are occupied by the owners. 12 are ADUs which will not be occupied by emplo.%.es. 18 require add.it-oral research to determine occupancy. 23 files did not result in an ADU being buil-. 81 files total • I bought house with ADU. It's not separated from house sufficiently to comfortably rent out. • Give ADU builders ALL info on financial oblig., permits. costs of sewer, use tax, etc. prior to bldg. • We support emp hous but didn't want to be landlords. We were required to build for ''alleyscape!'' • Appreciate the need for e.h. but we don't want someone living in our own home. We like our privacy! • More F.A.R. allowable would have helped us as an incentive. It is a very expensive requirement. • Unit is not built, expected completion 3/96, intend to use as ADU. • The ADU legislation should be enforced (enforcabie) to get the intended use. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tenant Responses 1. Which statement best describes your apartment? 5 (a) Studio. 3 (b) One bedroom. 1 (c) Two bedroom. 0 (d) Other'. Please describer 2. Where is your apartment located? (Check a 1 1 that a p 1 y. ) (a) Basemerl� . (b) First floor or ground letrei, 1 (c) Second floor. (d) Attached to the main house. 3 ; e) Separateal i'l rom the mein house. 1 (f) Other? Please describe: -ibove Gdr ge 3. How much do you pay for rent? ? (a) I do not pay rent 1 (h i less inan S-=00/month 4 (d) .�801 to $1. ?00/mon th 1 (e) More than SI . 200imon th . Please an amours: S1. 0" 4. Do you have caretaker obl igat Ions? -1 ( YES) (INO S. If you do have caretaker obligations, please ind-icate how many hours per week a r requ i red. 451. 5. 10-15 Hours/Week, and one yes to 4 auoE,e out njo hour, g i jren 6. Who lives in your apartment? 6 (a) I lure alone. 3 (b) I share the apartment with roommates, 0 (c) I share the apartment with my family. I (d) If you share the apartment, how many adults and how many children lure there including yourself:' Adul is Children (under 18) IV i. Are you allowed to keep pets? (Check all that apply.) 6 (a) No, pets ire not al,lo,ved. I (b) Cuts are allowed. I ( c ) Do,-.s are allowed. 0 (d) Other:' Please desc.ribe. _ _- 8. How would you de.scTibe your apartment? (Check all that apply.) 4 (a) Excellent. .T.h i s is the type of apartment I want. S (b) Good, but I'd like to have more space. 1 (c) Good, but I'd ' the to pay Jess rent. 1 (d) Good. but I 'd like to have more privacir. (e) Fair. It 's a reasonable comvromi se between what I can afford and the apartment I'd like to have. 0 (f) Poor. I'd move out if I had an al ternat 7 ve,. 0 ( ) Other:' Please descr.i.be. 9. Do you have use of pasts of the main house? (' '_t'.ec:c _! thj,'lE aPPly) : I ha to aCC&-S 3 _ o -,-Ile t'71ju. ! 10:e11 the 11 i' . -� b; I Ratie S tvra,Ze 3t zlce :outside 0 ' 111japartrn!L�nE . 1 1 �t v.,.. ,- :% • _ "Laundr rooi In ;71a 10. What is irou.r annua.' i77come:' 0 r" a i u n d e z- :S 1 0. (00 0 per _� e _3.r 2 (c $ 0. U01 to 5 2 0. /00 Yea- . 0 (d) .i730. 001 co 5 40 . 000 (e) more than S40. 000 per edr. One sur;-er- d Z d not nr.-) 7� an i11 Me lei-L1. 11. How many vehicles do.: you own ? have I vehicle. do not have any vei7icle.s. did not say how man-,,- they had but answered the ques r 1 ;0n, lie %.;I- . If you do own a vehicle, check all that apply: (a) I hive adequate on -site parking for my vetlicIe(s). 1 (b) I do not have adequate parking for my vehicle(s). 1 (o) I am able to park inside the main house's garage. ? (d) I park on the street. E, number k ---------- file -------------------------------- --------s--------- result -------------------- newawn -,------------------------------------------ € e 1 100 Park Avenue�� - Remail Tom Reagan 2 205 N. 5th. OK fiationwide Theatres Corporation 3 Alciatore OK = Alciatore, Gaston A. and Nancy J, 4 Allen Built, not occupied Bile, Robert B. Jr.& Ratcliff, Elizabeth 5 Belling Built, occupied Bellina, the Delia Malone Trust (70%) & Joseph W. (30$) 6 Bellock--Conditional Use & Stream Margin -OK Chuck Beiiock 7 Bennett Conditional Use Review OK - duplex not adu Tasse, Jeff & Mary McGuire ;elso - Deter;, Linda C/0 8 Berger - 312 Gillespie Ave. OK Berger, Bruce, 9 Blocker Conditional Use Review Built, occupied .aura Blocker 10 Braden (Conditional Use) 973 Queen St. Built, occupied Baum Lester V Trustee for the Snadon Cole Wm & Kendall Ann T ;. I1 Bucher Conditional Use OK Carrico, William N. and Estrin, Judith L. 12 Burton/Allen Conditional U,se remail :" David Wright 13 Caffray Conditional Use Review, ADU Not built Caffray, Ann T., Trustee 14 Chisholm Conditional Use Review for ADU OK Chisholm, Edith (1/2 int.) and Chisholm. K.H. & H.M. (1/2) 15 Choumas Conditional Use Review Built, occupied Choumas, John James & raLricia G. 16 Congdon Conditional Use Review for.an ADU Research -Dad address Congdon, Thomas E. and Noel R. 17 Cunningham Conditional Use OK Cunningham, 1. MCA. 18 Dickens Conditional Jse Applic, OK Goldsmith -Miller, Beth H. 19 Eller Conditional Use RVW for ADU remail Heaven on 'Earth Holdings c/o Victoria Trevino 20 Eller Conditional 'Ise RV'W for ADU Research -sold Heaven cn =:, L,, o.c:r;es c;c Trevin- 21 Elmore Conditional Use for ADU OK - paid cashinlieu Elmore, John A. 22 Erdman Condticr,al Use for ADU Research -- no phones Fernandez, Beatriz lq: 23 Fellman ResidenceADU Cond. Use Not built Feilman, Thomas i. 24 Fischer Conditional Use Research - no phones Arthur Fischer 25 Fortier Accesory Dwelling 'Unit OK Fortier, Timothy J. & Lisa A. 26 Fyrwald Conditional Use Review Accessory D.U. OK Fyrwaid, Ernst R. �,'f �.acy 'Ea,neLt 21 Garrish Accessory Dwelling Unit Bad parcel number Not ownea by 734 Assoc. as by the oarcei I 28 Goldsmith Conditional Use Review for ADU Built, occupied " Goldsmith, Henry L. Revocable Trust 29 Goldsmith Conditional Use Review for ADU Not built Goldsmith, Henry L. Revocable Trust 30 Grosse Accessory Dwelling Unit Not built Grosse, Edwin J. and Adeline M. 3I Hamilton Cond.Use-ACC. Dwelling 'Cottage infiii, OK Brown, Ruth Hamilton 32 Hamrick Conditional Use Review OK Hamrick, Kay Ellen 33 Hirsschfield Cond. Use for ADU Not built Hirscnfield, Sheri A. and Hobert E. as Joint tenants 34 Hufty Conditional Use Review OK - paid cashiniieu Hufty, Page 'Lee Trust, Huft'l-y Page Trustee 35 Krebs ADU Built, not occupied Keltner Family 'rust 36 Lang Conditional Use ADU Not built Koutsoubos, Ted. A. 37 Langley Sub./ftezoning/GMQSiSpecial RevJCondojNisto Not built Cowling, Jennie :1'. - ./o Ricnard E. Cowling Jr. 38 Longoria Conditional Use for ADU Remail Sunybrook 'Colorado, inc., c/o Krabacher, Hill & Edwards 39 Loushin Conditional Use Permit Research --no 'Phones Turtle Beach Ltd., A Florida Limited Partnership 40 Loushin Conditional Use Permit Remail Turtle deach•Limited Partnership 41 MacCarthy Conditional Use Review Not built MacCarthy, Lynda 42 MacCaskill Accessory Dwelling Unit Built, occupied Paul MacCaskill 43 Markalunas Cond. Use for ADU Not built James J. &'Ramona Markalur,as 44 Mau Conditional Use Review for an ADU OK Leif, Juanita Living Trust 45 McCoy Conditional Use Review Built, occupancy? McCoy, Joseph H. & Lillian 6 McPherson ADU OK McPherson, Douglas J. & Susan L. 47 Means Conditional Use Review OK Means, Graeme 48 Molly Gibson Condos A&B Cond. Use Review OK Curchill, Audrey Lee, Living Trust, Churchill A.M., Trustee number file result newown 49 Moore Conditional Use & Stream OK Moore, Gary C. ana Debra J - joint Tenants 50 Moores Hallam Lake Bluff Review Not built Moore, John Jay and Rebecca 3. 51 Moores Hallam Lake Bluff Review Not tsuilt Moore, John Jay and Rebecca 3. 52 Newman Conditional Use Review Built, occupied p.t. Joel Newman (verified by Subdivision records 53 Nichols Cond. Use Review for ADU OK Nichols, Gary T., Lucinda C., and Kenneth E. 54 No Problem Joe Accessory Dwelling Unit Not built 734 Associates, A Coloraao general Partnership 55 Norton Conditional Use Review for AOU Not built Horton, John & Robin 56 Oblock Townhouses Subdivision Cond. Use, GMQS Ex. Research-sold,no ADU see previous record 57 Oblock Townhouses Subdivision Cond. Use, GMQS Ex. Research-sold,no ADU Grueser, William D. & Patricia C., Joint Tenants 58 Oblock Townhouses Subdivision Cond. Use, GMQS Ex. Research-sold,no ADU see previous record 59 Oblock Townhouses Subdivision Cond. Use, GMQS Ex. Research--sold,no ADU see previous record 60 Oxley Conditional Use Review for ADU OK Oxley, John C., Trust, Talker, Barbara Attn: 61 Patrick Conditional Use Built., occupancy? Barksdale, Sarah M 62 Penn Con. Use Rev. for an ADU OK Penn, Paul E. and Susan W. 63 Red House Duplex Conversion OK Smuggler Hunter Trust, Ally=1i7abath s Horn Sara K,trustees 64 Rothblum Cond Use Review for ADU OK Rothblum, Philip and Garcia o*1 in t Tenants 65 Roy 126 West Francis OK - app. withdrawn Roy Family Trust, c;;o )h_ it sner. Trustee 66 Schiff Conditional Use for an ADU OK Schi�'f 67 Schiller Accessory Dwelling Unit Built, occupied Schiller, Carl .4ar:c:r-Sc�. Leslie 68 Seymour Conditional Use Permit OK - owner in ADU Reich, venue w. 69 Smith Conditionai Use for ADU � 8040 Greenline Research -bad address Smith, Robert !"'. and :lanoa !. 70 Souki Conditional Use & 8040 Greenline OK - app. withdrawn Highland Investments & Jonnscn, Karen, clo Hoiiand & Hart 71 Sparbaro Conditional Use Review GK, Sbaroaro, Bonnie ;. 72 Stauffer Cond Use Review for ADU vK Stauffer. Jonn d. 2 n a i.es±ie ., as joint tenants 73 Sweeney Accessory Dwelling Unit 3uilt, occupancy? Emerson Ltd. CIO a;reenar 74 Transierra Accessory Dwelling Unit I -email Transierra Cora. 75 Trott Duplex Conditional Use Review OK Trott, Partricia P. & Houccn,;.^ ", wrlJ Dunn, Joseph & ;.ucy 76 Ukraine Accessory Dwelling Unit OK Anaerson, Par yr 77 Vidor Accessory Dwelling Unit Built, occupied Vidor, Quentin 78 Volk Conditional Use Review OK Volk, Richard W. and Sue. 79 Weinberg Conditional Use for ADU OK neinoerg, Jay . Trust Agreement, Aeinberg Jay. N. Trustee 80 Whipple Accessory Dwelling Unit OK Kaufman, Alex & Cheek, Kathryn Sumoar+finer (10�j 81 limman Conditional Use Review for ADU Research -sold limman, David t = Occupancy Rate Not Built i :' ' . is 28% Tdsed -As Intended 0 Unc,ertain ;• , 22% Y Not Occupied by Sdoi to.Be Occupied Employees 4 % • Occupied by�'Owriei's 15% 3% ADU Location Garden Level ' `' Detached Unclear 16% 11% 0 Above Gar4age 4% ¢r`r :Ft ' Basement Above Grade 36% t8% 2nd Floor 0 Used:As Intended ■ Soon to be Occupied 13 Occupied by Owners Not Occupied by Employees ■ Uncertain * Not Built Square Footage of 'ADU Units 700 s.L or more t. 600 to 700 s.f. 70/- 2#0/6 Less than 300 s.f. 500 to 600 s.f.'- 2ajo 13% ( 300 to 400 s.f. 400 to 500 s.f. 36% 22 % 0 Basement ■ 2nd Floor 0 Above Grade Above Garage ■ Unclear 0 Garden Level ■ Detached Mess than 300 s.f. E300 to 400 sA. 0400 to 500 s.f. 0500 to 600 s.f. ■600 to 700 s.f. 13700 s.0 or more 0