Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19960521 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1996,4:30 PM SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 123 W. Francis Conditional Use Review, Amy Amidon - IV. NEW BUSINESS A. AH Overlay - Pitkin County, Tim Malloy B. Aspen Mountain Improvements, Rick Magill V. ADJOUR."l MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Rhonda Hams, Administrative Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: . May 15, 1996 June 4 - Growth Management Commission (4:30 pm) North 40 Subdivision/PUD Conceptual Submission, Rick Magill June 4 - Regular fleeting (immediately following GMC) Lot')', Aspen Mountain Conceptual PUD, Dave Michaelson Power Properties Conditional Use for ADU, Suzanne Wolff June 18 - Growth Management Commission (Tentative Special Meeting) (4:30 pm) Rural/Remote Zone District Code Amendments, Cindy Houben AH Overlay, Tim Malloy June 18 - RegularMeeting (4:30 pm) Zupancis Subdivision, Bob Nevins Schrager Conditional Use for ADU, Suzanne Wolff MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 123 W. Francis Street- Conditional Use review, ADU, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 21,1996 SUMMARY: The'applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct a voluntary ADU within an existing historic house (referred to as "ADU A"), and a required ADU in a new house ("ADU B"). The voluntary ADU is an above grade studio unit. The required ADU is a below grade studio unit. Each are approximately 500 sq.ft. The application packet is attached as Exhibit A. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit with conditions. APPLICANT: Jake Vickery. LOCATION: 123 W. Francis Street, the east 1/2 of Lot B and all of Lots C, D, and E, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: R-6, historic landmark. LOT SIZE: 10,500 sq.ft., subdivided into two lots of 5,250 sq.ft each. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see comments from the Housing. Department. (See Exhibit B). Comments previously offered by the Engineering 'Department are included in the proposed motion. PREVIOUS APPROVALS: The project has received Conceptual approval from HPC and Conditional Use approval from P&Z for ADU's on June 20, 1995. GMQS exemption and a historic landmark lot split have also been granted. The packet and minutes from the previous P&Z Conditional Use review are attached (Exhibit C). Since the P&Z approval, tilie applicant has elected to place the voluntary unit above grade and the required unit below grade. A parking space is available for each unit on -site. 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". The applicant proposes two units, which must comply with the Housing Guidelines and shall be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for working residents of Pitkin County. 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 accessory dwelling units are compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Both units are located on the alley. _ 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: Both units are attached to the main living units. "ADU A" is above grade and has a private entrance off of the alley, and southern exposure. A 250 sq. ft. FAR bonus is requested. "ADU B" is below grade and will also have a private entrance from the alley (two alternative entry stairs are shown on the plans.) "ADU B" has two lightwells, plus the stairwell. The stairways are protected by overhanging roof elements. A parking space is available for each unit. 2 The plans approved on June 20, 1995 show "ADU All with a direct connection between the house and ADU. This is proposed to be maintained in the new above grade unit. "ADU B" does not have an internal connection to the house. 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. The City Engineer's office requested several conditions of approval related to site drainage, sidewalk areas, encroachments, utilities, and work in the public right-of-way. These conditions were adopted as part of the June 20, 1995 motion and are included again in this memo. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; RESPONSE: "ADU B" meets Ordinance 1 requirement. Deed restrictions have already been filed for both units under the previous approval. If the units are 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 units comply with the AACP and all other applicable conditional use standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the -proposed ADUs with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A. The owner has submitted and recorded the appropriate deed restrictions to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. 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. 3 B. Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs. C. The applicant must verify that the unit is no more than 700 sq.ft. of net livable space. "ADU B" may be increased in size up to 700 sq.ft. if approved by the Housing Department. D. A copy of the recorded deed restriction for the accessory dwelling units must be forwarded to the Planning Office. 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. The applicant shall meet the following requirements of the City Engineer: A. The new development plan shall provide for no more than historic drainage flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off shall be maintained on site. B. The final development plan shall include a five foot wide pedestrian usable space in the public right-of-way. The applicant shall also prune the low tree limbs to a height of seven feet to allow for pedestrian use in the public right-of-way. C. The improvement survey indicates fences being located within both the Francis Street and alley rights -of -way. The fences must either be relocated to private property, or an encroachment license must be applied for prior to the issuance of any building permits. D. Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the. public right-of- way. E. The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area which cannot be located in the public right-of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters . or other utility equipment must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers. 4 F. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of development in the public rights -of -way, parks department (920- 51200 for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). 7. The applicant shall meet with the Parks Department to review the proposed vegetation alterations on site. This meeting shall take place prior to the issuance of any permits for the property. The applicant shall comply with.the tree replacement requirements of the Parks Department. 8. A designated parking space for each ADU must be provided on site in addition to the two spaces provided for each free market unit. 9. 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 two ADUs at 123 West Francis Street with the conditions as outlined in the Planning Office Memo dated May 21, 1996". Exhibits: "A" - Application Packet "B" - Application packet from June 20, 1995 review 0 Attachment 8' County of Pitkin } } SS. State of Colorado } I, J,4 A-C- ��IL r0we AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT 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 (3 00) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the / day of I� , 199 (which is // days prior to the public hearing date of 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from ,the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the day of , 1996, to the day of Wdfd 199. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. 6 Si na re ( Attach photograph here) Si, ned before m this day of , 19 9 by r WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL M mmission es- ,llq2 d Notary ublic PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 123 W. FRANCIS STREET, CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 21, 1996, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, basement of City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Jake Vickery for approval of two accessory dwelling units. One above grade unit of approximately 500 sq.ft. will be located in the dwelling unit proposed for the eastern half of the site and one below grade accessory dwelling unit of 500-700 sq.ft. will be located in the dwelling unit on the west half of the site. The legal description of the property is the east half of Lot B, and all of Lots C, D, and E, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer at 920-5096. s/ Sara Garton Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on May 3, 1996. City of Aspen account. Maurice Nesson I ! Jerald M. Barnett j ; K11 Company c/o 919 3rd Avenue 1000 N. Station St. Unit 5141' P.O. Box 3129 New York. NY 10022 Port Arkansas, Texas 78373_I Aspen CO 81612 sul Barnhart Jr, i - David Levy Patricia Tisch 2121 Sage Road Building Square Times 5 q g i 765-Buena Vista Avenue Houston Texas 77056 45 Exchange Street i Santa Barbara CA 93108 ° Rochester NY 14614 i Elizabeth Paepke I Esther Leonard DeVos ; Yellow Brick School c/o Holland & Hart P.O. Box 3238 Aspen School District 600 E. Main Street Aspen CO 81612 ' 0235 High School Road Aspen CO 81611 i Aspen, CO 81611 F Given Inst: t"* c ; James P.S. Griffith I Richard Horvitz Trust Regents of University of 3417 Milani Avenue Ste. A Leonard C. As Trustee Horitz } Colorado Houston Texas 77002 85 Stonewood Rive Boulder CO i - - Moreland Hills OH 44022 Maurice Tobin George Vicenci Denise Ann Jurgens i Dorette Fleischmann P.O. Box 2238 P.O. Box 3780 In50 K Street N.W. Ste 380 Aspen CO 81612 Aspen CO 81612 Washington D.C. 20006 Paul Fabry Maria Segall 1127 Bourbon Street 101 E. Hallam Street New Orleans LA 70116 ! Aspen CO 81611 Jan Tobin I Manclark O.P. Residence Trus James & Carol Redd 1850 K. Street N.W. Ste 380 I William & Darleen Manclark Louis Scholnik Washington D.C. 20006 313 E. Bay Front 2400 E. Commercial Blvd. Balboa Island CA 92662 ' Suite 820 - Ft. Lauderdale FL 33308 Thomas & Noel Congdon g Bonnie Sbarbaro Phillip & Susan West P ! 1100 Denver Center Bldg. 329 Carlile Avenue 2114 Mt. Calvary Road Denver CO 80203 Pueblo CO 81004 Santa Barbara, CA 93108 Whipple Brewster Corp. Beryl Arthur- Ericks.on.-. Johnathan Lewis Colorado Corp,.-,-- • • � � : ' : Mary Erickson 4649 Ponce de Leon Blvd. - 121 S. 'Galena.'St. Ste 203"' .`' P.O. Box '1027 ��304 Aspen CO 81611 �' Aspen CO 81612 Coral Gables, Fl 33146 Red..B$ick'School M1 Marybelle S. Robinson..- Manclark O.P. Residence Trust i OySof Asen Galena Street 2552_ E.....Alameda. St. �/9.7... :., : ;; William & Darleen Manclark Aspen, CO' 81611 Denver CO 80209 313 E. Bay Front ! Balboa Island CA 92662 1 =' • t=G4i 1= :CU'I H=�'EI''d: P T TI':I i ! �.=.i=il'I 1!Ei,! TC -3_ 1'1�� f=,t_i1P9 —t r'�t'c F'. � i1 I May 15, 1996 Dear Mrs. Manclark; Attached are the W. Francis Street elevations for the project' across ithe street from ymj. Already approved for this site are relocation of the historic house to either the east or west half of the property, a small addition to the historic house and construction of a new house. The new house is'required to provide an "accessory dwelling unit," which was approved tv be.above glade. The plrUpeay owner wished to do a voluntary ADO in the historic house., bolow gra! de. At this time the property owner wished to reverse the units, having the AIDU in the new house below grade and the ADU in the old unit above grad:. T�,e only impacts to you are minor changes in the street elevation. Please cdil m� with any questi�orti this projec . ation Officer PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 123 W. FRANCIS STREET, CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 21, 1996, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, basement of City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Jake Vickery for approval of two accessory dwelling units. One above grade unit of approximately 500 sq.ft. will be located in the dwelling unit proposed for the eastern half of the site and one below grade accessory dwelling unit of 500-700 sq.ft. will be located in the dwelling unit on the west half of the site. The legal description of the property is the east half of Lot B, and all of Lots C, D, and E, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer at 20-5096. 1. s/ Sara Garton, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on May 3, 1996. City of Aspen account. ��. l .. € ATIACI LAD USE A pLIC;�xJCO FCVrnt 1) pro ect r�any- 2) Prrx� oject Lt�-on -wN�l ' ` tr, street ads, lot & block -r, legal d�iprti on where(inciica 4) IAt Size 3) PresentZonix)g F::�k 5) ,x icant s rramo. & rh ne ., L1(1011 i � 0 6) pepresentat.ive' s Nauy-2, Address &� 7) Type cf Application (please cheat all that apply): Corditional U )� SPA Cb Historic. Dcv- r .T Final SPA Final Historic rP-V- pc�ial Review 8040 Gr�ee�i..rze Cbneepblat FM Minor IIIstor-i.c Dc�v- Stream Margin Final PCJD Historic Demolition yKxmtain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation ,f� Amexr nt G"D-S Al '1 otnent (o�,�i n 7 t nn i 7atton �'�/ n�up Lot Split/Lot Line ticxl V Adj .. �^t �scs F�Cl sf' 7 ]nC7 USEa (I3i �Jr'-S and L-ypC'_ o f St1�K%` 8) appro aon of te sq- ft_ ; r.=ber of b anY p � granted to tip preperty) - CIO CA Ce 9) Description of DevelOPPar t Application �J 0) lave you attached the followir)g' Response to AttacluDant 2, Minimum St lbm.iss ion pespor-L-,e to Attacj nt 3, Speci-fic submission conterrt_s Response to Attadny--rit 41 view Staffs for: Your ?�Mlication Exhibit "A" , 1; �� n 0 APPLICATION TO AMEND APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE 2 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 123/129 WEST FRANCIS JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS April 26, 1996 This Conditional Use application is to be consolidated with and reviewed in conjunction with the Land Use application for this project dated May 8, 1995 and as approved on May 24, 1995 and as subsequently amended and approved at a public hearing before HPC on October 25, 1995. This application is to amend a Conditional Use approval for 2 Accessory Dwelling Units which was granted by the P & Z at a public hearing on June 20, 1995. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION 100SOUTH SPRING ST 43 POST OFFICE BOX 1230 ASPEN,COLORAOOFIn12 TELEPHONE ! FAL�INILE ( 9 7 0 ) 9 2 5 - 3 0 b 0 The applicant has already obtained approval to put two ADUs on the property under the conditions of the approval granted on June 20, 1995. The applicant'now seeks to modify this approval to provide the alternate ADU configurations indicated on the attached plans and described herein. The ADUs are referred to as ADU A and ADU B, to be relocated on proposed lots A and B of the Vickery Historic Lot Split respectively. Items referenced below as attachments are contained within the original Land Use Application. Numbers in parenthesis refer to Items in the preprinted forms distributed by the City. (Attachment #, Item #) (2-1) see attached Owner's Authorization Letter (2-2) see attached Legal Description (2-3) see attached Disclosure of Ownership (2-4) see attached Vicinity Map (2-5) Compliance with' relevant Review Standards: ADU A Previously approved as a 2 bedroom below grade ADU, the proposed alternate configuration is an above grade studio ADU of approximately 500 square feet. It has private access by a south facing balcony serviced by a private external stair. This unit enjoys views of Aspen Mountain is a very desirable ynit. No parking space is required for this studio ADU unit. 4 However three parking spaces will be provided on site and one will be' designated for use by the resident of the ADU if required by the Commission. This is a voluntary unit. It is not required for mitigation nor is it used to offset housing mitigation impact fees. The proposed addition will accommodate 1 or possibly 2 employees. The existing cottage structure is an historical resource built in 1888. This alternate configuration would locate the ADU above a proposed garage in a new non -historic addition located to the rear of the historical resource. This strategy minimizes impacts on the historic resource and its site. Previously approved as an above grade studio ADU, this proposed alternate configuration is for a below grade studio ADU of approximately 500 square feet. The alternate proposed location below grade maintains open space and minimizes the mass and FAR above grade. Light and air are provided by generous light wells. No parking space is required for this studio ADU unit. However three parking spaces will be provided on site and one will be designated for use by the resident of the ADU if required by the Commission. The applicant is attempting to mitigate the basement location and make this unit more livable by providing an open plan, extra light wells, higher ceilings and generous kitchen and bath areas. The applicant would like to reserve the right to increase this two a 2 bedroom ADU unit of up to 700 net livable square feet upon submittal of a plan acceptable to the Housing Authority at a later date. This application is submitted with the expressed understanding that the deed restriction placed on the property as a result of the ADU approval will be the one in place at the time of submittal of this application. Please see Items 4A through 4F below for a more detailed explanation of conformance to specific standards. The proposed work is under review by the Historical Preservation Commission and additional information is available in the related Combined HPC Landmark Designation and Conceptual Review Application. (4-A) Each proposed lot is 5,250 square feet and can accommodate the proposed development without significant impact to neighbors. This application is consistent with the one previously approved. (4-13) These ADUs provide an accessory residential use in the R6 Zone and mix in a variety of housing types in the neighborhood. These units provide for the "revitalization of this neighborhood which has become idle due to the predominance of vacation and or second homes." They are compatible with other residential uses in immediate vicinity. i (4-C) The proposed location below grade maintains open space and minimizes the mass above grade. Light and air are provides by generous light wells. (4-D) -Services will be an extension of the services already in place and are adequate. (4-E) This proposal will not generate any new employees and provides on -site housing for two to four resident employees. (4-F) This proposal conforms to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and other requirements of the Code. 123ADU4.DOC M 1�7 o 123 WEST FRANCIS KL' V 1Jr,U 4/ 1 iS/ yb SITE 8, ROOF PLAN ADU A 123 West Francis Street ADU and Upper Roof Plan 1/8" =1*4r 27 April 1996 DEC% pN u OO O ITJ I I " i I - PL'� .4 •!a f.! 1 i I 1 / L ADU A w 123 West I E Ground FI Ga ADU A 1 4, ?/ / c; 123 West Francis Street Basement PI 1/8- - 1'-0" DL - i 123 WEST FRANCIS REVISED �ii8i96 - NORTH ELEVATION A E vls� E][4/1�8/96 '123 WEST FRANCIS SOUTH ELEVATION ADU A O N x 0 H z 0 z U H C4 x 0 H U 123 WEST FRANCIS EAST ELEVATION Lo-" -A REVISED 4/ 18/96 REVISED 4/' 123 WEST FRANCIS WEST ELEVATION ADU A PLAN KEY LOI EBi EYF sz Anyu,ing Room rz (Family I media I Gam") 3� Bodrwm 13 I I PROPERTY LINE ORTLOT-B JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET #3 LO W E T� FLOOR ASPEN, CO 81611 970 925 3660 'ADU B r.WAFi"Loi wrr�)i rKAINt,i�) �)imr.r,i SITE PLAN & MAIN FLOOR / LIVING LEVEL 12 I U ADU B ELAN -Ka I IPPER FLOOR / MA4TER aU(TE L EEVEL XL Water Bedroom wf fMeplace l deck = MAMW a0 h I Spa 24. Mester Shows (Stearn optional) ( I PLAN KEY MAIN FLOOR L LIVING LEVEL 1. Entry Walk L From Porch 3. Foyer I Reception t. Cosa 6. Powder Room 6. Gallery T. Uving Room wf 11reploce 6. Bar 9. Dining Room wf buffet 10. Kitchen wf doors 6. pull down PROPERTY LINE -- - 11. Sports I Mud Room 12. Double Garage 13. ADU Private Walk and Entry (aloerrcts to 943) 14. Terrace or Garden I L•wri 1 S Hot Tub (optional) 16. Landscaped Areas - 17. 6' Privacy Fence wf gates 16. 3'- 6' Fenca wl gates 19. 3rd Parting Space (tandem) 20. Trash Enclosure 21. Main Stair UPPER FLOOR / MASTER SUITE LEVEL ADU B 0 1996 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2-6-96 SUBJECT TO CHANGE �� 1' SOUTH ELEVATION +. T_---4- LOT B NORTH ELEVATION JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET #3 ASPEN, CO 81611 970 925 3660 ADU B WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION `/IC.S-RY ARCHITECTS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ADU B Sheet1 LOT A - VICKERY HISTORIC LOT SPLIT 123 WEST FRANCIS ' PRELIMINARY FAR CALCULATION 28-Apr-96 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS FLOOR FAR (sf) GSF UPPER FLOOR 660 660 GROUND FLOOR 1,435.9 1435.9 LOWER FLOOR 74.8 2,119.6 TOTAL 2,170.7 4,215.5 ALLOWABLE FAR. 2,200.0 (w/ 250 sf ADU exemption) NET AVAILABLE FAR 29.3 NET LIV ADU 550 550 485 DECKS 0 289 ALLOWABLE DECKS 292.5 Lower Floor calculation Total perimeter wall surface 2277 Exempt perimeter wall surface 247.5 Wall surface above natural grade 63 Wall surface below natural grade 1966.5 Ratio above/total 0.028 Area of basement 2119.6 FAR Subtotal 1 58.6 Wall surface below natural grade but above finish grade 257 Exempt 227 Remainder 30 Ratio below/exposed below 0.015 Calculation /2 32.3 FAR Subtotal 2 16.2 Total, 74.8 123far2.xls revised 4/22/96 Page 1 Sheet1 LOT A - VICKERY HISTORIC LOT SPLIT 123 WEST FRANCIS PRELIMINARY COVERAGE CALCULATION 4128/96 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS ITEM SQ. FT. SITE AREA 5,250 ALLOW. COVERAGE @ 45% 2362.5 GROUND FLOOR AREA 1435.9 GARAGE 480 PORCHES 175 DECKS 168 TOTAL COVERAGE 2,258.9 AVAILABLE COVERAGE 1 103.E Page 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: Vickery Conditional Use for 2 Accessory Dwelling Units at 123 W. Francis - Public Hearing DATE: June 20, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking to voluntarily construct an - accessory dwelling unit in an existing historic residence that will be remodeled and relocated on the parcel, this unit will be referred to as ADU A. - The applicant is also seeking approval to construct a required accessory dwelling unit for a new free market residence to be referenced as ADU B. The applicant has obtained a GMQS Exemption from the Planning Director for a second free market dwelling unit to be developed on the 10,500 sq.ft. parcel. As part of the GMQS Exemption requirements, the applicant must provide an accessory dwelling unit, pay cash -in -lieu, or deed restrict the new residence to resident occupancy. The applicant is also seeking condominization of the parcel into a 6,000 sq.ft. lot and a 4,500 sq.ft. lot. At the end of today's Commission agenda there is a work session item to discuss a draft code amendment by Jake Vickery which proposes a lot split provision for historically landmarked parcels. The applicant is seeking that code amendment on this parcel so that he does not need to go forward with a condominization. The Planning Office recommends approval of the Vickery Conditional Use for the two accessory dwelling units with conditions. APPLICANT: Jake Vickery. LOCATION: 123 W Francis Street, East 1/2 of Lot B & all of Lots C, D, and E, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: R-6 Medium Density Residential. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use approval to build one voluntary and one required accessory dwelling unit on the subject parcel. The property is presently improved �,Tith a historic residence that will be relocated to the eastern portion of the property and will contain a below grade two l)edroom accessory dwelling unit of approximately 700 net leasable sq.ft. This unit is voluntary and is referred to as ADU A. The second accessory dwelling unit is.proposed for a new residence to be located on the western portion of the property. This ADU is proposed to be an approximately 500 sq.ft. studio, with southern Exhibit "B" exposure above the garage, and will be referenced as ADU B. Please refer to application information, Exhibit "A". REFERRAL COMMENTS:. Comments from the Engineering Department are included as Exhibit "B" and Housing Authority comments are included as Exhibit "C". STAFF COMMENTS: The Commission has the authority to review and approve development applications for conditional uses pursuant to the standards of Section 7-304: 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 proposed to be located; and Response: The proposed dwelling units have the potential to house local employees, which is in compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan and the underlying zone district. 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; and Response: The accessory dwelling unit is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The units.will not be visible as a distinct unit from the exterior of either residence. 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; and Response: The accessory dwelling units will be completely contained within the proposed residence. ADU A, to be located within the basement of the historic residence, will be accessed by an exterior stairwell adjacent to the garage. The plans do not indicate any protection from the elements on this stairway. There is also in interior stairway to access this unit. The two bedroom unit is proposed with one lightwell on the east side of the building. Staff believes the basement location of this unit is marginal and would prefer to see the unit relocated above grade. The historic residence is proposed to be a five bedroom, 1950 2 sq.ft. house which provides two parking spaces within a garage. Staff does not believe only two parking spaces are adequate for the proposed house and ADU with a total of seven bedrooms. Should the Planning. Commission approve this request, an additional parking space reserved for use by the ADU shall be provided on site. ADU B, to be located above the garage of the new free market residence, will be accessed via an exterior stairway that is protected by a roof overhang. This studio unit has direct southern exposure. Staff believes this is a quality ADU unit. The free market residence is proposed to be a two bedroom, 2,970 sq.ft. unit. The applicant has not indicated any basement level plans for this structure. The applicant is seeking a 250 sq.ft. FAR bonus for this unit. Since the free market residence is only a two bedroom unit and the ADU is a studio, staff believes the two proposed parking spaces are adequate for the proposed development. As per past P&Z concerns, a recommended condition of approval requires that the unit be identified on building permit plans as a separate dwelling unit requiring compliance with U.B.C. Chapter 35 for sound attenuation. 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; and Response: The City Engineer, Chuck Roth has identified several conditions of approval that would be applicable for both ADU's. These conditions address site drainage, sidewalk areas, encroachments, utilities, and work in the public right-of-way and are included in the proposed conditions in the recommendation section of this memorandum. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and Response: ADU B will satisfy the requirements of Ordinance 1 for a new single family residence. The applicant must file the appropriate deed restrictions for resident occupancy for both units, including a six month minimum lease. Proof of recordation must be forwarded to the Planning Office prior to issuance of any building permits. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Community Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. 3 Response: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and all other applicable conditional use standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the Vickery Conditional Use ADU B. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission request a redesign of ADU A to provide better access and light to the unit. The following conditions are recommended for each ADU: 1. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The accessory dwelling units shall be deed restricted to resident occupancy with a minimum six month lease. Upon approval by the Housing Authority, the Owner shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's. Office. 2. Prior to issuance of any building permits, a copy of the recorded deed restriction for the accessory dwelling unit must be forwarded to the Planning Office.. 3. The accessory dwelling unit shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements. 4. During building permit -plan review, the Zoning Enforcement Of f icer and Housing Of f ice shall make the f ina 1 determination that the unit meets the minimum size requirement of 300 sq. ft. net liveable as defined in the Housing Authority Guidelines. The accessory dwelling unit cannot be less than 300 sq.ft. 5. The accessory dwelling unit, shall have a kitchen which is a minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6—cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. 6. The applicant shall meet the following requirements of the City Engineer: a. The new development plan shall provide for no more than historic drainage flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off shall be maintained on site. b . The Final Development Plan shall include a five foot wide pedestrian usable space in the public right-of=way. The applicant shall also prune the low tree limbs to a height of seven feet tp allow for pedestrian use in the public right-of-way.,, C. The improvement survey indicates fences being located within both the Francis Street and alley rights -of -way. 4 The fences must either be relocated to private property, or an encroachment license must be applied for prior to the issuance of.any building permits. d. Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. e. The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area which cannot be located in the public right- of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers. f. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of development'in the public rights -of -way, parks department ( 9 2 0-512 0 ) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights - of -way from city street department (920-5130). 7. The applicant shall meet with the Parks Department to review the proposed vegetation alterations on site. This meeting shall take place prior to the issuance of any permits for the property. The applicant shall comply with the tree replacement requirements of the Parks Department. 8. A designated parking space for each ADU must be provided on site in addition to the two spaces provided for each free market unit. 9. 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 two accessory dwelling units to be located within two residences at 123 W. Francis with the conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated June 20, 1995." Exhibits: "A" - Application Information "B" - Engineering referral memo "C" - Housing referral memo 5 MEMORANDUM To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department eLP_ Date: June 13, 1995 Re: Vickery Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) (123 West Francis Street; East 1/2 of Lot B & all of Lots C, D, E, Block 56, Original Aspen To«nsite) Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Site Drainage - One of the considerations of a development application for conditional use is that there are adequate public facilities to service the use. One public facility that is inadequate is the City street storm drainage system. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. 2. Sidewalk Area - The- public right-of-way between the property line and the curb is partially obstructed by low tree limbs. It is recommended that a condition of approval be that the trees be prnuled up to a height of seven feet as needed to allow for pedestrian use of the public right-of-way. In support of this, the final development plan should indicate a five foot wide pedestrian usable space. a sidewalk "area." 3. D rivewav - One driveway currently exists, but the applicant proposes to use the alley for access to garages off the alley. This provides an excellent site design. 4. Encroachments - The improvement survey indicates fences being located within both the Fnulcis Street and alley public rights -of -way. The fences must either be relocated to private property, or an encroachment license must be applied for prior to issuance of a building permit. �. Parking - The indicated parking spaces meet the upcoming parking space ordinanco. 6. utilities - Any new surface utility needs ��or pedestals or other equipment must be installed on ,ui easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. 7. Trash & Utili .y Area - The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area, which may not be in the public right-of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers. 8. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). cc: Cris Caruso, Jake Vickery 2 Exhibit C TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Office FROM: Cinder Christensen, Housing OL• f ice DATE: June 13, 1995 RE : Vickery Conditional Uve Review for an ADU Parcel. ID No. 2735-124-21-002 ISSUE: The applicant is rvque,ating to provide two acces'sozy dwelling- units - - one is for tie historical house and wou.1d be a voluntary unit: and the second for the new single family unit, which Would be required. BA.CKGROZTM : The land area of the site is an two lots - - Lot A is 4, 500 square feet and Lot B is 6. 000 square feet- The proposal is If to add two AI IP S -- ane bedroom required unit in the single family cottage and one voluntary. -two -be droom unit in the existing cottage . EGp�ATIO1t : The Housing Off ice recommends approval upon the ollowing Ganditione: The size of the accessary units must fall within the guidelines of the Cyty of Aspen Municipal Code: Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) square fret Of allowable floor area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable floor area. The unit shall be deed restricted, meeting the housing authoWs guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. owners of the principal• residence small have the right to place a guaMed employee or employees of his or her choosing in the a=essory dwelling unit. The applicant wil-- need to provide to the Housing Of f ice actual floor plans of the two accessory dwelling units, with the net liveable square footage calculated as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guydelines. 2. kitchen must also be built to the fal + owing specifications and be shown on the plans:. Kitchen- for Accessory Dwelling Units and [caretaker Dwelling Units, a minimum of a tw4- burner stove With oven, standard sink, and a 5-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. 3. if approved, the applicant muet provide to the liousi g Office a signed and recorded bead Restriction, which can be obtained yr_om the Housing Office. The Housing Office must have the recorded boob and page number prior to building permit approval. f MAY 17 '96 09.03AM MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Amidon, Community Development Dept, FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DACE: May 17, 1996 RE: Review for Accessory Dwelling Units at 123/ 129 W. Francis Parcel ID No. 2735-124-21-002 The applicant is seeping to modify the approvals of two ADU's granted on .dune 20, 1995. The size of the accessory units still fall within the guidelines of the Code: Accessory dwelling unb ehail contain not leas than three hundred (300) square feat of allowable floor.arva and not mare than seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable -floor area. The unit shall be dead restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines f'or resident occupied Unitas and shall be limited to rental periods of not letA than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence shall have the right to places qualified employee or employees of his or her &Dosing in the accessory dwelling unit. The applicant states that the proposed accessary dwelling units are to be located as follows: a studio ADU to be located above grade; and a studio unit below grade. The plans show that the accessary dwelling units will have a private entrance, but the plan for ADU B shows a possible entrance into the principal residence. It is recommended that a wall be built between the ADU and the rest of the principal unit. The kitchen must also be built to the following specifications: Kitchen - For AwassQry Dwelling Units and Caretsker Dwelling Units, a minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6r-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. RECOMMENDATION: Staff' recommends approval should the fallowing conditions be met: �► replace the door between the principal residence and accessory dwelling unit with a wall; A the kitchen falls within the definition stated above; A a deed restriction be recorded before building permit approval (this form can be obtained in the Housing Office); and �► inspection of the units by the Housing Office before Certification. of Occupancy approval. Ve1bRmRvickM. adu 123 WEST FRANCIS JAKE VICKERY ARCMTE:C'T5 MAY 8, 1995 :a • r _- j rzi t • i i _ ^F• Y 1 S�ti �fi 123 WEST FRANCIS 'k STAKE VI�f f� r g �` 1 MAY 8. 1995 , _ PLANNING & ZONING -COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995_ another after it got through Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, someone got an erasure on the plat and changed things around before it got filed. So, there was a grievous error created by someone between the official approvals and the official filing. Lamont asked, what's on there now? Hunt answered, the City had to buy Trueman 3 to make the thing whole again for the transportation plan. I'm just sort of wary that this SCI tended to get lost in the shuffle there, possibly in the same way. That's why I'm totally protective of it. Thank God Mary found what little there was in the record concerning it. So, that's my piece and I don't think we're doing anything unfair. Hunt dismissed himself from the meeting due to personal reasons. Lackner asked that the 123 W. Francis Historic Landmark Designation by added to the agenda. It was on the agenda as a tabled item. MOTION Garton stated, I make a motion that we will add the Historic Landmark Designation to the agenda for 123 W. Francis. Mooney seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. 123 W. FRANCIS HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION VICKERY CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Amy Admidon of staff represented for staff and stated, Leslie (Lamont) has asked, that I very briefly tell you what this project is about, so you won't be confused by the next three items. This is a parcel in the west end that's a 10,000 sq. ft. lot, or so. Jake and Della (Vickery) are requesting landmark designations on the entire site. They are attempting to create two units on the -oarcel, you can have two detached units with at least 9,000 sq. ft., historic landmark, or not. The idea is that the historic structure will have a very small addition on it and the new structure will be of average size for new houses in the west end. An ADU is being proposed for each unit, the one in the historic structure is voluntary, it is below grade as Mary will describe. The one in the new structure is totally above grade; it's required. They will also discuss a code amendment that's related to how the land is owned, a possible lot split,is proposed. I think that's a basic summary of what is going on here. This is going to have 21 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUKE 20, 1995 total zone review at HPC, it's already gotten its conceptual approval. Lackner stated, the worksession is a proposed code amendment that would allow a lot split on an historically designated parcel. What the applicant is seeking or can obtain, right now in the land use code, is kind of a piece -meal of different approvals to obtain, basically, the same ideas, historic lots, but it's a kind of a jury-rigged way of doing it. They would be getting two conditional uses, one on the new and one on the historic parcel. They will be condominiumizing the lot, so he can sell off the new parcel and retain the historic building. If the condominiumization, the sale of land, which is different than a lot split; you can do a condominiumization now, you can't do a lot split now. The only thing is, the Planning Director approves a GMQS exemption for a second house on a 9,000 sq. ft. lot. The applicant has obtained that, that's a lot by right on the 9,000 sq. ft. parcel. The difference of the lots, the code amendment, is that we .just make a much cleaner project, instead of just kind of piece-mealing it. Kerr stated, is the landmark designation of subdivided lot, the second lot, the second house, somehow now have landmark designation status? Amidon answered, the entire property. In this code amendment we are going to discuss only what will be available for historic landmarks. It's the ownership that's different than what would be allowed, anyway. The idea is that he would be creating somewhat of a smaller receiving parcel for an historic structure. Kerr stated, I haven't thought this through very carefully, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind having a landmark designation status for a new piece of property, new ownership, new building; by having designation on that half of it, that creates some additional responsibilities. I don't know what the procedure would be to accomplish what Jake wants to accomplish, I don't have a problem with putting two houses on the lot, having a historic house be designated and get all the benefits that comes out of that designation; I do have a little bit of a problem with the new house, the new lot, having the same landmark. Lamont stated, just one point of clarification. In the R-6 zone district you do not have to have an historic landmark parcel to do Iwo detached structures on the property. Kerr stated, I guess what I don't understand is, why not do the lot split, and then designate? Amidon stated, there are other properties that have gone through a lot split sand still retained the historic preservation conditional review over the entire parcel. They are still considered as one site, you still have very specifid impacts to the original resource and this feature's landscape, and whatever. This is part of the code amendment that I don't think 22 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUKE 20, 1995 we would want to allow a lot split and then sort of free the other parcel from any level of review. I understand that maybe you are suggesting it shouldn't accrue all the benefits, necessarily. Is that your point'? Kerr answered, yes. Jake Vickery stated, I also might be able to add a little to this. The way the code amendment is set up is the maximum FAR for both lots together is the duplex FAR. That's the way the code reads right now. And the only way there is to divide or portion that FAR between the two lots or building sites is through a site specific development or whatever. The site specific development plan is kind of like a hand -in -hand thing, where the two houses are working together on the site and there are variations. Kerr said, like mini-PUDs? Vickery said, it is sort of like a hand -in -hand, or intrical relationship between the two lots that tie them together. Chaikovska stated, I just want to clarify -a little bit. What is the FAR for the total parcel? Vickery answered, the FAR is the same, it is set up that way, to be the .same. What I ought to do is start with a presentation of the code amendment, so I can hit all these things, rather than answer questions. I can lay out the whole thing and start from stratch. Lackner said, the way we have it set up, we have broken Jake's request into three different areas, since he can do a conditional use on each lot or on each house right now, before any kind of code amendment we were going to hear that, and see if he gets conditional use on one or both houses, or whatever, and take care of that issue. And then do the one land designation because he is seeking that in the parcel regardless of whether he gets the historic lot split. Then, we go into a worksession since we don't have a formal application before us right now, and talk conceptually this idea of the historic lot split; how would it work, is 'it something you would want to see in the form of an application before you. The proposal he has now he can do without an historic lot split designation, he can do it without historic designation. That's why we are taking the conditional uses forward right now, and maybe if we do those and then go to the worksession and just discuss this conceptual. Blaich said, I just would like clarification of Bruce's question. Your question, why would you designate a new structure, historic landmark? I have the same question. I have another question, is this property for a client to move into? Vickery answered, we are purchasing the property and we can't afford the whole property. Blaich asked, so you are going to live on it yourself. Vickery stated, yes. 23 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUKE 20, 1995 Kerr stated, I think I understood you to say, he could do this without historic designation. So why? Vickery answered, we can do everything except one thing, I can do everything except a condominium. A condominium is where both house owners own all the land together; there has to be a condominium association, a condominium declaration; if I want to do something I have to go and ask the other "guy". It's just a complicated thing; if you've got ten units, you've got common stairs, common pool, common parking, common trash, that's what the mechanism for condominium is really for. Kerr asked, so by virtue of the lot split you are required to condominiumize? Vickery answered, no, but the lot split is what we are proposing to be a really simple way to own it. Lackner stated, there is no provision to do a lot split on this parcel now. There is a mechanism under condominiumization for him to split the parcel, and to sell that other interest. That's the mechanism Jake is not interested in because condominiumization has these "weird" agreements between the property owners. It seems that he can do this project now under condominiumization; it would make more sense in a lot split -type hearing or procedure. It just seems like a better way to clean up the code to allow something like this to happen, but not go through the condominiumization process. Mooney stated (The clerk apologizes, but at this point the tape had to be changed and part of Commissioner Mooney's statement did not get recorded), I'm familiar with the Wyckoff/Billings, two houses on one lot and Wyckoff brought in historically designated housing and put it on the lot next to another more historically designated house. They lived compatiably for a long time, and I sold the Wyckoff house off, and now Billings is for sale separately and it didn't seem to propose any problems or weird situation or stress between the owners, and they, basically, had to take one more step to condominiumize the land, which is legal in the State of Colorado, and it's, basically, maybe easier than the actual code amendment to allow it to happen. To make a code amendment, to me, means we don't have the mechanisms in place to do what he wants, I think we do. And I think that condominiumization is something that is a clear-cut path that will allow us not to have to make a code amendment. Lackner stated, the City Attorney had advised staff that the condominiumization of raw land should be something that we should amend, as it is a loop -hole to our lot split procedures. As you know, the recent James West "stuff" we adopted in early of this year limited lot splits to one a,"year. With condominiumization sitting out there the way it is 'written is. a loop -hole to a lot split procedure. That's a loop -hole we have to clean up, and it's out there now, and Jake has come in before any changes to that have happened. We are going to be tightening that up and we want to 24 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUKE 20, 1995 find an historic incentive, I think to have this kind of proposal going forward. There are some definite incentives to this kind of text amendment, and Jake is just bringing this forward because that is what he would prefer to do as opposed to condominiumizing. Chaikovska stated, this is only for historic properties that you will make this exception, but how do you feel about that, because, to me, historic properties to be broken up and have a lot of buildings crammed on them, makes it counter -productive. It doesn't look historic anymore. Amidon answered, it is a matter of scale; I agree with you, that what you have right now is a 10,000 sq. ft. lot with one small structure, basically, in the center of it. This is going to involve re -locating it and adding on. And typically, I don't believe in re -locating buildings, but what you would end up with then, is a 1,700 sq. ft. building with a 3,000 sq. ft. addition on the back, or something. That's an exaggeration, but this is a way of lessening that problem and breaking up structures, and getting smaller structures, and no, it isn't absolutely the way it was authentically, but it is a better scale, a better resolution initially than we have been getting on some of these sites. Blaich said, I guess this has been done before, I happen to live in a house where this was done and Bill Clark did it, when he owned a house, and there is an existing house that was expanded as a small little guest cottage right next to it, and it was condominiumized, so I bought it. The rights we have is first right of refusal, and right to approve any major change in the house. If he wants to do any significant change, he has to get my approval. In fact, I went to him when I wanted to change the color because the houses had been painted to look similar. I wanted to change it and we just agreed on it. We never had a problem, but I understood, because when I f irst bought the house, I went to City Planning because I wanted to make some changes. They told me this deal was so bad that they would never do it again. I don't know what the issue was at the Planning Department; the people I talked to are no longer here, but were really livid over what they said was a "boon-doggle". Mooney stated, when Wyckoff was sold,'the City really didn't like the condominium declarations that they had put together, they were lesser documents and not really, well-done documents, and so, they did have to go back and amend their condominiumization by-laws and documents in order to sell the property and the new owner had to go and do- this in order�to protect his interest in this house that he bought. But they �_-o-habited on the lot, on two houses, owning the same ground underneath two houses very comfortably for a long time. I can see that, basically, it is a loop -hole, and I can see that we would rather have, maybe, the code amendment that you are 25 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION proposing. JUNE 20, 1995 Garton stated, since we have accomplished a lot of what should be in the worksession, and keeping in mind that the City wants to close this condominiumization loop -hole, let's just go ahead and let Jake work through the Conditional Use Review for an ADU and then we will proceed to an Historic Landmark Designation, which I know, is somewhat connected to the third item, but let's go with the Conditional Use Review first. Lackner stated, there are two accessory dwelling units being requested; there is one in the historic structure which is below grade, it has lightwells, and the applicant has not shown the entranceway; what is shown in the plans is not covered or protected from the elements, so we have concern with that. It is an approximate 700 sq. ft. unit, that one is voluntary. I think if we can find a way to protect the stairway from the elements, some kind of overhang or shed roof or something, as long as it is compatiable with HPC, that's improved. I know you have concerns with the low-grade units; there is some lightwell in this, we would like to see a lightwell to the south, but then, that's where the driveway is and the garage. So, that's really not feasible. We do have some concern with the ADU in this historic structure, but remember this one is a voluntary unit. Lackner said, as far as the unit -in the free market house, the new unit, we like that a lot. It's above grade and it will be about 500 sq. ft . It' s got protected stairway from the elements, inside it's got nice soft exposure, and we don't have any problems with that one at all. Garton stated, I don't know if I opened the public hearing, so I do so at this time. Garton asked, does the applicant have any problems with the conditions? Vickery responded saying, the only problems I have with the conditions relate to the parking. Vickery made a presentation of the project showing the site plan and stated, it is a 10,500 foot parcel, it is located over by the Red Brick School. It is a north -facing parcel, and our intention is, and we already have taken this through HPC conceptual, to move the historical house over to this side (shown on map), we are proposing an addition of a couple of bedrooms, one is a master - bedroom for us, then, below that, a bedroom for Cody, our child. We're recyl ing the garage structure and adding a second new garage. The very 'basic idea is to move as much of the development abilities over too the big site here (referring to map) . WP will put on a basement, probably an unfinished basement, to begin with, and complete it as we can. This is something that will be done by ►. . PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 phases, over time, as we can of ford to do it. What we promised the HPC, was authentic restoration, as much as we can, on this historical house and we are trying to set this up so it can be developed by someone else. We have a couple of very large trees, like 75 ft. high and a couple of trees that are about 35.ft. high. The views are out to the south and kind of toward Aspen Mountain; we have really nice views. Vickery stated, just a little history on the ADU, we are volunteering to do an ADU on our site, primarily, one reason is because we may end up having to live in it and rent out the house, or move in the house and rent the ADU out, to help pay for the mortgage. So, that's our motivation for doing that, in addition to wanting to be good citizens. The ADU over here (referring to map) is a required ADU and I brought in a model of the ADU, which I will pass around. The reason I did not bring in the whole model is that we are still in the design phase, and I'm not confortable right now with where I am at in this, but I - am comfortable with what we are doing back here with the ADU, so I brought that part of the model with me. This is like a.one-story house, we had to actually go in and get a coverage variance for this from HPC, because it is all one-story except for the two-story portion that has the master -bedroom above it. We have very little open space; right now there is a grove of aspen trees in here that we are trying to preserve as much as possible, and the reason I don't want to put the parking space here is that I would like to have as much open space and aspen trees in here as I can preserve. It is possible to put parking space in here (referring to map), but what I have decided to do, and I think it is in the memorandum, is to make this ADU, instead of being a one -bedroom unit, make it- a studio unit. A studio unit is not required to have any parking, so that's what I would like to do there to resolve that. Again, because of these trees in the f ront , it has pushed the house to the back towards the alley, so, I just hate to take up this space with cars. We already got this parking waived by HPC. Lackner asked, how many parking spaces do you have on your historical site? Vickery answered, there are two spaces, and there are two spaces here (referring again to the map) . Lackner stated, staff's concern on the parking spaces, especially on the historic unit, is in the plans submitted. It showed a total of 7 bedrooms in the historic structure and we didn't feel that 2 parking spaces was adequate. The plans showed a 5-bedroom house and then a 2 bedroom ADU, and that's why I want to have one more sspace for the ADU. I have talked to Jake and he says the floor plans in the basement showing those additional bedrooms is still questionable, it is not final. 27 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Garton asked, how do you respond to staff ' s concern on the historic ADU about the overhang? Vickery answered, I don't have any problem putting the overhang over the stairs. Garton asked, you mentioned that you needed to sell off the new house and the development was up to them, but it sounds like you are designing it; they will buy the design from you? Vickery answered, what they will get is a design, but I can't build it. So, they will have to do that. Whether it' s a developer or whether it ' s somebody who wants to come in and live there, I don' t know who it is; I'm trying to keep the door open as much as possible on that site. Garton stated, but you hope that they buy into the design, it' s not a requirement on this parcel? Vickery answered, yes, it would be. They have one of two choices; they can make a minor modification of it that wouldn't really change its character or if they want to do something major, they have to start from scratch and recycle through it. They've got to live with the FAR that has been apportioned to that site and they have to go back to HPC and give the whole conceptual review package again. Garton stated, if we should approve the text amendment, from then on, it will always go through HPC review, whether it is burned down? Lackner stated, one thing is, the design for the ADU, if the new unit is changed, there are procedures under conditional use, if it is changed more than such per cent and size, or significant change, that would all come back. Blaich said, I would have a problem if I thought that this was a real possibility that they could then go and do something completely different, and I'm trying to reflect back on the question of historic preservation on a new building. I think what you are trying to do here is consistent with a lot of the goals you are trying to achieve, and I think it is even better, even those two separate structures, than some houses where the original structure was minute and this "monster" historic house was built behind it. There was a house on the west end, I forget the street location, but a small structure was moved over there and then built on the rear. The whole house is designated historic. That's an example, but this other one, which I think is well designed; I'm not complaining about the design, but you go there and all there was was this little cottage and everything else was completely new, but all one house. The difference here, you get two houses, two different families and you keep a scale in the community, which I think is what we are trying to do. I think this kind of an approach is a healthy approach, and I'm willing to bend a little if we have to. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 20, 1995 Kerr stated, Jake, would it be a fair assessment to say, the problem with the condominiumization, what it does is affect the saleability and the marketability, and in affect, placing incumbence on that other half of the lot. That's really the problem. Vickery stated, I've got the request in for condominiumization through the Planning Director simultaneously, with the lot split, because a) I don't know if the lot split thing is going to happen, and b) I don't know when it's going to happen. So, I'm dual tracking it. I still believe that it's cleaner and it's better to have it single-family lots than a condominium. I'm not sure that I agree that a condominium ownership is all that elegant. Because the way it is, the entire property is owned by both entities and anytime you want to do something, you have to go and ask the other "guy". The Condominium Association has to pay taxes, it's just a kind of big chain around your neck and I don't see any benefit to the public wealth for it, I guess is my real point. (There were motorcycles that affected the taping of the conversation between Kerr and Vickery at this point. The clerk again apologizes. ) Kerr and Vickery were discussing bonuses. Kerr asked, the total FAR that you would end up with on each side is, what? Vickery answered, it is in the packet. Kerr stated, let me ask it this way, the total FAR of the two houses is no greater than the FAR of what one house could be on the 10,500 lot, is that right? Vickery stated, right. Garton asked, how do the Commissioners feel about the parking request, Condition 8? Jake mentioned that HPC has waived that, but staff has expressed their concerns.. Amidon stated, by the way, just so you understand, the reason HPC waived it, is in the spirit of the new code amendment, only two spaces per unit are required. I understand there is an additional, there's ADUs here, but that was their reasoning. Garton stated, there is room for another space behind a new house, Jake. What do you think of the grass creep? Vickery, I don't think it's good in the climate in our area. I've seen it in southern California, it looks great, but here with snowplowing, I don't think it works well. I just don't want the car there. Mooney asked, where is the car going to go? Vickery stated, it goes on the street or .it's so close, and within walking distance Ito town, you can get anywhere from that location. Garton asked, can you get an RO permit? Is that an RO permitted area? Lackner responded, yes, for all cars registered at the site. 29 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUKE 20, 1995 Garton asked, any discussion about the parking? Vickery stated, well, it looks like we're not going to get it anyway. I would like it, but HPC has already waived it, but I don't know if it is worth holding up this application. Mooney stated, I would like to see if there is a car attached to this ADU, that they do have the opportunity to park someplace. I think they work as much as they don't work, and if we were to make the effort to put them on the property, that doesn't diminish the green space and it enhances the opportunity for someone to put a car off the alley and on the property. I think that's a fair trade-off. I think it gives us the satisfaction when we request to restrict the rest of the neighbors to parking requirements. At least we have some cooperation from everybody. Vickery again showed the site plan and it was discussed at random regarding the parking and possibilities. Vickery was concerned about the open space element. Blaich mentioned the possibility of parking on the street, because they would have a permit anyway. He stated, as long as they have a permit they won't get ticketed. Garton stated, Mary, also, your concerns about the overhang in the lightwell, are they met by Condition #9, "all material representations made by the application shall be adhered to"? Do you want to see us add conditions that the deck will be made larger? Lackner stated she would like the deck to be made larger. Mooney asked, are we in complete compliance with all the setbacks? Vickery answered, the B unit is, the 6,000 ft. unit is in compliance. It depends on what you mean by compliance. I would have to say, no, we're not in compliance. Vickery showed the site plan and the setbacks. Mooney stated, I understand all those points, Jake, but it seems to me that you are then putting the responsibilities on your neighbors of living with a house closer to their setbacks. I'm concerned that there is more usable area between the houses that can be used to keep the density which you are requesting on your lot and not push your density against your neighbors lot lines. Vickery said, right, but here is my argument. This is a one-story, low impact house. It means there is no big two-story wall running down the property line like you see in some places. There is a variety to the form, it angulates out, goes in and out, and creates an open space here (referring to site plan). This "guy" already is only 3 ft. from the property line, on this side. So, I'm asking for flexibility in the setbacks, which is what I asked from the HPC, in order to create a composition that I felt fitted into the neighborhood, although it might not meet to the letter of the setbacks. The variance has already been given by HPC. Amidon asked, but for the 6,000 sq. ft. lot, don't look at it as a whole, don't you meet your setback requirements? Vickery answered, if you were to treat these as separate lots, this lot 30 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (referring to site plan) would have a total o in this one area right here because HPC was this portion of the historical house. This feet required for the 6,000•sq. ft. lot. JUNE 20, 1995 f 10, it does encroach adamant about keeping one here has the 15 Garton stated, actually, this item is only considering the conditional uses for two ADUs to be located within two residences at 123 W. Francis. Is there a motion? MnrVTn'NT Kerr stated, I make a motion, with the motion being conditioned on the further approvals that are necessary to create a lot split and everything that goes with it, and text amendment. Based on that condition, I move. to approve the Conditional Use for two accessory dwelling units to be located within the proposed two residences at 123 W. Francis with all 9 Conditions as recommended in the Planning Office memorandum. Blaich seconded. Garton asked, so, you want two designated parking spaces in Condition #8. Kerr responded, I want 6 parking spaces. It's not what I want, it is what staff has recommended. Lackner said, I have a question, since he can do this without the text amendment, do you want to condition this on the text amendment? Kerr answered, I am just saying, it is subject to our other actions, whatever they may be on the parking space. Vickery stated, I don't see what the relationship is to the text amendment versus the ADUs. Kerr stated, I want to remove the condition. Vickery stated, I'm going to ask that you table it then, because I don' t know what this is that we're doing. This is a sort of a "screwy" deal, and I, prefer that you didn't vote on. it. I don't understand what it 'is that you are doing. Kerr withdrew his motion. MOTION Kerr stated; I move to approve the Conditional Use for two accessory dwelling units to be located within the proposed two -esidences at 123 W. Francis with 9 Conditions recommended in the Manning Office memorandum. Blaich seconded. Garton called for a roll call vote. Chaikovska, yes; Bruce, yes; Sara, no; Tim, yes; Robert; yes, Steve, no. Vote was 4 in favor, two opposed, motion carried. Discussion of,i4otion Kerr stated, the problem I have with Jake's method is we're approving a conditional use of two ADUs prior to a lot split taking 31 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUKE 20, 1995 place. Vickery asked, in the interest of compromise, would the Board entertain in putting another parking space on this lot, and forego the parking space on this one, for the reasons I have mentioned earlier. All I'm going to do here is withdraw the application for the ADU, this ties our hands in terms of financing, and potentially find options on how to pay for this thing. If you really feel strongly that it's my ability to work with the Board, if you really feel strongly as a group that a) you can justify that, even though that's a studio, b) that you need it, I will provide it, in the interest of working with the Board. But, I don't know how you justify it since it is a studio. Garton stated, I was going to vote against this motion because I don't agree with conditions in it, in the spirit of the new requirements for parking. Garton stated, next is the Historic Landmark Designation, which is a public hearing for 123 W. Francis. HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION 123 W. FRANCIS Amy Amidon of staff stated, staff and HPC recommend that the P&Z approve the landmark designation finding, the Standard b, e, and f, and this is an historic cottage with some alterations. It is a unique building because, apparently, it must have had a separate unit, sort of a duplex; there were two front porches, two front doors, and most of that will be restored as part of the applicant's proposal. The house will be rehabilitated to contribute to the character of the block again. MOrPTOWT Mooney stated, I make a motion that we approve the Historic Landmark Designation for 123 W. Francis on the condition that the three b, e, f, have been met. Blaich seconded. Vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Motion Garton asked, is there discussion on the motion. There was none. Is there anyone from the public who wants to address this issue? There were no comments. Garton closed the public hearing. . Vickery asked, do I have to put three cars on both sites? Is that where it ended up? 32 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Tim Malloy, Long Range Planning RE: AH Overlay District DATE: May 21, 1996 STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is a memo which was provided to the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission for discussion at their regular meeting on April 23th. This memo addresses the issues and concerns associated with the adoption of an amendment to the Pitkin County Land Use Code creating an AH Overlay district. The basic intent of this zone district is to provide a Growth Management Quota System exemption for projects which incorporate affordable housing and local serving commercial uses. Since this Code amendment would result in a new exemption having potential for further deductions from the overall development ceiling and annual allotment pools, the County P&Z and Staff felt it would be appropriate to review this matter together with the City P&Z as the Growth Management Commission. This joint meeting has been scheduled for June 18th. However, Staff felt that it would be helpful to review the contents of this memo with the City P&Z in advance of this meeting so that both the City and County P&Z members would be familiar with the basic concepts and issues associated with the proposed AH Code amendment. Staff will summarize the contents of the attached memo and be prepared to answer questions at the Planning Commission meeting. ATTACHMENTS: l . April 9, 1996 Staff memo to Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission re: AH Overlay. c:\home\ti =\countylr\ahover\citymem.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Tim Malloy, Deputy Director of Long Range Planning RE: Land Use Code Amendment to Create an Affordable Housing Overlay/PUD (AHO/PUD) District. DATE: April 23, 1996 REQUEST: The Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners is sponsoring this request to amend the Pitkin County Land Use Code to include an Affordable Housing Overlay/PUD District. This request is being processed pursuant to Section 3-220.1.0 of the Land Use Code. Amendments to the Land Use Code require a two-step review pursuant to Section 4-60.20 and 4-60.80 of the Land Use Code. In order to incorporate an Affordable Housing Overlay/PUD provision within.the Land Use Code, several sections of the Code would need to be amended. The Code sections which will need to be amended are listed as follows: Section 3-20: List of Zone Districts; Section 3-40.10: Intent of Zone Districts, Allowed Uses, Special Review Uses and Dimensional Standards, (also chart in Figure 3-3); Section 3-150: List of Growth Management Exemptions and Criteria for Growth Management Exemptions; Section 3-130: Development Exactions (regarding affordable housing mitigation standards for commercial projects); Section 4-70: List of Procedures; Section 5-160: List of Submission Contents. In this memorandum, Staff will. discuss the substantive code amendments and the issues surrounding them. In addition, we will provide draft language for each substantive code amendment Many of the issues discussed in this memo involve provisions of the Growth Management System for the Metro Area. As a result, Staff recommends that these issues be discussed with the Growth Management Commission prior to the Planning Commission making a recomm'-.ndation to the Board. BACKGR6UND: The impetus for the above described Code amendments originated during the review of the Aspen Highlands Village general submission application, which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 13, 1996. The basic idea behind this Code amendment is to provide a tool which would allow exemption from the Growth Management Quota System for the residential and local serving commercial components of mixed use projects that include affordable housing and commercial uses. In the case of the Highlands Village project, the mix of uses occurs even within the same structure. The theory behind this idea is that such projects (mixed use with affordable housing and local serving commercial) would create fewer impacts on the environment and the existing infrastructure by locating commercial uses in close proximity to affordable housing. APPLICANT: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: The most significant amendments to the Land Use Code being proposed are those establishing the overlay district and the exemption from the Growth Management System. Also discussed is an amendment to the Development Exactions section of the Code. Establishing the AH Overl"/PUD District Compliance with AACP The basic purpose of this Code amendment is to provide another tool for encouraging the private sector to develop affordable housing in mixed use projects with local serving commercial uses. The AACP includes the following affordable housing goals and objectives to support the creation of the AHO/PUD zone: • We believe the "critical mass" in our community means that 60% of the work force should live up valley of Aspen Village Mobile Home Park (AACP P. 30). The current Land Use Code requires that employee generation resulting from new free- , market residential development be mitigated by housing one person in deed restricted affordable housing for every three people .residing in free-market residential dwelling units. Subdivisions developed in compliance with this standards result in the Aspen Area growing in a 25:75 ratio of residents in affordable housing to residents in free-market housing (hereinafter referred to as 25:75 ratio). The AACP establishes a goal for new residential development to provide a 60:40 ratio of residents in affordable housing to residents in free- market housing (hereinafter referred to as 60:40 ratio). The 60:40 housing ratio is based upon an AACP goal to achieve a certain "character" in new residential developments reminiscent of the population mix which existed at one time in the Aspen Area. The "Community Vision" section of the AACP clearly establishes that the AACP was a process by which citizen planners "develop a character based plan" (see AACP PP. 6-10). Development in the AHO/PUD will help achieve the character goals of the AACP by requiring a 60:40 ratio for the residential component of a PUD as well as a diverse mix of land uses. Another goal found in the AACP is to create an "economically sustainable" community. It is commonly acknowledged in planning literature that residential land uses, in particular deed restricted affordable housing, in the absence of complimentary commercial land uses, will result in annual negative fiscal impacts on local governments. Local research also indicates that residential growth results in negative fiscal impacts on the Pitkin County General Fund. One way to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of growing in a 60:40 ratio is to permit commercial development in the AHO/PUD zone district in appropriate locations iri the Aspen Metro Area. Some level of commercial development in the AHO/PUD zone district can help make the land use pattern in the Aspen Metro Area more economically sustainable as called for in the AACP. The AACP also includes the following goals and objectives regarding mixed land use development which support the creation of the AHO/PUD zone: • Seek to create a community of size, density and diversity that encourages interaction, involvement and vitality among people (AACP P. 5). • On certain large acreage parcels, micro community or neighborhood development may be appropriate, and should be considered, to accommodate permanent residents, neighborhood character, appropriate density, mixed housing types and uses, usable -open space and convenient public transportation. As previously noted, the AACP is a character based plan.. The Plan suggests that micro community neighborhood development which incorporates a diversity of land uses may encourage the interaction and involvement of permanent and seasonal residents and tourists reminiscent of the interaction which existed at onetime in the City of Aspen. The mix of land uses which make up a micro community can be achieved in the AHO/PUD zone. The AACP includes the following goals and objectives relative to locally oriented commercial development to support the AHO/PUD zone: • . Encourage land uses, businesses and events which serve both the local community and tourist base (AACP P.16). • Developments which include locally oriented businesses should be encouraged viaaa menu of options (AACP P.40). _ 3 The AHO/PUD zone district is designed to accommodate local and tourist serving businesses as called for in the Plan. The AACP specifically calls for a menu of land use options to achieve adopted goals. The AHO/PUD zone serves as one option to encourage locally oriented businesses to locate within a development in which the permanent residents comprise the majority of the neighborhood population. The AACP includes the following goals and objectives relative to transportation to support the creation of the AHO/PUD zone: • The community seeks to provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors, and commuters that reduces. congestion and pollution( AACP P. 20). Planners and urban designers recognize that mixed use development as would be allowed in the AHO/PUD zone helps reduce reliance upon private automobiles and increases use of mass transit and alternative transportation modes. In the May of 1995, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy presented a seminar on Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality presenting examples of Transit Oriented Development Design Guidelines being utilized by several communities in Oregon, San Diego and Orlando Florida. These communities are now requiring mixed use higher density developments to reduce the reliance on private vehicles and improve the utilization of mass transit. The mixed land uses permitted in the AHO/PUD zone will help reduce automobile dependence in the Aspen Area and help improve air quality as called for in the AACP. Staff believes that the contemplated AH Overlay/PUD district is consistent with the AACP. a Proposed Amendments and Issues Section 3-20.10 of the Land Use Code lists the various zone districts. This Section would have to be amended to include the AH Overlay/PUD district. In addition, Section 3-40.10 identifies the intent of the zone districts and includes the list of allowed uses and the area and bulk standards. This Section would need to be amended to include a statement of intent for the AH Overlay/PUD District. Since this would be an "overlay" district, the allowed uses and dimensional requirements would be those for the underlying zone district(s). Thus, it would not be necessary to separately list the allowed uses for the AH Overlay/PUD district. Staff suggest that the following language be considered to amend Section 3-40 of the Code: Sec. 3-40.73 Affordable Housing Overlay/Planned Unit Development (AHO/PUD). 2 A. Intent: The Affordable Housing Overlay/PUD zone is intended for the production of Category 1, 2, 3, 4 and limited Resident Occupied affordable housing within transit oriented mixed land use developments. The AH Overlay/PUD could accommodate a wide range of land uses including, but not limited to, free-market residential and affordable housing and commercial uses where the commercial uses are accessory to the other allowed and special review uses within the underlying zone districts. Recreational facilities, tourist accommodations and tourist oriented commercial uses could also be accommodated in appropriate locations (where these uses are allowed by right or by special review in the underlying zone district(s)). The AH Overlay/PUD zone is intended to provide a mix of land uses that encourage interaction between tourists, seasonal residents and permanent residents consistent with the character oriented goals of the AACP. The Affordable Housing Overlay zone will be available for lands located within the Aspen Metro Area as defined in the AACP (not "extended" Metro Area) and should be strategically located in recognized activity centers, on transit and bicycle routes. The mix of land uses in the AHO/PUD is intended to reduce the need for private vehicle trips and,'increase mass transit utilization thereby improving air quality. Use of the AH Overlay/PUD shall be subject to review under the Planned Unit Development criteria identified in Section 3-170 of the Land Use Code. Use of the AH Overlay/PUD district shall also be considered a rezoning and shall be subject to the standards and criteria in Section 3-220.20. In addition, the following criteria shall be consider when evaluating whether to permit a land use development to be zoned A1IO/PUD: 1. The degree to which a development represents an exceptional commitment to advancing the visions goals and specific action items of the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. Whether the development limits Resident Occupied affordable housing to no more than 10 percent of the affordable housing units 3. The consistency of the development with the most current Community affordable housing needs as determined by the priorities of the Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority; 4. Whether 100 percent of single-family affordable housing units are constructed by the developer as opposed to selling lots for affordable housing units. 5. The range and diversity of affordable housing provided in the development; 5 6. The community amenities provided by the development for the benefit of residents and visitors of the Aspen Area including but not limited to; trails, recreational facilities, transit facilities and areas for public use; 7. The degree to which commercial land uses may offset the negative fiscal impacts associated with residential development; 8. The transit orientation of a project.taking into consideration density, site design and mix of land uses. B. Use Requirements: Use requirements are determined by the underlying zone district(s) as established in Code Section 3-40. Residential uses restricted to Category 1, 2, 3, 4 and Resident Occupied affordable housing guidelines (as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority) must comprise seventy (70) percent of the residential unit mix of the development. In addition, the number of persons residing in the restricted affordable housing units must compromise sixty (60) percent of the total residential development population. Despite these r uirements, projects may also be comprised of all category deed restricted reident��cu ied units. In the case of P g rY P developments with one or more underlying zone districts, the 70 percent residential unit - mix and 60 percent residential population mix may be satisfied by aggregating the resident unit and population mix in all the underlying zone districts overlayed by the P AHO/PUD. Average household sizes shall be determine by the Aspen Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. Each individual underlying zone district overlayed by the AHO/PUD need not meet the minimum required unit and population mix. C. Dimensional Requirements: Dimensional requirements are determined by the underlying zone district(s) as established in Section 3-40. The are several issues to consider regarding the above language. First, use of the AH Overlay has been restrict to lands located within the Aspen Metro Area. (not the "extended" Metro Area). This was intended to limit the potential for requests to rezone new areas for commercial uses since the intent of the AACP is to reduce the overall amount of commercial square footage at build out. The Metro Area also offers the greatest potential for "transit oriented development," which is one of the desired benefits of the AH Overlay/PUD district. Having said this, Staff would acknowledge that there is some logic to allowing this tool to be used County wide. For example, if one of the intents of this district is to reduce the impacts (particularly traffic related) of residential development, then it would seem that allowing local serving commercial uses in projects located in outlying areas would have as much or more effect on these impacts as projects located in the Metro Area. With respect to this issue, Staff felt it would be appropriate to limit use of the AH Overlay to the Metro Area as a test. In the 0 event this proves to be a valuable tool its applicability could be expanded to other areas in the future. The above language also includes the 70/30 unit and 60/40 population requirements also found in the recently adopted, AH 2/PUD and AH 3/PUD . zone districts. This standard was arrived at (despite the fact that the joint City and County P&Zs recommended a 70/30 standard for both units and population) after significant debate. In the end it was determined that there was little additional benefit gained by increasing the population standard from 60 percent to 70 percent. The Housing Office made this determination after review of average household size and other information. Another issue involves the potential for creating new pressure to rezone properties for commercial uses. Since the AH Overlay will allow commercial uses as permitted in the underlying zone district (and in fact may exempt these uses from the growth management scoring competition) there may be some added desire to rezone lands for commercial use and then apply the AR Overlay zone. This situation should be minimized by the fact that rezoning is subject to rigorous review under the current Land Use Code and is a discretionary approval. One of the standards which must be met when considering a rezoning proposal within the Metro Area, is consistency with the AACP! The Growth Action Plan within the AACP includes as a goal the reduction in potential commercial square footage at build -out from 700,000 to 400,000 square feet. Any request for rezoning that included a significant increase in commercially zoned lands would have difficulty meeting this test. In addition, the intent statement for the AH Overlay district indicates that the commercial uses should be accessory. Further, the draft language includes several suggested criteria for evaluating whether a particular proposal should be granted AH Overlay zoning. Growth Management ]Exemption Section 3-150.30 of the Land Use Code lists those activities which are exempt from Growth Management. This list would need to be amended to include a new exemption for units built within the AH Overlay/PUD District. The other issue addressed in this section of the Code is whether these exempt units are deducted from the "development ceiling" and "annual allotment pools." This is basically the bookkeeping system that allows us to track the. numerical objectives of the system. Few things on the list are .not deducted from the ceiling and pools. All units constructed within all of the other AH zone districts (AH, AH 2/PUD and AH 3/PUD) are deducted. The only affordable housing units which are not deducted are "caretaker dwelling units." Staff recommends that any units granted growth management exemption via the AH Overlay/PUD provision be deducted from the ceiling and pools just as they are for the AH 2/PUD and AH/3 PUD zone districts. Stlaff recommends that Section 3-150.30 be amended by adding the following: 7 M. Dwelling units and neighborhood commercial square footage constructed in association with a project approved for AH Overlay/PUD zoning shall be exempt from growth management competition and scoring procedures. All tourist oriented commercial development (including lodge units) done in association with an AH Overlay/PUD project shall be subject to growth management competition and scoring procedures unless otherwise exempt under another provision in this section or unless demolition credit has been granted for such commercial square footage or lodge units. As you will notice, this exemption includes the "neighborhood commercial" component of a project as well as the residential component. We would note that tourist oriented commercial development is not granted exemption from growth management under this provision. The reason for granting exemption for the local serving commercial component of a mixed -use development is that Staff feels this exemption provides a significant incentive for using the AH Overlay/PUD approach. Further, Staff feels that little is lost by this exemption, since most of the things we would have received through the growth management competition process are achieved through one or more of the other requirements of approval under. the AH Overlay/PUD approach. For example, the design, resource impacts and visual impacts criteria which are part of the commercial growth management scoring criteria are .more than adequately covered by the review standards required under the PUD provisions. With respect to affordable housing, the criteria in the commercial growth management section of the Code simply grants points for affordable housing. Under true competition this might result in an amount of affordable housing that exceeds the current exaction standard for commercial development (100 percent of employees generated). However, there has been little or no competition in the commercial category for years. This tends to eliminate the incentive for providing anything but the minimum amount of housing necessary to achieve the minimum threshold score. Under the AH Overlay/PUD approach, the requirement for the affordable housing component (70 percent of the units and 60 percent of the population) would most likely exceed the minimum exaction standard for most projects even if the exaction for the commercial component were reduced from 100 percent of the employees generated to 60 percent. This is due to the fact that the increase in employee housing generated by the 70:30 and 60:40 standard will in most cases outpace the commercial exaction standard. This relationship would deteriorate if a project were to included a large commercial component and relatively small residential component. As discussed previously, there are several safeguards which should provide adequate review and control of such projects. To test the theory discussed above, Staff analyzed the numbers for both the Highlands Village project and the North 40 project. This analysis involved a comparison of how much 8 affordable housing would be provided if both of these projects were required to simply meet the current exaction standard versus meeting the 70:30 unit and 60:40 population standard plus providing affordable housing for 60 percent (the current requirement is 100 percent) of the employees generated by the commercial component of the projects. The result, in both cases, was .that the community would receive more affordable housing through the AH Overlay/PUD approach. Staff would note that one of the reasons why this analysis was favorable for the AH approach is that the current affordable housing exaction standard for residential uses is only 33 percent of the employees generated. The AACP recommended that this standard be increased; however, to date this has not been done. Even the issue of pacing, one of the most important functions of growth management, can be at least partially addressed through the PUD review. Since the exemption for the commercial space would be granted as part of a total project via the PUD review, the issue of whether the project includes the right amount and type of commercial space can be addressed: While this does not provide the same type of pacing as the growth management quota system, given the limited applicability of this Code amendment, Staff does not feel this exemption will create any significant impacts to the growth management program or the infrastructure system, which is one of the key purposes of pacing. Affordable Housing Exaction Standard In the paragraphs above we mentioned a reduced employee housing exaction standard for the commercial component of mixed use projects. This issue first arose during the Board of County Commissioner's review of the Highlands Village proposal. It was clear in the case of Highlands that applying both the AH criteria (70:30 unit and 60:40 population) and the commercial exaction standard (100 percent of employees generated) would result in more affordable housing on the site than was reasonable, given concerns for traffic congestion, air pollution and noise in the Maroon Creek Valley. Even allowing the applicant to satisfy this standard by paying a cash -in -lieu fee for the balance of the units not provided on site did not seem reasonable, as this fee would be in the 10 million dollar range. Under these circumstances, it seemed reasonable to consider a reduced standard for a project that provides local serving commercial uses as well as affordable housing units at the 70/30 ratio. The City of Aspen utilizes 60 percent (i.e. 60 percent of the employees generated by the commercial use) when calculating the employee housing mitigation requirement for commercial developments. Having examined the numbers for the Highlands and North 40 projects (and finding that this standard results in more affordable housing than would be required under the current mitigation standards) staff feels that reducing the affordable housing exaction standard for the commercial component of mixed use projects approved under the AH Overlay/PUD approach is reasonable. Staff suggests that Section 3-130.20 (2) be amended as follows: 1 9 2. Commercial Development: An applicant shall provide affordable housing for one hundred percent (100%) of the employees generated by commercial. development, except commercial development done in association with an AH Overlay/PUD project, based upon the standards in Figure 3-6. For commercial development done in association with an AH Overlay/PUD project, an applicant shall be required to provide affordable housing for sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the commercial portion of the development, in addition to meeting the unit mix and population requirements of the AH Overlay/PUD district as described in Section 3- 40 73 of the Land Use Code. If when using the standards in Figure 3-6 to determine the number of employees generated by a commercial use, a range of full time employees is indicated, the precise employee generation standard shall be determined during review of the development application after, consideration of a proposal from an applicant. OTHER ISSUES: During Staff review of this Code amendment we noticed an omission in the Growth Management Section, which is pertinent to the Hines project for the Aspen Highlands Village. When the growth management system went through the most recent major update, the Growth Management Commission was established. This Commission is comprised of the joint City and County Planning Commissions, and is responsible for certain duties relative to the Growth Management System for the Metro Area. One of these duties is monitoring those exemptions from the system which are intended to be deducted from the "development ceiling" and "annual allotment pool." However, there is no provision in the Land Use Code requiring the Growth Management Commission to review requests for these exemptions. The primary purpose of this review would be to ensure communication between the. two jurisdictions regarding the use of these exemptions. At the very least, it will be important to. keep track of how many exemptions are used each year since there are a finite number of allotments available. It would also seem that there should be some level of agreement between the City and the County regarding whether a particular request for exemption is in the best interest of the Community. This will be particularly important for large projects which where multi -year allotments are required as in the case of the Highlands Village project. Staff feels that both the City and County Land Use Codes should *be amended to included a provision addressing this issue. We suggest the following amendment to Section 3-150.30 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code: 3-150.30 Metro and Non -Metro Area GMQS Exemptions The exemptions set out in this Section 3-150.30 shall apply in the Aspen Metro Area and the Non -Metro Area. All exemptions within the Metro Area which are identified as 10 being deducted from the Metro Area development allotments and development ceilings shall require approval by the Growth Management Commission: Obviously this amend would need to be included in both the City and County Land Use Codes and should also be discussed by the Growth Management Commission. Another issue related to the Highlands Village project, has to do with the granting of multi- year allotments in the Free -Market AH Associated exemption category. In order for Hines Interests to acquire the necessary allotments for those free-market units which are not being acquired through TDR, the Highlands Project will consume the entire quota in the Free - Market AH Associated category for 51/3 years. This raises several questions. If we allow this, what happens if (or when) another project comes in during those 5 years. The Code does not currently specify what should happen under this scenario! Do we turn projects away? Do we start borrowing from years 6 through 10? Should we maintain a reserve pool for the Free -Market AH associated category (currently, we only require a reserve pool for the Free -Market Residential and Tourist Accommodations categories). These issues will need to be addressed before the Highlands Village project can be dealt with. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the discussion of this matter to a meeting of the Growth Management Commission. c:\home\timm\cases\codeamen\ahomem.doc 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Referral of the Aspen Skiing Company's application for Amendments to the Aspen Mountain Master Plan for Upgrades and Expansion of the Snowmaking System and Improvements to Ski Trails FROM: Rick Magill, Planning Office DATE: May 21, 1996 REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting that an amendment to the Aspen Mountain Master Plan (AMMP) be approved. for the widening and regrading of Spar Gulch Catwalk, Kleenex Corner, and Niagara/upper Little Nell. The Applicant is also requesting an amendment to allow for upgrades and expansion of the snowmaking system along proposed World Cup routes and on other areas of Aspen Mountain. The Applicant states that these improvements are` necessary fo (�,S)ertification and adequate snow coverage for several proposed World Cup race course routes on Aspen Molt wn. The World Cup racing events are currently scheduled for December 6 and 7, 1996. ° of 1 V APPLICANT: Aspen Skiing Company APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Hingst ZONING: AF-SKI BACKGROUND: The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application on May 14, 1996. The P&Z voted to table further review of the application until such time as the Applicant can supply additional information on the project to the Community Development Department. The information that Staff and P&Z have requested includes: * A Construction Management Plan (also referred to as a Construction Verification Plan). * More graphic information on the potential for visual impacts, particularly in the Kleenex corner area. * More information on the proposed "restraining structures" for World Cup races, the "block houses" for snowmaking equipment, and the proposed retaining wall below the Spar Catwalk. ! * A Revegetation Plan which includes replacement of native trees and shrubs on the ridge above Kleenex Corner. * More information on the effect that World Cup ski racing events will have on the operational characteristics of Aspen Mountain. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: The Applicant is proposing to widen Spar Catwalk and the Kleenex Corner turn from 25 feet to 60 feet. The improvements to the Spar Catwalk will require that a retaining wall (up to 25 feet high & 735 feet long) be installed below the existing Catwalk, as it approaches Kleenex Corner, to allow for the proposed increase in width. A prominent ridge above Kleenex Corner will be cut back approximately 120 feet to accommodate the FIS width requirements. The Applicant also wishes to widen the existing catwalk that traverses west from Kleenex Corner from 15 to 30 feet. The material removed from the ridge above Kleenex Corner is proposed to be distributed on a portion of Niagara and upper Little Nell for the purpose of reducing the grade to an average of 50 percent (down from around 80%). The Applicant further proposes that two "restraint towers", similar to a structure at the top of Corkscrew, be installed for use during World Cup events in vicinity of Kleenex Corner. The Applicant proposes improvements to the snowmaking facilities on Aspen Mountain for the expressed purpose of hosting World Cup ski racing events. Replacements (pipe replacement) are proposed for Ruthie's Run system, the system on Spring Pitch, Dago Road, Strawpile and Fifth Avenue. The Spar Gulch system will also be upgraded, along with North American, Deer Park, Copper Gulch and Kleenex Corner. The improvements will require the construction of snowmaking "block houses", which contain mechanical equipment for systems operations, that are proposed to be located at the top of North American and near the top of the Mountain. The Applicant is proposing a time schedule for the replacement, upgrading and expansion to the snowmaking systems on areas of the Mountain not necessarily associated with World Cup events (see map in application). ENABLING LEGISLATION: The AMIVIP, adopted in 1985, lists expansion to snowmaking as being allowed by Further Review (Special Review). As the construction of new trails is not specifically referenced in the Plan as a use allowed or prohibited, such a request will also be processed via Special Review, as prescribed in the County Land Use Code. STAFF NOTE: The portion of the ridge above Kleenex Corner which will be cut back has been flagged by the Applicant. Please take this opportunity to visually assess the proposed changes to Aspen Mountain, prior to the May 21 st meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Aspen P&Z review the Applicant's proposal and offer comments which will be forwarded to the County P&Z and the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration. ATTACHMENTS: 1. application K Aspen Mountain Master Plan Amendment ASPEN SKIING COMPANY P. O. Box 1248 Aspen CO. 81612 March 19 96 Amendment Application Team ASPEN SKIING COMPANY P.O. Box 1248 Aspen CO.81612 Chris Hingst PLANNERSILANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Design Workshop, inc. 120 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 Mark Hershberger GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Steve Pawlak WATER ENGINEERS Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, Inc. 2401 Fifteenth Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 81601 Kevin O'Connell Table of Contents A. Introduction B . Proposed Improvements and Activities 1. World Cup Ski Races 2. Trail Improvements 3. Snowmaking Improvements C . Construction Schedule D. Standard Listing of Uses E . Aspen Mountain Revegetation Plan 1. Revegetation 2. 1996 Construction Activities Plan F . Exhibits 1. Existing Conditions Map 2. Potential World Cup Routes 3. Kleenex Corner Improvements Plan 4. Mine Locations Plan 5. Snowmaking Improvements Plan G . Appendix 1. Geotechnical Assessment of Kleenex Corner Improvements 2. 100 Year Debris Flow Assessment 3. City of Aspen Water Dept. Letter 4. USFS Letter 5. Aspen Mountain Revegetation Plan A . Introduction The purpose of this Master Plan Amendment is to request approvals for the proposed physical improvements and activities which are not included in the existing 1985 Aspen Mountain Master Plan or its amendments. The proposed improvements include: 1. The return of World Cup Ski Races. This will be a revised course with the finish area at the Little Nell Base. 2. Trail Improvements on Spar Catwalk and Kleenex Corner 3. Snowmaking Improvements B . Proposed Improvements and Activities 1. World Cup Races In the past, Aspen Mountain was considered one of the premier sites for World Cup Races. This submission includes several potential routes for the events which will be submitted to the FIS Committee for review with the objective to once again hold these events in Aspen. The potential alternatives have been routed to have the finish line at the Little Nell Base Area. This new alignment will allow the lower part of the course on Little Nell to be seen from town. The finish area will be very accessible from the main base and town providing a better opportunity for spectator viewing. We have included a map of several potential alignments which are currently being evaluated by the Aspen Skiing Company for FIS approvals. This includes several events which would be routed on Spar Gulch catwalk and Kleenex Corner to the Little Nell Base. This will require improvements to Kleenex Corner, as outlined below, to obtain FIS certification. 2. Trail Improvements Trail improvements for Aspen Mountain will focus primarily on the Spar Gulch, Kleenex Corner and Niagara areas. The purpose of the proposed improvements is to accommodate World Cup events as well as to improve the overall skier experience and safety., Repeat skiing on the Silver Queen Gondola and Bell Mountain Chair and descending the mountain at the end day must circulate through Kleenex Corner. This improvement will provide more room for skiers improving the skiing experience and safety. The trail improvements include: a. Widening of the catwalk to 60' . The will be achieved through cutting on the uphill side as well fill on the downhill side with a retaining wall to minimize vegetation and soil disturbance. b . Reduction of the grade on part of Niagara to an average center line grade of 50% to increase the skiable area for intermediates and to improve the skier flow to the base area. The material cut from the widening of the catwalk will be used to fill part of Niagara and Little Nell reducing the overall grade. c . Construction of a restraint tower for use during world cup events. A similar tower is currently in place at the top of Corkscrew Gully. i i S 3. Snowmaking Improvements to the snowmaking system, including both upgrades and expansion, is very important in the plan to host World Cup events on Aspen Mountain. Replacements include the Ruthies Run system, the system on Spring ' Pitch, Dago Road, Strawpile and Fifth Avenue. The Spar Gulch system will also be upgraded along with North American, Deer Park, Copper Gulch and Kleenex Corner. The proposed snowmaking expansion will be very efficient and will provide additional cover in high snow wear areas as well as assurance for adequate coverage in lean snow years. Snowmaking block houses, which include mechanical equipment for system operation, will be located at the top of North American and near the top of the mountain. These structures will be tucked into the existing vegetation as much as possible to minimize visual impact. The present water agreement with the City of Aspen provides adequate water supply for the proposed snowmaking expansion (see appendix). Trail Coverage (acres) Buckhorn 6.91 Ruthies Road 5.0 FIS Trail 11.4 Dipsy Doodle / Pumphouse 26.25 1 &2 Leaf 16.38 Silver Dip 6.2 Back of Bell One 7.24 Total 117.0 C . Construction Schedule The return of World Cup skiing to Aspen is scheduled for December 5 and 6, 1996. It is anticipated that three months of construction will be required to complete the improvements necessary to hold World Cup events. Snowmaking along the World Cup route needs to begin in October, therefore, construction should start no later than July 1, 1996. D . Standards for Listing of Uses - Additions to Listing uses in Aspen Mountain Master Plan Activities and Uses which are Allowed During the Traditional Ski Season 1. Host World Cup Ski Races and associated events. E . Aspen Mountain Revegetation Plan 1. Revegetation The Aspen Skiing Company has a long history of successful revegetation efforts on its four mountains. The knowledge learned over the years on -site will be applied to all aspects of the Revegetation Plan. This plan conforms to the Pitkin County Landscape Guidelines, which have been incorporated where appropriate throughout this revegetation plan. Revegetation of the disturbed sites will have four primary goals: 1. Prevent soil loss and siltation of drainages as a result of removing forest cover; 2. Establish vegetation that is compatible with existing native vegetation in appearance, composition and permanence; 3. Create habitat that will support use by native wildlife; and 4. Provide quality skiing terrain. These goals will be accomplished by planting native grasses or species adapted to the area and using mulch to reduce soil loss and enhance the establishment of seeding. In areas with steep slopes, 2:1 or greater, and shallow or erodible soils, mulch will be used in combination with an erosion control netting to provide further protection of soils and seedlings. Follow-up measures, such as additional seeding and/or fertilization, will be applied as needed. Native seed mixes will be selected to provide visual diversity, prevention of soil erosion and ensure that a variety of feed materials are available throughout the growing season. All supplied seed will be free of noxious weed seeds. A signed statement certifying that the seed furnished is from a lot that has been tested will be made available. Seed which has become wet, moldy or otherwise damaged in transit or in storage will not be used. During the process of clearing sites, both rubber -tired and tracked equipment will A be used on slopes of 30 percent or less. On steeper slopes, only tracked equipment will be used. Damaged areas will be regraded to appropriate smoothness and patched with soil material, if necessary. Seedbed preparation will consist of leaving a rough, irregular soil surface. This will including removing large rocks. Regardless of the mix of seed used, seed will be planted by broadcasting or drill seeding within ten days after soil disturbing activity has ended. Toward the end of the construction season all areas will be evaluated and additional revegetation measures will be implemented as needed. Planting during early fall will allow the seed to be fully moistened and worked into the soil by natural processes prior to germination in the spring. For some species, over - wintering also enhances germination by weakening the seed coat. Seeding rates will vary because of seed size, method of seeding and site requirements. Seeding rates of 50 to 250 seeds per square foot, depending on seed size, will be used on most sites. Available plant nutrients are a necessity for any aggressive revegetation program that restores and maintains soil productivity resulting in healthy, vigorous vegetation. Generally, all vegetation responds favorably to the addition of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers. A mixture of 20-20-10 will be used as a supplement to assist revegetation. An application rate of 50 to 250 seeds per square foot, followed by a second application of equal amount later in the growing season or the following growing season has been demonstrated to be most effective and efficient. Following seeding, slopes with a steepness less than 2:1 will be mulched with approximately 1,500 pounds per acre of straw. This straw or hay will provide the cover needed while still allowing sunlight to penetrate the mulch, warming the soil and enhancing plant growth. Application is done either by hand placing or mechanically blowing the mulch. The straw will be crimped into the soil and, in areas subject to wind erosion, anchored with a tackifier. Areas with a steepness greater than 2:1 will be further stabilized by using plastic netting or mat. Aspen Skiing Company personnel will be conducting evaluations to ensure - adequate seed germination. A standard of 70 percent ground cover after the second growing season or the amount equal to the adjoining undisturbed areas, if less than 70 percent will be used to determine re -application, modification, or fertilization. Chris Hingst will be responsible for ensuring revegetation for this project is successful. He can be reached through the Aspen Skiing Company at extension 3105, or directly at 544-3105. 2 . 1996 Construction Activities Plan The Aspen Mountain erosion and drainage plan was designed to protect the natural resources in the project area. There are no active year-round streams in the area of Spar Gulch, but there are two main drainages that are active in the runoff period and have the potential to cause erosion. The plan consists of, for the most part, two measures. The first is the use of silt fences and erosion bales located at the toe of disturbed sites during the construction activities. The second control measure is an aggressive revegetation program described in the Revegetation Plan. Seeding and mulching will be enacted within ten days after the completion of the soil disturbing or construction activity. Other erosion control measures will be used throughout the area as needed. One specific measure is water bars. They will be installed at appropriate intervals along cleared ski slopes and roads to limit distance that sheet runoff can flow unchecked. The water bars will divert runoff into the adjacent uncleared forest whenever possible. Where appropriate, energy dissipating structures (i.e., rock, hay bales, or slash piles) will be installed to prevent erosion in the forested areas receiving the diverted slope runoff. APR-08-96 MON 14:59 ASC RISK MGNI FAX NO. 9709232079 �---� Min. width = v3 wall 1*4M 1 min. A] q increase I-gj The wall may vary from vertical to an angle of 1/2 =1 Average surface slope of rock. 9c — — A ppmxWnate line of soil F-- infiltration NATIVE ROCK RETAINING WALL mot ift 2 'f•�` r`�` r ? min.�— Cut or fill slope k`d'N el 01. f min. Natural ground line r 2 : 1 slopes or flatter SECTION not to scale 2` min. 1.5 .02 Natural ground line SECTION Dike constructed by dozer moving soil upslope and dumping at top of slope. Diversion dike to be constructed of top of cut or fill slope. outlet to stabilized area. ' DIVERSION DIKE I' SPACING OF STAPLES- . " • � LIMITS OF MULCHED AREA EXTEND MATTING OVER SIDES AND TOP OF MULCHED AREA is SPACING OF STAPLES BURY UPPER END OF MATT 1 N G MIN. OVERLAP Ag" ---0.6r 54 SPACING OF STAPLES ALONG EACH EDGE AND CENTER OF MATTING JUTE MA"NG MAX, Fbw direction I Straw Bales staked securely ., Semi -pervious barrier of Straw Bales with more pervious embankment of sand and gravel for spillway. Filter berm outlet t BMP WI-C PLAN no scale PROFILE no scale STRAW BALE BARRIERS Angie first stake toward previously laid bale Flow �------tom Ce EMBEDDING DETAIL c . r,; ♦ _ c� -.Sol y �� AF Wire or nylon bound bales placed on the contour 2 re -bars , steel pickets , or 2~ x 2a stakes ! I to 2� in ground ANCHORING DETAIL STRAW BALE SEDIMENT BARRI Irk 4 DRIP LINE INCORRECT TREE PROTECTION FENCING DRIP uNE ,4'..-1c MIN. 4" PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE w/DRAIN ROCK 6 MIN. AROUND PIPE 5' win VERTICAL. PIPE , .FILL` ENCROACHMENT wITNIN DRIP LINE PERMITTED ON ONE SIDE ONLY At r SECTION TREE PROTECTION IN FILLED AREAS EXISTING GROUND 11 ok ol 1� *,tv CORRECT DRIP LINE f 5 Ir ISOMETRIC PROTECTION OF TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION F . Exhibits DES1GWW7F.KL P' LA -I DW APT AR V Fi R K -111 l IA?4V ►LAP INlI UUMM D►110" m11612M ►LAMMIMO ' •Irr" fr. f.. •f. 41 a,L' r' f't' ✓ � �. ,'; y' zs� \.i••,.' _ - ' i' � ' ♦ � `i,' � '� - -' �J'\. ? `S` - �. ' ' ` I '*`S`'bf � `� �' �- • / J `'1� �"i - ", '-� t� �A�--i'+r,it, ,7► c; F "`.`� ,., 'I Ai1.'' r' .✓ Bonn 1eIS^ 1 4,li L ':�� 'rr'___ •' 1 ,� t�'+ 1..n, rf'•�)Tj.' rlh t - ^!F i C3 l - - n e ,. y) .•-•� :4 - N. J IL, � '.-... „ I. .:i • ' ` .. ` , ,+. , • i `.'ri i+ � 'J' � ; �Y" - ytl b v � } ' P- ` `v. --^: .� - .--rf"' '�� (• i 1 r � J�1� t � A 1' I �• t� ' �' F: � , t'r J L...• �1 �� � � '�,O ..� � _ t , ' r 1 /1.1 t,� � l "� .! � I �' / �t Sundeck r �v !I, yt , /I � ��.�ft ` J' `� .. .'., r-• 1,1 �,yt_' ,�: _ ; , , -',; J�,, ',�: rr }.' ""T'�a.. G� .. C^ w Lam•..\ i �, I .i� ��� /' � � \ �- -` ResuIL11"ill1C :;, aft( 'A I ll SS 8 I \ ♦ �� all�� pp r1 ��: u. t,- -, ff - `, `� � � ', /t� � ��rr 1 I t ,.'' j° ♦ ,' r �' t �� _ QL �f���- ^�,. a r .,r.iy � z. • - fi --._ �.. \,�1+``� �'�_ ��� .- :( i�l i ,, t, � C � •�•I..... i t".l ��., 6Oicj 1�� � „a�• rf'� \�� i t{i - _f _ /1f• ''��-}1�.'iv'I �+, j �, .�,''� 'rl' --��� �.:1 -'t I / v�l j (�,• „ ly y.� \ ',\ \;.� �. "`ttF\Jy- it ,ir , +' i Y'�� / ;I'. 1 `'�- ' w - _ '1 ��`�t C:. t \ i .j f,. •� -.�`-�� _ �. \'Y•11�'• 'tt"..•+�^ �., -,nf' ��1 ' , a- f' �i ^'{'•-. (' _ •,' i)�,+�5,'` .. - i, ...., N� t C' �'lt� O f . / '. J�/��} .,f .J -+I` = �(rt,e t V FIt eXI� 'jj) X .a' ��, ^, r... .�,�, r' T -- - 1 v;� "i - ''? �%l�'` ^4.4t j_-_ ;j ,+ 1( •`�.: - - ,\ \ t.';,"� is r ,'�(,� lti. j• r,`., A°. Cl ' 1 - `+... i ti' r- , •..:.. (." - •.S `c •,.,+•,'ti,.; �•�,, e1y .i_ f'iti •/' +lit -� ...�' a_ A K� . •� ` i %.y,,�.I/ S •/. 1� ( - }' ti .�) l 't `\'•- or•cc, 'f ` rY• 6' •J` ��. .y l t! _`` . t � fry, . _ - t .).� .� 1 J . I. ,k' dR _+!�� .t, l.. ,�� `^ , Y ql J � .. V tr Ir = '' •'�'' �l�,;t,'_ +. ,, 1 ..�.- J � .- •, •r'.if t' -,,., 'U.�f �'.. _. !� ,. � ;'�^ y ✓� Gv ` _ ' 1 rt G �=� '`\ `1:': ` l� �.{• _ 1!� �.+!�^ Pill l __. , � �` I /" .. � ; t •fin.` .✓ `/' 1. � ii.., �' L /, 1J 1+�. U \. \� '/• , ' .1 �. 1 F,. } �� , - [L ` -' i 1. ,,�\il1 _! • Zr FYI � Qi ^`[—= -?�_��yy�'i. Jr r t �' I !i'<• •, J'^+-,,, �c7. •`i\�I�-1�'� .a �./,`"�1 ��' -� -_ . - .. -C+ -' t l`�`� + / .� .•1 r- r•� s�' ,_ _ _ � �.i. i1 , ` i % , y, f+� � , f• _ , r Jj � r��r if'�1rr�I/pI, 1/ ` � � �' JJ*�(`1d j 1 r� t �. rl % �S�LV r1 11('Y .)tt S' 4!^.io „v• L' ��„ "r'+ �• ,� _ e e ({ � r''t , i ' .fir i t�� '- '• r _ _' J - i' !f• ' «tt� DESIOWW0F.YSH Sundeck Restaurant Men's Start r `, , ��-- r . - ; 4 }�} , =_" ,..i.t..� - � `-'__ �.-\_ ;'' f / j 1-�•,.� r1 ` �' .. - � J i'V � �, _. ' ...s- '�" 1 car .-- Ruthie's ems' � l �.-i _ _• , ,`.;, i l ,,• j �,�• j;1 y - ..��' Ruthie's " /\l ' -� `y - '.�1 .�.' ,f i ,� .'�_�'�-�J '� 1 i �`•� .`^-'_•�-.T -/•' .. � ?� ' ^ ` -C '4r 1 __. _ , , � L i1 1 ..,',� 't','t-•��`�a � i y, Ct ;t�'q _ `. i} ( 1 : -� .� r- {I -r 1 _ "` ` f Y-r' ` - _....`:-� 'y ,� - •. . • ' - -� •? .\ \ •� -� , `• _ .._ ,... ', i .rr � ..t ti 1 i >ut� iy --i +, -r:' j --i""- -� r�,�/ � /- 1 t , - r • .. (� ! , t, ....... i,'� - r� ' t i,, !r �� y 1,, f Y. ; �'-'P -.��- _ _ i . 1-~ i .,y /J.! � „' �•.,}. � r ,' i , % I -� � 4 J y ,,/ �t 1 � / ,Lift � �' r- ``.ahl �•... :,, '', J' T...: :rr7',( _.l _ _ ��o` �\1 1, � � L ,• �, i.. .s. '' C - •' Fj( , 1 ,rr `I rrf . y 1' r-,. '1r .`�'��f . \. •/ � G.. 'i, 5 � t' - � '� � I � .•t.+'"��r... �\ ` _ , it ( '/ � - {) � l� \\ fi, ti•1., ., tf-. ^'C:.-r, � _ `may !� _ '�. i � ;'! , , i ... ... �.•�! _ .. •fir � ! 1 1, _ '� :Q� - ,� If r. n e _ } Y r'�j . _. ,-. _ � R��� ( ,�... ... . r WoI11 1�'S Start �'; , . ` +H,.:.4'C�z} ' � is '3'o S ( _ 1 ,.'.lr ( ^ �. 5 �r - y �. 4,y r4,;. •.C,. �,•.\ 4`• '' ,r %yfy�,'/ , ` �� `,,�l rt� ._-..- 4`��-.'� t •l ~`,i�., �.�,1 r' �r t",• J� 1- •�-�� t •t �• j ,8 ' , l — ' r, air r' r.�;{ fi:ilwer Q(1(31411� - L.7 v'�i•t -• f Y .y ti , ,ram,,•'- � : r• ti.,.. �' ' •-l• J - � . i'. `!• ,. t.. •,: ( 1 � `j It �� 'y - � -•- \ ' •�� ` � (1 F •1 � _ . ai '((y- ,. j,f ' ri •�'r b�'�','. r. - .. _ t,- i r' r .- 'r:.',t - - ' �r�� / '�. r '' 1'� 'jam.- 4 a (._.,��.Yi •'~ •"'1, '� t'.�• - t ' .': •1_ ,. ... _ _ _ ° I, • J / - \�� �/ 1 1ii I l - t�'� f I ���•� • f , � r l i� IJy, ,. r IaNIMA/r ARCHrrW_TU LAHIU ►IANNINO U/RAM Dd10N TOURISM /LAMNIN6 r r.rr "It, .rrr. rr,r,r•n r.. •. .� r r • r L"m gA."A&*v va"m boom TOUR= "Osome AWOL SO G------------- F1 0 Box 1248 Aspor, co "12 410,4292005 /* SOW Co,*j Wood 154 CIO Loondrd RM.4 CAWMAhs 2404 F54h Sb*od*, Wto SM PAPwor, &0 &0202 ca g 0/ I/ / i j i g � i /ri j �°� �/ p \ � � % fir/ � i/ / /�i ���� // / ; ��`, CIO J/ Ana .Al of NU ITS I IIIS'VORICDR IN NS FROM SPA" k 0 29, OCY as GULCH A�D V�AYIL(L'Ji)IF scvmz. - W I StIAI,I,;BF 'D/C NSYS/'EN'I'/Wl'l*fl']'Il (Try OF MAINTATNE ASPEN URBAN ULJN6FF NIANA(;FMATPi.AN, AU6USY 1973 r.&\� ? N FINAL (;PAI)IN(J AND WNSTRUCHON SHAI .1. - N MEFI TllF INTENT RLM!NON!6 Ex T,� OLIT1,119c1- * D IN IflTWORTI-1-PAWLAK 4 1/2/-* 4. ,yam1INICALEMANErRIN6STUDY 1227,95 5. Val,* AND LETIAR 2,26.96. AND I H)NARD RICI 6. IAOA* I FITFR 1 -13 96AND 2 26 Q6 y M TIM( I RAIVI OS14' AB6VIANO WLINE I 'IS'Yl G 1`0�(�YAAPIIY S110,1, 13F. CONFIRN111:1) I 'R I F'I ( IN Till: 4�(* V, -,jT10N Or- 10,11-I'S RF.TkININ(1 WA 1,1 5 SuRvl,-� INF(*NJATIN. RIFI)SAERIAL My\PPING /% �' / A 1) SCjiMU&)1--'R GO DON A-YER, INC. 093106, DESI©NWORSSHOP €° LANDWA" Aac>Qncrvu I U" nAXX a iTOUR= MANWM i- t. s NAM #TIM AFFSK NOW e i M FY•Yr F' Tom•' VClient ,i \ •Y • �, i Asp•n 54n,k Gompony 1 I, 11 li 1 ``�•\ 1 \ \ I ��^'y T Abp-. CO 01612 -1232065 Gonsuitonts `L I t ' 1 -\ �• , 1OCZ3 �•o �) y H•pno.th-onlak6t.chnlGdl 5020 Gantt' Rood 154 61•nr.00d 5p•". CO \ 1 1 L•onord Rl 2401 15th St`Nt. 5y1t• 500 CIO b0202 / 505 455 4564 , IV 1., r :-� , Y } i 183 elm#Cd 1 + 6617 ` 861 , Ce i 70 Mine Tailings 8e7e \ +` o '°f Approximate Location of Underground Mine I1 + ��, I, / :+ 8456 +eel •cam4 i ►'w � v \, �` '1 ulllr�. i�// � �-� ,• Ip7L7 \ r+- - \ 0 25 50' too. 1. t � 0 II / e• �- ------ 4 E*t�n T RevlsloHs, • -A_A �1 1 41, 4. 1/2/46 4 5/2/46 10 41"6 Q► /� �\ Appro*imake t ocafi* \ of Underground Mine a 2/25/46 \ �.1 _ • • t e Entrances , 1 , ����✓\ r 0 �id Tailings — - / Source: Derived From Historic 1 1 PT t \ Mine Mapping r � • Expense Pipe Replacement _ 1996 \Z v y 1997 . • • • • 1998 t ; •, �L:=t'1 c1 ww ■a ■ ■ 2000 Pine Size Air/Water LIMN, lr M.iTY ..hti . I i' I Suildeck Restaurant �4 * ,�✓'•. -:fir •; jr- � '��, Aar.l •� ,., • � r" � p v,� /t`'�.\:,Y�i! °darn` ,�. I, ,r,r ,r {, ,' c' ` 11.%I <, .V?,`,,. .�/12 �', r. �7. �I . ' :, ' , ,✓�,, �,iY :l _ _ , �..y�.•-1D, t' .'•ir �` ,�r) . " \r•.. ♦'�� l`. _ 1•1 �.4.11 Bur' 1 r, '� 1. � �•'-+��,, i � k 'T1:' , � r 1 CQ, 12) 6. No j�..-^�; `{' `t' •�� '� 'i ; `lY' - ; ,14� •'•-'•' ,J '�'J , � / J� . � . � ` fi�' �T•i-'^+..�•—'-w-''�hI .. 7;, '' S f �4'�' "'l.it _ � , � �, / ,/- _ r/ afe jl ti', ,tom_ I' •,rr,'.• th ` OyIt Capitol Expansion - - _ n, Sno�'makin Expansion � �Y � :� b P IW12 ' t`_r :•�"�. .r'� _fry ' Y �'.�,�: i a `? I_, I Pipe Size {.fir . �. +•r r� .� �; etas f .�- �., % : y-: �� . t -' Acres ( 3 Q ) 1 r•, Ili, r��, l-�;�• ti�ILCtC ii(Illti��i \ ��-•� / t r .,•,r .,..i.._ .. ' I• ' �, ��-�} r �, J. � ��.•.^ :i-_� �- y.-"''.t'� /✓`�j ti . Air/Water ater �'';?�; , ,- * • ' ; . �-� ♦ , 4�., `C "�:-» .�....r�" - �� ..J`.~,�\...I �r 1 '' , 1 , �•'♦ �1 �S ♦� :I. ' _ , ! . 1 " \�i8fK �•� j fM4/r �h•�/�`,��„c�.. `TI',.� .�, I _. -tt•'} .,;.mot 1� 1 _, '� /i_j •'�� � � '!� iJ( (' D "i...; :� • I Ic j 7 111�� r.l '"�- A�1 ,•r� � _ '��•./ ,: ^, ,i y � '�� r'r � , Lt ' _-,_ :�rs�'-'' t�- a"•""- }�-� .��..,�+,.. � r S (`-... • C�'C�.� ' `\..` w �..I r •`! '�. .. -l� U ' t ,.d°•. 1 , /'. ,�,;. i' titi� '•r , ';, � j }i,'�� .1 �-j - �l �� ! '%!'�-/}] ;�='Y��" - - .�'�t�; - � � '�. �'\`"C•t� :Ci '1 :.''4 ,I,;�`1"C `�•'�-r-,-`J: ,� , <'.. ' •� / . U *•_'\ + +�', j i� -r l,. - _ "ram'.__ 1 4• ,� -�c �'r -r•••, .� � r,.. •,•- ,`/�y.✓ter - r� C 3-, tl-) ,�� O G � � ��y --....•� � Q/, F `rj - u� _-r�� i}'"'T.�''•'J __ ',\. �J .1 .-.. ti•-•'+"*+w.--r� _ 1� ��•`, ',1•�: r.r,,,.r .�:������' S�. �'�• � y�(,,q`] j r _A....SAN�s <,• t - t� / l.�":: 'tir\ �� � -�.I�r r,' ��� '�. � -,✓. ,., , � '(!- �"'^rr•��,�-•- Sundeck �.t�r�'rycs�i1i,..� ♦!� .........1 �i� \I'Lty„' U •ri11..:�,iL ♦!, ! . ,,.,,1' 1'1 I:- !',. ^' •+;:;l...t. 4. L.• ` .1. '.'FYI •k' r�� ' ;, ,!'4f:1 .}r1: -'� -.�,_. �-. �' -.�,`- ,(:- ,'.I'(,i' ./IN•.� -Y 1% ,r..,. /7f 4,4r It O Restaurant - =c,;< f "i ' '�O, tt 3 w t'-r;;,'��.� �.il,',';;� -� �-i'I� 71`f p r" 'ct(,. r y '� M"-�Ju _-''- •_'� '�1'" J.(1:1�nC5 •�' t;tGltC ttUllSl°` ,' r J •�-,. .\ 1 "'',� } / r'r �' �, '.`:.,, f'1,.Ct , �•t( •~-_ .f - i :'\;`,, , l JitH� .,�' 414� \t 0r r �• Z - ! It LO Acre ;, is�•. �` <''•>, `t�` 11 , .,+ ,1� r~ ��. '' i ` �;1' 4p R} �G w " (' ,,) 1 - 1 •Y 71j ,+� I. ..Y`,ti , ,•/L .• , ,• Ir •�Zr' ti:;•�• ,y �lj <y ,,( .{..rft� ;:♦ \` Mtn , . .. I 'rIt I ,1,�1i�,�1I}If :% f, rJ + �V t�i1 _ - �'1 ; �i yf.(! J� •,� t �✓ 1,'' '-r' r , •1� -..3•i .,. 1411 .6 t pl/7/(., •'J' ��1�,\t 'M� I ir. -y��..,��,`-�'^�'qvVic (,�.1 w {` ■. ., , '•,'"I `.- ,' �� 1 - , )lfaiF'r -\ r`" rj._` Ali, r . l't �•, i., i!', \ \, �. r to -Alp , I6.'MAvios ; `'_ H'r, ,• - '' •.+ ',. . JJr /:,, / t�,K( 197t ''h., y...`tt� �/ 'I \I�J.a- `, -rv-1.7 { (/ i.�-,�,�• �� } (. `, ..' �'� <'•. -.'•, „'..i 1v.�i t) } `li, ;•,. tr'�' '�.� ' , r'�'�'� V •^Y, �h6 ` \ .�'•~`,�\' �.' mow-: ' i i ' 'I. 14r" k. ',l I � •, •'./y:, .,� .y-r tL '',t �-.�y_...1 -� ^S x, /...r...1,.ttr�Ao•,1,'•'.`...•�.-.-'' 1a{l .. 1� �'f:� ` �� �� --. I ! • • w .(•2..�. _-`.'-..r, •}•l�` 1!• 4 / ��,it(/�rs+•. �i _ � 1L1 ;o trt /, ,7.t•�, �1-rt.� , I � S °i`i -.�:hJ t+� --. 1 T � ^,:-Y'J � � / dt}'©tl\ ~`�'``' � ,? �\ � � 'r � I, '' - ,..fir ,J��.1� - _ _ �''tM.. } .'�. i „iy �•-)', "',��"t h.. 1,r3 �G''t ' `t. ,a�i _ a M ((,t.. �_'�^i �' t"�` tt� n \ �- .t (, ,J' ' % y~:'i' •!-'• ( T"q+ •' - _ - ,1�; c ✓r. f �. I�r _ l {•. ..� '/.. _ ,. /. �•'- �.J jT - 40 l - h.Ol ' (,...:�,•� �Ii y ;, •. �� ♦ •, . j j �• ,C ,,.-Z `�' _� r /]( ter.-.,�.-� F,•. ,� _ f- ,% ))tr'R l __t.' _r , 'r ' •' // (- >: •4� - /- 7• / .l►w-'• 1 '1 7. iy,',• •�'__`��t� "t `` �• ,, •n ..` 14,1 ri-' ♦ ( <) �.. t - , t.• \ 1\'1 /�/ `/ ,�+�- Jf l..,' ot �1 J ''- �r I � , '•4� �.l C�•, +~�/'�`�1ti.; '��I�•l'r. L'-1 � �U'"`, / I r - `- � u,i',. -_ -. . ` Y',' ' ,I r � '` r� / � Jy' , � •.•;]r� � / / r DESIGNINO'FcYSHO LANDS(API AItCNrTPtCTUR! LAND ►I.ANNINO URBAN DESIGN Tot] [AM PLANNING ." t MO. else" �..um. n••• 4•u ti �N•4 •\. .•r w1.r mow. - �. ,•XY' PMMO 4—J vl o C! O PMO M � r r^� �I1 G. Appendix I1. V..,v. -. -.-- --- - - --- -- FLP GEOTECHNICAL., INC 1140 MT. ZJON WOVE GOLDEN. COLORADO 50401 PHONE: (303) 271-"IV PROJECT MEMORANDUM Date: March 6 1996 Job No. 195 492 , Project: SpaT Gulch Slope Improvements To: Dave Lendon, Design Workshop, Inc. Chris Hingst, Aspen Skiing Company From: Ralph G. Mock Rev by SLP Subject: March 3, 1996 Conceptual Grading Plan As requested, we have reviewed your March 3, 1996 grading plan for the Spar Gulch Slope Improvement Project. The plan appears to be consistent with the intent of andom of recommendations presented in our December 27, 1995 report and projectcurrent memorandum are February 26, 1996. In our opinion, the grading concepts shown on you p appropriate for use in design of the project. We arc available to assist you during further project planning and design. We should review the plans and specifications to determine if they are consistent with the intent of our recommendations. If there are questions, please call. H-P GEOTECHNICAL, INC 1940 MT. ZION DRIVE GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401 PHONE: (303) 271-0919 PROJECT MEMORANDUM Date: February 26, 1996 Job No. 195 492 Project: Spar Gulch Slope Improvements � p N q To: Dave Lendon, Design Workshop, Inc. le, Chris Hingst, Aspen Skiing Company ' 222 '�° 2�210/�41" From: Ralph G. Mock Rev by SLP J% j ;BONA �E;G Ppd E OF C01-0� Subject: February 23, 1996 Conceptual Grading Pan As requested, we have reviewed your February 23, 1996 grading plan for the Spar Gulch Slope Improvement Project. The plan appears consistent with the intent of our recommendations presented in our December 27, 1995 report. In our opinion, the grading concepts shown on your current plan are appropriate for use in design of the project. MSE retaining walls, controlled blasting design and underground mine workings stabilization are important elements of the projects. These project elements are usually handled by design -build specialty contractors who should be considered for this project. Good coordination between the mine workings stabilization contractor and sequencing of rock excavation will be needed. Depending on the conditions of the mine workings, pre - excavation mine working stabilization may be required. A contractor with equipment and experience in underground construction should be selected for this phase of the project. The design of mine workings stabilization cannot be finalized until the character and extent of the workings are known. This will either require accessing the workings during the initial stages of rock cut excavation or by accessing the workings with a pre -excavation exploration adit. The existing topographic information presented on your drawing is suitable for planning and design, but there may be some differences between the actual topography and the topography shown. It is important that the locations of the cut and fill limits and the retaining walls be surveyed in the field before excavation to verify that these project features are located where intended. We are available to assist you during further project planning and design. Additional subsurface exploration and analysis should be conducted for design of the MSE retaining wall. We should review the plans and specifications to determine if they are consistent with the intent of our recommendations. If there are questions, please call. HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 December 27, 1995 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 Skiing Aspen S g Company p y Attn: Mr. Jon Reveal P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Job No. 195 492, E Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study for the Spar Gulch Project, Aspen Mountain, Colorado Gentlemen: As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the Spar Gulch Project. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the geologic and subsurface conditions in the area, assess the influence of these conditions on the proposed grading, and to develop geotechnical guidelines for the slope improvements. The grading shown on the preliminary slope improvement plans is, in our opinion, too extensive for the topographic, geologic and mine conditions in the area. It may still be possible to achieve many of the proposed slope improvement objectives with less extensive alternative plans. Geotechnical guidelines have been developed to assist in evaluating the feasibility of less extensive alternative plans. The report which follows summarizes the data collected and reviewed and presents our conclusions and recommendations. It is important that we review the project plans as they are developed to determine if they are consistent with our understanding of the project area geotedhnical conditions and the recommendations presented in this report. If there are questions, please call. Respectfully submitted, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Ralph . Mock Engineering Geologist Rev. by: SLP RGM/kmk . cc: Design Workshop, Inc. - Attn: Mr. David Lindon TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ...................................... 1 PROPOSED SLOPE RvIPROVEMENTS................................... 1 SITECONDITIONS.................................................... 2 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ............................................. 2 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE ........................................ 3 FORMATION ROCK ............................................ 3 SURFICIAL DEPOSITS .......................................... 5 MINEWORKINGS ................................................... 6 MINESTOPES................................................. 6 MINE ENTRANCES ............................................. 7 SURFACE CAVING ............................................. 7 FIELD EXPLORATION ................................................ 8 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................. 8 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS IN THE BORINGS .......:................... 9 SURFICIALSOILS .............................................. 9 LEADVU,LE LIMESTONE ....................................... 9 GROUND WATER ............................................. 10 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED SLOPE HAPROVENlENTS .................. 10 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS AND GUIDELINES ....................... 10 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................ 11 PRELI1VIINARY DESIGN GUIDELINES ............................ 12 ANTICIPATED EXCAVATION CONDITIONS ............................ 14 LMTATIONS...................................................... 14 REFERENCES...................................................... 15 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the findings of a geotechnical engineering study for the Spar Gulch Project, Aspen Mountain, Colorado. The project area is shown on Fig. 1. The project will be grading improvements to the existing ski runs in the Spar Gulch, Kleenex Corner, and Vallejo Gulch areas. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the geologic and subsurface conditions in the area, assess the influence of these conditions on the proposed grading, and to develop geotechnical guidelines for the slope improvements. The work was performed according to the scope requested by the Aspen Skiing Company. The study included field reconnaissances, geologic mapping, reviews of published maps, subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. Data obtained from these sources were analyzed to develop geotechnical guidelines for the slope improvement project. This report summarizes the data obtained by the study and presents our conclusions and recommendations. PROPOSED SLOPE IMPROVEMENTS It is presently planned to improve the ski runs in the Kleenex Corner area by grading the mountain side. The improvements include the following objectives: (1) create a minimum racecourse width of 90 feet, (2) improve skier traffic flow at the corner, and (3) improve the general skiing conditions. Material excavated will be placed in the Vallejo Gulch area to the northwest and in Spar Gulch to the southeast. The proposed improvements will require about 154,000 cubic yards of fill. Excavation volumes are estimated to be about 158,000 cubic yards. The proposed fill area in Vallejo Gulch will have a surface area of about 6 acres. Fill depths in this area will be up to about 30 feet. The fill surface area in Spar Gulch will be about 2 acres. Fill depths in this area will also be up to about 30 feet. At Kleenex Corner it is proposed to lower the existing road grade about 3 5 feet. This will produce a 120 foot high cut slope at the corner. Widening along the existing road in Spar Gulch will produce cut slopes in the range of 20 to 70 feet high. The road in Spar Gulch will be kept near its present grade. HP G eotech 2 SITE CONDITIONS Kleenex corner is at a sharp bend in the existing road where the road has been cut through E a prominent ridge between Spar and Vallejo Gulches on the lower slopes of Aspen Mountain. The existing topography in the area is shown on Fig. 1. Spar gulch is a narrow, V-shaped gulch with side slopes in the range of 60 to 100%. The gulch bottom has an average slope of about 20% and an average width of about 40 feet. The upslope drainage I basin is relatively large and covers about 630 acres. In contrast, Vallejo Gulch in the area is a broad open bowl which has a width of about 400 feet. The floor of the bowl has an average slope of about 40% which transitions to steep slopes along the sides of the bowl. Slopes on the sides of the bowl are in the range of 60 to 100%. The existing road along the west side of Spar Gulch has typical widths of 35 to 40 feet. The road grade is moderate and averages about 8%. Neither Spar nor Vallejo Gulches support perennial streams. Some surface flows occur during snowpack melting in the spring and following intense rains in the spring, summer and fall. A permanent snowpack is present in the area during the winter. Vegetation consists of oak and other brush with some aspens and conifers in most areas. A mixed conifer and aspen forest is present on the eastern side of Vallejo Gulch. The ski runs have been revegetated with grass. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The north facing slope of Aspen Mountain has complex geology (Bryant, 1971). The principle geologic features in the project area are shown on Fig. 1. The sedimentary rock formations in the area are folded and faulted and have been intruded by younger igneous rock. These geologic structures and the intrusion date to the Laramide Orogeny which occurred about 40 to 70 million years ago. Surficial soil deposits are primarily colluvium and alluvium. The area was mineralized and has extensive underground mine workings. HP Geotech 3 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE The project is on the eastern limb of the Aspen Mountain syncline which is a north plunging, tight fold in the sedimentary rock formations, see Figs. 2 through 6. The axis of the anticline trends along Pioneer Gulch which is located about 2,000 feet to the west of the project area. Bedding in the sedimentary rock on the eastern syncline limb has an average strike of about N 52° E and an average dip of about 38°to the northwest in the Kleenex Corner area. Joint surveys in the existing road cut along Spar Gulch show that the rock is cut by four predominant joint sets, see Fig. 7. Set A is parallel to the bedding. The other three sets intersect the bedding set at nearly 90°. The joints give the rock an angular blocky, secondary structure. Joint spacing in the sets ranges from less than 1 foot to greater than 5 feet in the more massive beds. Several faults are present in the area. A system of four, small displacement, northwest trending normal faults cut the syncline limb at nearly right angles to the strike of the bedding. The southernmost of these faults will be encountered in the proposed excavation. The fault is exposed in the existing road cut and fault gouge associated with the fault was encountered in Boring 7. In the existing road cut, three fault strands are evident over a horizontal distance of about 55 feet. The fault planes have an apparent dip of 75 ° to the south. A 1.5 to 2.0 foot thick, cemented fault breccia is present along the three fault strands. Boring 7 encountered 2.5 feet of clayey sand fault gouge with the consistency of a dense soil. In addition to the four northwest trending faults, the contact between the Leadville Limestone and Belden Formation may also be a bedding plane fault (Bryant, 1971). FORMATION ROCK Rock formations in the project area are Cambrian- to Pennsylvanian -age sedimentary rocks and a late Cretaceous or Paleocene -age aplite porphyry. Formations which will be encountered in the proposed excavations or below fill areas are the Belden Formation, Leadville Limestone, Dyer Dolomite and Parting members of the Chaffee Formation, and the Manitou Dolomite. HP Geotech 4 Belden Formation: The Pennsylvanian -age Belden Formation (Pb) is a dark gray to black limestone, dolomite, shale and carbonaceous shale. It also contains a few thin sandstone beds. Breccia zones are sometimes found sub -parallel to the bedding. Locally a few lenses of anhydrite are present in the formation. The Belden is the least resistant to erosion of the sedimentary formations in the area because of thin bedding and some non -cemented beds. Leadville Limestone: The Mississippian -age Leadville Limestone (M) is a blue -gray, thick -bedded to massive limestone in its upper part. The lower part of the Leadville is a gray to dark -gray, thin- to thick -bedded dolomite with a few limestone beds. The Leadville locally contains brecciated cave deposits near the contact between its upper and lower parts. The limestone breccia encountered in Boring 7 may be a solution breccia, but the breccia could also be associated with faulting. Much of the mineralization and most of the mines in the area are located along the contact between the upper and lower Leadville.. The upper Leadville is very resistant to erosion because of its massive bedding and strong cementation. The upper Leadville forms the prominent ridge crest at Kleenex Corner and cliffs to the south. The lower part of the Leadville is usually cemented, but only moderately resistant to erosion because of its bedding and joints. Dyer Dolomite Member: The Devonian -age Dyer Dolomite (Dcd) is a light to dark gray, thin to thick -bedded, dolomite with some shaley partings and beds of dark gray limestone. The Dyer Dolomite is usually cemented, but only moderately resistant to erosion because of its bedding and joints. Parting Member: The Devonian -age Parting member (Dcp) is a white to tan, poorly sorted, cross -bedded quartzite; gray, greenish -gray and red shale and dolomitic shale; gray to tan siltstone; and grayish -yellow dolomite. The Parting is usually cemented, but only moderately resistant to erosion because of its bedding and joints. HP Geotech €EY t' f[ F 5 Manitou Dolomite: The Ordovician -age Manitou Dolomite is a gray, medium -bedded dolomite with irregular bedding planes. White chert stringer and nodules are present in the E upper part of the Manitou. The Manitou is resistant to erosion because of its numerous E thick beds and cementation. The Manitou forms the prominent lower cliffs below the Leadville cliffs along the west side of Spar Gulch. SURFICIAL DEPOSITS Surficial deposits in the project area consist of alluvium and colluvium and man - placed fills. Alluvium: A narrow band of alluvium (Qal) is present along the floor of Spar Gulch and is present below the man -placed fill in this area. The borings show that the alluvium is between 6 and 11 feet thick at the boring sites. The alluvium consists of angular rock fragments from gravel to boulder -size in a silty sand matrix. Colluvium: With the exception of a few rock outcrops along the cliffs and rock exposed in the road cuts, formation rock on the mountain sides is covered by colluvium. The colluvium on the steeper slopes is not expected to exceed about 15 feet thick in most areas. The colluvium in the borings below the floor of Vallejo Gulch was between 17 and 19 feet deep, and was not encountered in Boring 6. The colluvium consists of angular rock fragments from gravel to boulder -size in a clayey sand matrix. Man -Placed Fills: Most of the man -placed fill in the area is along the existing road. The road fill is shown on Fig. 1 by Map Symbol af. Other fills, not shown on Fig. 1, are also present in the area. These fills are local mine dumps near most of the mine tunnel portals, mine shafts and prospect adits. Fills associated with the existing ski runs and lift terminals are present along the floors of Spar Gulch and Vallejo Gulch. These fills in some areas include regraded mine dump material. Fills along the road were from 1.5 to 12.5 feet deep at the borings. Fills along the gulch floors were between 5.0 and 12.0 feet deep at the HP G eotech borings. The fill materials appear to be the on -site colluvium, alluvium and mine dump materials. They consist of angular rock fragments from gravel to boulder -size in a silty to clayey sand matrix. Extensive old mine workings are present in the project area which is in the Aspen Mining District. Production in these silver, lead and zinc mines started in the mid 1800's and peaked about 1890. Mining in the area had substantially declined by about 1930 and since 1952 very little mining has been done in the Aspen Mining District. The Aspen Mountain Mining Co. is presently doing some exploratory mining in the Compromise Mine. The Compromise tunnel portal is in the project area, but the current mining activity is to the south. The approximate location of mine workings in the project area are shown on Fig. 1. The locations are based on mine maps on file with the U.S. Geological Survey (1980) and on a mine map of uncertain date and origin in the Aspen Mountain Mining Co. files. The spot elevations of the workings are from the Aspen Mountain Mining Co.'s map. The mine workings locations show on Fig. 1 are the general outline of the mapped mine workings. The actual mine maps should be referred to for details of the workings. It is also possible that other unmapped mine workings are present in the area. MINE STOPES { Mining below the project area mostly took place along relatively narrow, steeply dipping ore shoots along the contact between the upper and lower parts of the Leadville Limestone. The ore shoots and mine stopes essentially follow the bedding along the eastern limb of the Aspen Mountain syncline (Spurr, 1898). The general location of the stopes in the subsurface is shown on Figs. 2 through 6. Because of the geologic structure the stopes are near the ground surface below the ridge at Kleenex Corner and become deeper to the west below Vallejo Gulch. The mine maps show that along the strike H P Geotech 7 direction, the stopes are commonly continuous for distances of over 1,000 feet. In the dip direction, the stopes have dimensions in the range of 70 to 400 feet. There is no indication on the mine maps of the thickness of the stopes. Regional geologic cross -sections show ore zone thickness up to about 50 feet (U.S. Geological Survey, 1980). This probably is also the maximum thickness of mine stopes in the area. Typically the stopes probably do not exceed about 10 feet thick. MINE ENTRANCES The mine maps show that there are 27 mine entrances in the project area and other unmapped mine entrances may be present. The mapped mine entrances are summarized on Table I and their approximate locations shown on Fig. l They include 5 shafts, 14 adits which are the portals to extensive tunnels, and 8 prospect adits which probably only extend a short distance into the mountain. A few of the entrances can be found at the surface in the field but most are not readily apparent. The methods used to close the entrances are uncertain. The Compromise tunnel is accessible and exploration mining is currently active. It is not possible to reach the other mine workings in the area from the Compromise. SURFACE CAVING Three areas of surface caving were noted in the field along the prominent ridge that runs through Kleenex Corner, see Fig. 1. The most extensive area -of caving is located about 100 feet to the south of Boring 1. The caving starts near adit M-120 and extends about 65 feet along the strike direction to the south. In one place, air is venting from the cave zone which probably indicates that the caving is associated with large stopes and is not just shallow caving above the adit. Major stopes are shown on the mine map in this' area. Spot elevations indicated that the stopes may be within 7 to 42 feet of the ground surface. A second surface cave is present at the base of the road cut at Kleenex Corner. The caved area is about 6 feet wide and 2 feet high. Air does not vent from this cave. It is near a mapped mine tunnel. The third surface cave is located on the west side of the ridge about 380 feet to the north of Boring 1. The cave is about 4 feet wide and 2 feet high. It H P Geotech 8 extend about 10 feet back into the mountain. Air was not venting from this cave. Large stopes are mapped in the area, ' but spot elevations are not shown which would indicate the depth of the scopes. FIELD EXPLORATION Field exploration for the project was conducted between November 1 and 11, 1995. Twelve exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1. Logs of the borings are presented on Fig. 8 and in Appendix A. The drilling was done with a CUE 45 rig mounted on a tracked all -terrain vehicle. Two of the borings were NX cored in formation rock. The other borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter solid flight auger usually to refusal. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Soil samples in the borings were taken with 1 3%; inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were 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 soils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Boring Logs, 'Fig. 8. Formation rock in Borings 1 and 7 was cored. The borings were initially advanced through the soils with 7 inch (O.D.) hollow stem auger. Below the soils the borings were continuously cored with NX equipment. The core boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Water was used as drilling fluid. Good water circulation was maintained in Boring 1. All water circulation was lost in Boring 7. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were made on the soil and core samples to determine their general engineering properties. Tests performed included natural moisture content, percent HP Geotech , 9 passing the No. 200 sieve, and Atterberg limits for the soil. The unconfined compressive strength of the core samples was estimated from point load tests. Test results are summarized on Table II and shown on the boring logs, Fig. 8 and Appendix A. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS IN THE BORINGS Graphic logs of the exploratory borings are presented on Fig. 8 and in Appendix A. Surficial soils encountered in the borings at the site consist of man -placed fill, alluvium and colluvium. The Leadville Limestone was encountered in the two core borings. Other rock formations are present in the area and will be encountered during construction. These formations are described based on observations in the road cut in the Formation Rock section of this report. SURFICIAL SOILS The man -placed fill, colluvium and alluvium encountered in the borings were generally similar in texture. These soils are made up of angular rock fragments, from gravel to boulder -size in a silty to clayey sand matrix. The fills are loose to medium dense. The colluvium and alluvium is medium dense to dense. LEADVILLE LIlVIESTONE The Leadville Limestone encountered in the two core borings was made up mostly of fine-grained, cemented limestone and dolomite and a cemented limestone breccia. Poor quality rock was encountered near the surface and near fault zones. In these areas the rock had an average RQD of about 25%. The poor quality of the near surface rock is probably due to road construction blast damage. Near the faults the rock is highly fractured. Some fault gouge is cemented and hard, but some has the consistency of a dense soil. The deeper rock and rock away from faults was usually of good quality with an average RQD of 77% and a range of 22 to 100%. The good quality rock is cemented and hard. The intact rock has close to widely -spaced joints. Point load tests in these areas indicate intact rock HP Geotech 10 unconfined compressive strength in the range of 13,500 to 25,000 psi for fine-grained limestone and dolomite and in the range of 6,200 to 10,000 psi for the limestone breccia. GROUND WATER Ground water was not encountered in the borings, at the time of drilling in early November, 1995. Ground water is not expected in the proposed cut areas during the drier times of the year, but some shallow, local ground water may develop primarily below the gulch floors during and following the spring snowpack melt. EVALUATION OF PROPOSED SLOPE IMPROVEMENTS The proposed slope improvements as shown on the preliminary plan will require extensive cuts and fills in the steep mountain side. A further complication is the likely presence of shallow mine workings. Extensive stopes appear to be located in the cut area proposed at Kleenex Corner and some shafts, tunnel portals, and shallow stopes may be jo Gulch. In our opinion, the grading proposed in present in the fill area proposed for Valle the preliminary plan, is too extensive for the topographic, geologic and mine conditions in the area. It may still be possible to achieve many of the proposed slope improvement objectives with a less extensive plan. To assist in evaluating alternative plans which involve less risk- of problems, we have identified geotechnical conditions and have developed geotechnical guidelines for the. project. The conditions and guidelines are presented in the Geotechnical Conditions and Guidelines section of this report. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS AND GUIDELINES The flowing geotechnical conditions and guidelines have been developed to assist in preparing acing alternative plans which will reduce the risk of problems but still achieve many of the slope improvement objectives. The skiing -company should be aware that construction HP G eotech 11 in this area will be difficult and must be carefully planned and executed. If not properly risk of stability and maintenance problems. done, it could involve some GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS (1) Deep cuts and fills in the Vallejo Gulch area are not recommended because of the steep slopes, geologic structure, and possible shallow mine workings in some areas. In this area it is recommended that maximum cut and fill depths not exceed about 5 feet. (2) Lowering the grade of the existing road at Kleenex corner below its present elevation of 8,780 feet by more than about 5 feet is not recommended. If it is necessary to increase the grade of the existing road upslope to the south, then it is recommended that this be done by placing fill along the road alignment to the south. (3) Plugging and stabilization of mine stopes will probably be necessary if the existing cut at Kleenex Corner is deepened or extended to the south. The size of the stopes which may be encountered can not be determined from the mine maps. Additional borings could help further evaluate this condition. Access to boring sites will require pioneer roads or a helicopter set drill rig. Even with additional drilling, the actual extent of these stopes may not become apparent until construction excavations are made. The probable dimensions of the stopes are discussed in the Mine Stopes section of this report. (4) It is recommended that if the Kleenex Corner cut is extended to the south that the top of cut elevation not exceed 8,835 feet. This will not eliminate the relatively high likelihood of encountering mine stopes, but will reduce the extent of cut in the potential mine stope area. HP Geotech 12 (5) Because of the steep terrain the excavation contractor will have to develop a method of controlling potential rockfall during blasting and excavation operations. PRELIMINARY DESIGN GUIDELINES (1) The following maximum cut and fill slopes are recommended for evaluating alternative grading plans for the slope improvements: CUT SLOPE BEARING OF MAXIMUM MAXIMUM OR FILL CUT SLOPE SLOPE HEIGHT MATERIAL jH:� Formation N100E to N40OW 0.75:1 60 ft. Rock Cut Formation N40OW to N60'W 0.50:1 60 ft. Rock Cut Formation N60WO to N80*W 1.00:1 60 ft. Rock Cut Soil Cut All Bearings 1.50:1 15 ft. Rock Fill N/A 1.30:1 20 ft. Soil Fill N/A 1.50:1 20 ft. (2) If, after construction, the rock cut slope produce unacceptable raveling, then raveling controls will be needed. It is expected that raveling can be controlled by steel, chain -link fabric pinned to the slopes. (3) The excavation contractor should develop a controlled blasting plan to prevent over break and blast damage to the rock at the finished cut face. A blasting engineer should be consulted for the best method for blast control for the site conditions and the contractor's excavation plan. HP Geotech 13 (4) Soil fill slopes should be protected from erosion by revegetation. (5) It is expected that most of the excavated material will be suitable for placement as rock fill. Special erosion controlled precautions should not be required for most rock fill slopes. (6) Rock fills should be placed in horizontal lifts not to exceed 24 inches in thickness and the rock should be compacted by three or more passes of tracked construction equipment, such as a D-8 or larger bulldozer. The number of compaction passes and size of compaction equipment should be determined by field observations at the time of rock fill placement. Rocks larger than the lift thickness should not be used in the fill. (7) Soil fills should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 95% of its maximum standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content. Rocks larger than 12 inches should not be placed in soil fills. (8) Fill foundations should be stripped of all vegetation, topsoil, and loose soil or loose existing fill. The foundation should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches and compacted to 95% of its maximum standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content. (9) Fills placed -on slopes steeper than about 20% should be keyed into the slope by benching. (10) Fills placed in the bottom of Spar Gulch should not obstruct the existing drainage channel. A surface water hydrologist should evaluate channel capacity and design flow velocities. Channel stabilization, such as rip rap, may be needed to protect the fill and channel if high velocities are indicated. HP Geotech 14 (l l) All cut and fill areas should have good surface drainage. Concentrations of runoff should not be directed down unprotected slopes. (12) The fill placement should be monitored on a regular basis for compliance with project specifications. ANTICIPATED EXCAVATION CONDITIONS Most of the construction excavations should be in cemented, moderately week to strong rock with unconfined compressive strength typically in the range of 6,000 to 30,000 psi. The rock is jointed and joint spacings vary from closely spaced (less than 1 foot) to widely spaced (greater than 5 feet). Some excavations will be in the existing fill and colluvium. Both contain rock fragments from gravel to boulder -size. Excavation in the fill and colluvium should be possible with most heavy duty excavating equipment. Excavation in the rock will require blasting in most areas. LIMITATIONS This study was conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area and at this time. We make no other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusion and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the date obtained from field geologic mapping, geologic map and mine map reviews, exploratory borings drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1, laboratory testing and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions at the boring sites and from the mine maps. It is likely that actual subsurfaceconditions will vary somewhat from those generally described in this report. The actual subsurface conditions will not become apparent until the excavations are made. Modifications to the recommendations presented in this report may be required if subsurface conditions vary substantially from those anticipated. HP Geotech 15 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for evaluating the feasibility of the proposed slope improvements and assessing the associated risks. The report is suitable for preliminary design and planning. Additional studies may be needed depending on the design selected. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and plan reviews. We recommend on -site observations of the excavations and fill placements by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Respectfully submitted, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECEMCAL, rNc. i Ralph G' Mock Engineering Geolo G`sTER���� Reviewed by:;_�: P o • 5222 Steven L. Pawlak� � l sIonca� E� Poo E OF G�-O RGM/kmk REFERENCES Aspen Mountain Mining Co, Mine Map of Aspen Mountain: Aspen Mining Company mine map files (Origin and date unknown). Bryant, B., 1971 Geology Map of the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Map GQ-933. Spurr, R.E. 1898, Geology of the Aspen Mining District: U.S. Geological Survey Monograph 31. U. S. Geological Survey, 1980, Mine Maps and Cross Sections of the Mines at Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado: Map File RO-23 (Maps Prepared by R.P. Rohifing, 1928 and 1948). HP Geotech ELEVATION • FEET < a uuj 8 N �J v G. W u � N 0 U. Q Z O U W N cn cn O U U U O J 'Ouj V 9 LL W a O13 _ i _ n 3 0 $ O (N r- °u 0 J a �. •A V� 9 a G p E O O p = A tL � ` \ � Y _qq L LL U � Z L a pp O}C J = E Iu O LU i CCCC as i a N � O E O O V EE b ci Ng= 4 CL C =UA < $ 0) qr 1331 • NOIIVA313 t!1 Of i m U W W EIEVATtON • FEET g e s § 133d • NOILVA313 I i I W J Q U N m Z _O H U w to cn O tZ U U U O O W (D � U W u O o: d G � J U I� Q a C[w LLL Y L U_ LL u u Y Y w g= Y Z i U a m U a0 _ N Of .a tn Of • All 14OUVA313 u g u W � N O C IL _ w W H Q C) 133d - NOIIVAS13 U LLC 00 O .1! r U W 0 € 0 O CL I° C� a a S A is LL u E U LL u qu = Y U a E Y LL O n � a � Y ci 3 � u a Y LL 4 chi ZL Z Ti a i = W W N cri a � 8 I O U W UI Ll 1333 - NOLLVA313 = i 133A - NOLLVA313 0 8 8 f� W Z O U w U) O X U U U O ,J O W 0 4 LLC O CL Y �u Y a � U w 0 � N 41 !� b -' ct a U I° J D CD a o 8 LL u w _ry G LL U U u u w •E p g� LL 4u Z m U d a o _ O g N 0) Q Ul) Q> ELEVATION •FEET § § 40 g&.NO u n 2 & � � \ Q m lul w 2 0 @ U & m @ $ O _ U 2 0 0 -j O u 0 ! Q U & C a ) f / � § ! J \ E 3 � _ « a m � } to � } E $ E ! \ J k � a | # ! | q k ■ i L \ $ LL . $ � � . . . . • � • U a0 , a � J � ■ w w § CY) qw $ N • • 75 Joint Poles • % t Lower Hemisphere i Equal -Area Stereonet • • • 06 • • • W • • • E • • • • • • ••••<••ti • •• • • • S N D 6 �6 3 3 3 3 Set B Set C Set D 6 W E 3 9 Q 6 Avg. Avg. Set A Strike Dip Bedding Set A N 520E 380NW Set B N 520E 560SE Contour Interval 3% Total Sample Set C N 750W 540SW Set D N 150E 720SE S 195 492 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK Joint Sets Fig. 7 GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. loci - 41400 - O M O p rN N N •- O .' N M •O r0 O N JN � rr O r n . ry N N OUN�r+ N K' in .C. r L m n o • r N rf�ONM N r O ri r. `Go -3 c 0 m N � � L' L O m N N ' O `O � M O L O m � ry N1' O N a T v N ►1 Q �s 10. t1c q c •• 0 m o oQ N _N C? �O O r � " v U c `o OS/OS t• Z t/OQ OOt/00l OOt/Oot 09/09 001/0Ot m co O M N L 2 aL tr C L 0 d N O� N O N to tt� is O is 1, tc .•c.- •• .• i •� y. L O In M N ii fD ••- t— O N 3N-3CL Ir c .Q L •o t. o o m o N � , aC C L • • C O m u,. r N i O• N N �p lip O N _ N Ln 3 1 7 a M tc L •• O m o 00 0 0 n o a o - o u, o _ N LrN ` M O O U U O U O Q M p = O m M rm te c ZZ/19 19/69 I IS/ 6 m O l('� r• ^• N N M �iii�liiiilii��(ii�ll��iil�i►�I�iiili���l jooa - 4,Ada0 Go c c U' E " r c� v �L E r C 0 .`. O o m aE = c 0 U x C p T O q N C r] a N Ln V > O r C_ G 3 r` > i► v q N 'c o o r` °� N o, C .0 C a C a E v O V Zc O a -' ° C 'O t ] r C CC q O C v 'Z C r c G a 0 .q U)0 �. 0 0D 0 U O a s E C« c m v E " o � o L C ° a U in .r N N > a o rn N a'> ] O o- C v O o d o p p a z� E° �� c; 00, c N E c G o In N c] 3 V 0.0 •0 o- 0 V D; W O O. p 0 ; G 'Z O N N u ] ; O Z 'fl Or a L y� w to q c U:- V N'► C V U Ir0 V N L C " Q! C .c 0 r c 10 0 E� 3 0 ° ¢ c �y2 x c N ] 0 c 0] ° cv E rn° a --On �ac "0C cqr Y `O o 0] O CM, q0 v E 44 O mJ; OO ac x ;D7 qii ,J CII " c o 0 M a0 o xCTo a]a _—c w]C °io C O O II J..q- F-� F'Z C1 fl O tao J>NJa7 O z '- N f7 ct to c0 c c c T� h o c- •� ;; ai E Os c 10 u c 6h° �c T E .0 0 O p 0 .o� a y 0 oTiii o o oY E ° o y L 3� L u o o V c 0 a ►- a, 0 E q o t C t N r O Y N N N p «' H O O E N ` V o ° h c > a IA ._ CL n cv [ r 0 C s a C a N O m 'O c W 0 o u E°iE3 « 'D �L c_ a t C E 'I a Y o U - N CC �^ .� ; O ,D O a H 1/1 .c. 'C f" G q fp y? E �° cw rn�c ° ao oa of C1 0 o e,N �!„ Q rn o o U o,Z h = a - 0 0 0 0 E _ z. - o c t m N= o Cl 3 0! O d Vf C y a u T «_ N °i h T 3 U 'C N _ 10 0 L 'O ° a «w+ In Ec ° �0 E a N 0 E - o u fin N E coo Q t °' c Q, E° 10H G ° 3 c > E C� q u S ° o y d ll T a Q E •• X T a o V 4) V 0 0 F .0 G 3 0 C 3 Y N 0 0 y U :i V p C W T - a .0. ¢ a o J m a .0.. h V N a 1A Ocm n G p a G E v� (7 O W O O O C f' E•W' 3 r °' [ ° d cm 0 0 CL cm O 0� 0 �g 4 �n �?c O Q �zN_'a n 0 °7 n E > E� EN c .► o E a E C7 z o m of ao m a N •= u E a Q x� O �n ►+� y? >m� F �3 O rf- y ma�NEa,o h�o > n U J o O cco� Q o Q o o 0 0 0 to 0 a c �Eo �- 0 LLT 0 c�u�+_+ E.c � N " z w ® J © Mal_� �_ �_ N ZZ/L9 Nf W I.- 0 z 0 z Q z W 0 W J N a7 LD m 11110111111111111111 Loa 195 492 SHEET I OF I JOB N0. Soar Glitch LOCATION Kleenex Comer Road Cut PROJECT GROUND TOTAL 21 ft• DEPTH OF B-1 8.780 DEPTH OVERBURDEN, 1 ? ft BORING NO ELEVATION Not DATE ANGLE FRO BEARING OF DEPTH OF BEGUN. 1 06 9s ► _90 ANGLE BORING N/A WATER TABLE Encountered FINISHED:_ HORIZONTAL RODS GEOLOGIC LOG GRAPHIC LOG DISCONTINUITY LOG 7. RECOVERY 0 50 100 DEPTH — FEE T TEST RESULTS 0 0 RQAD FILL: (0 0 to 1 5 R) ('layey sand with angular rock fragments ''Sro from gravel to boulder size. very dense RinNn I moist light brown 5 g 5 §'*v ed•a^""nim 0.01.4 5 1I -Nh r In Rec = e3-= O.D. keeft r.Ien..w�... be a 9 Mwne.d of?n = V, ----'---' Ir.n 4.51. 71.011. earth NX r.r..rl...w^�^I BROKEN_LIMESTQNE_ (1 5 to 4 5) ft Rion No 7 Rec • 57' O.^/ &a w.l.r eYe•A.IY.n 1n er fo MNr..I of Ron ° 17 4 to71Ait Broken and fractured limestone. Fracturing may be due to blast damage 10 10 RIn Nn 3 from road cut construction. Leedville U� , ri ON Rec = 1001/ _.. Rec = e9x LIM�$TONE_ (4 5 to 11 0 ft) Poo = 61• RIn Nn 5 Dark gray. very fine grained limestone 15 Uc = 15600 Rec = 10WI. t5 POO * 10011; with numerous white calcite fracture fillings The rock is usually bonded UPA.rl.1. erKw.I. s1:1.c 11 .ws Iw1I». .A•.m» 1wr.Y.p with NX rare. Run No 6 fracture fillings and is very hard Rec =93h across Limestone Uc = 0300 ROD - 53': \ and cemented Leadville 20 20 or,� a�rrpr,y taken &1 211.011, Bit— e.,nl .1 5010 and ne r.awrer. �. DOLOMITE: (11.0 to 210 ft) Total Depth 21.0 ft. Dark -gray, very fine grained dolomite with numerous white calcite fracture fillings The rock is usually bonded 75 25 across fracture filling and is very hard and cemented Leadville Limestone 30 30 35 35 40 40 45 45 50 50 0 50 100 Standard Split Spoon Sample 9112 = Standard Sample Blow Count Or. = Pont Load Unconfined Compressive Strength (osi) ( r, Core Sample Tested r BORING BA D0111.10 Loa 195 492 SHEET 1 OF 1 JOB NO. _ _--- East Side of Vallejo Gulch Spar Gulch LOCATION PROJECT GROUND B 7 ELEVATION t3 770 TOTAL 35 5 ft DEPTH OF 2.5 ft DEPTH OVERBURDEN BORING NO _ _ Not DATE ANGLE FR0M BEARING OF DEPTH OF BEGUN: NIA WATER TABLE Encountered FlNISHED:_" 1109 95 HORIZONTAL .90 ANGLE BORING 7. ROD/ GEOLOGIC LOG GRAPHIC LOG DISCONTINUITY LOG 7. RECOVERY 0 50 100 DEPTH — FEET TEST RESULTS it 11111111 0 ROAD FILL: (0 0 to 2 5 ft) p 1Mnr o 411 o u...Mw ? In Clayey sand with angular rock fragments D.' .e...K.e o is O.D. Aebwestem eiaw, 60-4 "-dieua from gravel to boulder size. very dense. sn� seem 11 O is 3S 5 1s -.#k Nx ce+r •o ii—no moist light brown 5 S No dr+welet rwr,r.�+n cnr ed 1"1►rvitl nrnvf-il LIMESTQNE; (2 5 to to 5 f1) Ran No 1 Rec - sac Dark -gray very fine grained limestone aoo soti \ with numerous white calcite fracture 10 10 fillings The rock is usually bonded Rin No.2 across fracture fillings and is very hard Rec = 25% and cemented Leadville I.imestone Roo` """ FAULT GOUGE: (10 5 to 13 0 ft) 15 15 tic 10 too Run No 3 Yellow, clayey sand with angular Y Y 9 101/6 Rec - I Roo=1i'.: limestone fragments The gouge has the consistency of a very dense soil LIMESTONE BRECCIA: (13 0 to 32 0 Il) 20 20 Rion Nn ♦ \� Light -gray, angular to sub -rounded, Rec = 100"/ ROD 100% \ � gravel -sized, limestone fragments in a yellowish -brown, cemented, silty, calcareous sand matrix. Fault or solution breccia in the Leadville Limestone. 25 25 Rion No 5 Rec = 100% �. t IC - 5 200 LIMESTONE: (32 0 to 35 5 ft) Run Nn 6 Rec =60h \ Light -gray, very fine grained limestone 30 30 with numerous white calcite fracture Roo = 61)"4 fillings The rock is usually bonded across fracture fillings and is very hard Run Nn 7 and cemented Leadville Limestone Rec rtRoon = 10°�"� = trxri \ \ 35 35 Total Depth 35.5 ft 40 —I 1 1 1 1— 40 45 —i I I I f 45 50 1 ' ' ' ' 50 0 50 100 Standard Split Spoon Sample 9112 = Standard Sample Blow Count UC - Point Load Unconfined Compressive Strength (psi) Core Sample Tested BORING B-7 Job No. 195 492 . Page 1 of 1 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE MINE ENTRANCES SPAR GULCH PROJECT AREA MAP NO. ENTRANCE MINE BASE MAP MINE MAP ELEVATION TYPE ELEVATION ELEVATION DIFFERENCE M-105 Shaft Emma Shaft 8,850 ft 8,849 ft 1 ft M-106 Add Compromise 8,850 ft 8,834 ft 16 ft M-107 Add prospect 9,005 It 8,999 ft 6 ft M-108 Add Lease No. 2 8,980 ft 8,968 ft 12 ft M-109 Add Lease No. 2 8,955 ft 8,944 ft 11 ft M-110 Add prospect 8,915 ft not shown M-111 Add prospect 8,920 ft 8,886 ft 34 ft M-112 Shaft unnamed 8,790 ft 8,743 ft 47 ft M-113 Add Lease No. 3 8,795 ft not shown M-114 Add Lease No. 3 8,890 ft 8,878 ft 12 ft M-115 Add prospect 8,885 ft not shown M-116 Add prospect 8,860 ft not shown M-117 Add prospect .8,820 ft not shown M-117A Add prospect 8,855 ft not shown M-118 Shaft unnamed 8,885 ft not shown M-119 Add unnamed 8,705 ft 8,677 ft 28 ft M-120 Add unnamed 8,820 ft 8,817 ft 3 ft M-121 Add unnamed 8,770 ft 8,750 ft 20 ft M-122 Add prospect 8,765 ft not shown M-123 Shaft Frankland Shaft 8,680 ft 8,672 ft 8 ft M-124 Add unnamed 8,630 ft 8,613 ft 17 ft M-125 Add Brownlime 8,650 ft .8,640 ft loft M-126 Add Middle Level Tunnel 8,595 ft 8,578 ft 17 ft M-127 Shaft unnamed 8,515 ft 8,510 ft 5 ft M-128 Add unnamed 8,485 ft 8,460 ft 25 ft M-129 Add Spar Tunnel 8,470 ft 8,458 ft 12 ft M-130 Add Spar Tunnel 8,465 ft 8,458 ft 711 N Lf) O Z m O LL O w o d dZ m � � � ¢ ego ago m m m :d U 01 Ql Qi Of yOj ¢O 03 off! oa � Q) Qi Qy: M V "aoff! Ga oa o C C C C V V C v to N Y1 dl O l0 t0 10 t0 !C E E m d m '� '� y of H d o o �. �. m m •�• E— �o w 'uul '0 'H °' o 0 0 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 O to '; o d¢ d N u to M O z o u, N r- U �X az OD Lr) � o - J ¢ W m ¢ ° QW co Ln O N th o N N N th N N N n o N wh h W n c W LU p z O a z in O P O a cc W �p r ¢ G9 ¢ } ¢ N G Q° W z O .J Q f- F to 00 N O� �D O z 00 n to CO N ui a oLA z U t1) O O O O O O O O O O g�- o L6 a; et ci riLnn et ri a t, O W a n a r N /A Q O N Ln CD n Go T- T- m I'M07'% 01: 35PM LRLwL Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, Inc. 24M Fiil"r1th St". Suits 3M I Dmvu. Cakxido 820 4W 4M-M • FAX = 455-MlS March 7, 1996 Mr. Fred Smith Aspen Siding Company Box 1248 ABpcn, CO 81612 Re: Aspen Mtn,. Re -grading Leonard Rice Gregg G. Ten Eyck Leslie H. 9otham Ran Bethel Jon R. Ford A. J. Zabbla, Jr. E Dear Pre& Per our request, we have reviewed the proposed gndirt8 Plan for the area known as "Kleenex Corner" Y , on storm drainage. The Aspen at the base of Spar Gulch on Aspen Mountain, Skim eo�nipany is planning to widen the catwalk neat the base of chair No. 5, from an existing width of a langth of 1000 feet to provide for greater skies capac approximately 25 feet to 60 feat, ity and improved skiing. our review is based on the grading plan dated 3f2A6 which slows a small arcs upb, of the catwalk being cut bay at .75:1 and 1:1; the catwalk will be cone ln= ed with fill and retained with walls. E=m materW will be placed as fill in the little Nell aid run, and in a small area of Spar Gulch. In the 1970's and 801s this area of Aspen Mountain was the subject several drainage studies. The most extensive of the studies, the MM), was pedormed for the City by Wright -McLaughlin Engineers in 1973. A portion of a silo map from the no has beta attached for reference. Spar Gulch is one of the major drainage gulches on Aspen Mountain with a trbutary basin of approximately 590 acres. Directly to the west of the project are Vallejo Gulch and north �i addressed the potential for Spar Gulch to be diverted from its historic path to or . Another drainage oohs, atim farther down Spar Gulch near the bottom terminal of Omit No. 5 is the genend conadrt w of the channeL When the lift was installed, a large flat area was formed for the te=;nm facilities out of a ridge which appears to have separated Vallejo Gulch and Spar ,Gulch. The creek was diverted around the lift in a small ditch. However, due to the adloicva4g flat am and lessened channel slope, this channel is ate sitting. It is ooneaivable that flood flows could eventually travel towards VaU* Gulch of Basin 3A and into Central Aspen. 7bus an obvious ilmprovomwt to the major drainage system will be the improvement of Spar Gulch here. Elm at III-5. In 1986 the Skiing Company regraded the Little Nell run as part of the Little Nell Hotelim pro ec ffi drainage study performed by Rea, Cassens and Associates recommended that the . a believe charm bprothese proposed in the � be constructed in Spat Gulch adjacent to the base of Chou 5. improvements were constructed by the Skiing Company and are visible on the 1995 topography. Patterns in Gulch. Generally, The g�radutg a►u�ttlly being considered should not affect the drainage pa P� the imp avemeo% to the catwalk are out of the Spar drainage way. At the south and of the project, some filling will twice place: in this area boat management practices should be utilized to prevent erosion and Water Rights Ground Water A Civil Design and Construction Water Resources Planning MAR 07 ' 96 01 = dtoM L K t. w L Mr. Fmd Smith March 7, 1996 Page 2' sediment transport. The construction guidelines prepared by Hepworth-Pawlacic should be strictly followed to maim slope stability. The Spar dmmel should be defined to prevent the diversion of Spar to the west by the catwalk According to the grading plan, the catwalk will be constructedor with a from the uphill slope of two potent The cross -slope wM allow water on the catwalk, from either par slope, to drain into the main Spar channel. Drainage -openings should be designed into the retaining wall to allow for the passage of Storm water. Moving notthward from the southern end of the project, the catwalk diverges from the Spar channel and should not affect historic drainage patterns. Care should be taken during, and after, construction to be sure the drainage way is clear of any excess material or coo mwtion debris. Also, a visual inspection should be made of the Spar charnel near the base of Chair 5 to cheer for sediment deposits and to verify that the historic drainage pattern is intact - Also aeoordmg to the pk, the historic thalweg of pioneer and Vallejo appeared to flaw to the west of the project site to in area near Galena and Mill. EIM at M-6. The Eln also mentioned the pomlility of roads, ditches and other development diverting these Cinches farther to the west. However, it appears from the topographic data obtained from an aerial flight performed in 1995 that some portion of Vallejo could flow through the west portion of the fill area. While the proposed grading will not re -direct the historic path of Vallejo, the design and am truction guidelines provided by Hepworth-PavvIacic should be strictly fnllawt'.d to assure adequate slope stability. Again, beat management practices should be employed to minimize erosion and sediment transport. In addition, a water quality specialist should be consulted to evaluate the potential for surface: water contamination due to exposure to mine tailings, which may be encountered. A plan should be in place to provide for the proper peuittin$+ handling, and/or disposal, of mine tailings, contaminated water, or other hazardous materials. lmtiy, we have not reviewed the project to determine the necessity for a 404 permit. In some extreme cases in the front range, we have observed the Army Corps of Engineers construing high mountain, ' drainage ways as being Part of the `waters of the U.S", thereby requiring a perm it before any filling could take place. We hope that these comments assist you in the completion of the project Very truly yours, LEONARD RICE CONSULTING WATER ENGINEERS, INC. Kevin O'Connell, P.E. Project Manager KOC/gle 790ASC01 cc: Mr. Mark Hershbetger Leonard Rice Conultnq Water Engineers, Inc. - A:1790ASOLIM-7DR 'J �Y el �. .�,+� l , is _ '• �� p `.� V _ C � •• � ram• 7 � `\� � / .''. "'L---'� l l� ��'—'_^� ASPEN STUDY AREA WRIGHT- MCLAUGiHLIN ENGINEERS ' 2420 ALCOTT ST. DENVER, COLO. 80211 10 1 r Otr r� 1 M��� i\ \ ` # ' �U ^ ,�. i�� a :? r J t• u ` y tM .:, ' EC \ - ,�Ct` •c . _ _ "ry. �� y l n 1� �` .t \•�:�'y % lJ\l:, ` '• '�� Ef \ _ .. , �'.�i `t� i!�n`A O `Il, �' j�'•-•-�7 ,\�!1 '� � _ _•• `, 1 i _'rar- LLJ Ld 406 „�_ •,• z Na.=, t �h CL 16 LLJ cr cr- -774 Ts son �. _.. -�--�, 1. , • O •,.� i '>., \� `: L, - �, Z ------------_ ol: vri �y —��_� ` G�• am- �rfa.t•:rllr.��e 1 11►1► 89.E-8191 AiYERS7EI Ns. CON/ ELL, Pc. A T T 0 R N F l S A T I ,} W I350 COLORADO S'TArE BA\h Bl II.DI\G 16011 BRO ADWAY. DENVER. COLORADO 902024920 300 \% E:.S'T COLORADO A%'FNt'E:. P.U. BOX 3771 TELI.VRIDE;. COLORADO 81435 TE:LE:PII0%E:(303) 7Z8.1078 FAX (303) 728.5150 February 14, 1996 Mr. David E. Bellack, Esq. Aspen Skiing Company P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Agreement wi th Ci ty of Aspen Dear Dave: FAX (303) 8614)420 This will confirm that the City of Aspen is party to an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Water with the Aspen Skiing Corporation (predecessor to the Aspen Skiing Company), dated March 23, 1981, whereby the City supplies water to the Aspen Skiing Company for snowmaking purposes on Aspen Mountain, at rates ranging from 1,000 gpm to 2,000 gpm from November 1 through April 16 of each year. This water is supplied in accordance with the Agreement and the Municipal Code. cc: Phil Overeynder John Worcester CFC/m \user%cfc\wp\be11ack.212 Sincerely yours, i' Cynthia F. Covell Water Counsel City of Aspen DON %1.1) %%. A1.toE.R1'1'E:10 \'r111A F. COVE:LL s( rn, V CLARK