HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19960903
.c~______~___.~~~_~_._"
SITE VISIT - HOAG LOT 3
MEET BEHIND CITY HALL AT 4:00 PM
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1996,4:30 PM
SISTER ClTlES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Orbe Conditional Use for ADU, Bob Nevins
B. Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline and Conditional Use for ADU, Suzanne Wolff
C. 702 W. Main St. Conditional Use Review, Suzanne Wolff (cont. from 8/20 - to be
tabled)
D. Aspen Mountain PUD (Lots 3 & 5) (continued from 8/20)
IV. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Rhonda Harris, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: August 27, 1996
September 10 - Special Joint P&Z Meeting (4:30 PM) Council Chambers
AH Overlay (TM)
September 17 - Regular Meeting (4:30 PM)
Text Amendments/Corrections (DM)
ADU Regulations (DM)
Aspen Meadows Traffic (SC)
Kent ADU (SW)
September 18 - Special Meeting (4:30 PM)_Go:6cil Chambers
Weinberg Conditional Use for ADU ( C /9 -
October 1 - Regular Meeting (4:30 PM)
Ordinance 30 (AA)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Bob Nevins, City Planner
THRU: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director .�A -
RE: Orbe Accessory Dwelling .Unit Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing
Parcel ID No. 2735-124-10-003
DATE: September 3, 1996
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a voluntary 576 sf Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) containing approximately 516 sf of net livable area. The one -bedroom ADU
is to be located along the alley above a proposed garage. Since the Accessory Dwelling
Unit is totally above grade, 250 sf of allowable floor area is exempt from floor area ratio
(FAR) calculations. The Conditional Use Application is attached as Exhibit A; and the
referral comments as Exhibit B .
Community Development staff recommends that the conditional use for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit at 712 West Francis Street, City of Aspen be approved with conditions.
APPLICANT: Mr. Lawrence Orbe as represented by Mr. Denis Cyrus
LOCATION: 712 West Francis Street, East 1/2 Lot P and all of Lot Q, Block 15,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado.
ZONING: Medium -Density Residential (R-6)
LAND USE: Detached, single-family residence (HPC Inventoried Parcel)
LOT AREA: 4,500 sf
ALLOWABLE FAR: 2,820 sf
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To construct a voluntary, 576 sf one -bedroom Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) containing approximately 516 sf of net livable area of which 250
sf shall be exempt from the allowable floor area calculation.
REVIEW PROCESS: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) require conditional use
approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. It is a one-step
review that requires notification to be published, posted and mailed.
BACKGROUND: The existing detached, single-family residence is an HPC Inventoried
Parcel. The applicant has been granted HPC approval to renovate the existing residence.
HPC also approved the addition of the garage and second floor Accessory Dwelling Unit
as an attached "carriage house" on June 26, 1996. A building permit has been issued for
the renovation of the main residence and work is currently underway.
The proposed ADU is a 576 sf one -bedroom unit with a kitchen and full -bath. It contains
approximately 516 sf of net livable area. The proposed ADU is comprised of a 120 sf
bedroom within the existing residential structure and 456 sf of new construction. The unit
is accessed from the alley by a separate, private entry located between the garage and
main residence. The ADU is completely self-contained with no interior access to the
main residence. It is 100% above natural grade which allows the unit to have good
views, natural light and ventilation. A single, uncovered, off-street parking space
accessed from the alley is proposed adjacent to the entrance of the ADU.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Attached as Exhibit B are the comments from the City
Engineer and Housing Office.
STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, a development application for a
conditional use approval shall meet the following standards:
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;
RESPONSE: Included within the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan is the Housing
Action Plan which establishes a policy of promoting, marketing, and implementing the
Accessory Dwelling Unit program. The Medium -Density Residential (R-6) zone district
is designated to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary
accessory uses. This conditional use request for the approval of an Accessory Dwelling
Unit within a single-family residence is consistent with the intent, philosophy, and
policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and complies with the intent of the
Medium -Density Residential (R-6) 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,
RESPONSE:. The proposal to renovate and expand the single-family residence is
consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses, densities, and character of the
West End neighborhood. The renovation of the Victorian -styled residence shall enhance
the visual quality and historic character of the immediate area. With the inclusion of an
2
Accessory Dwelling Unit, the neighborhood shall be enriched and enlivened socially by
creating a new housing opportunity for a local working resident.
C. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional
use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations, and odor on
surrounding properties;
RESPONSE: The 576 sf (516 sf net livable) one -bedroom Accessory Dwelling Unit is
contained within the second level of the proposed garage and remodeled, single-family
residence. It should not create a visual impact from West Francis Street or adversely
impact the properties north of the alley. The unit is designed to have a separate covered
entry and internal access stairway for privacy and safety purposes. A designated, off-
street parking space for the ADU is provided in the rear alleyway. Automobile trips
should be minimized since the site is proximate to the RFTA bus routes that operate
along Main Street. It is also within walking and biking distance of downtown,
community services, The Meadows campus, a church, several parks and trails. The
approval of an Accessory Dwelling Unit within the renovated and enlarged single-family
residence should not adversely impact the surrounding properties in terms of trash,
service delivery, noise, vibrations and/or odor.
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, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools;
RESPONSE: There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the proposed
Accessory Dwelling Unit.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for
increased employees generated by the conditional use;
RESPONSE: The applicant is creating a voluntary ADU. in accordance with Section
26.40.090, Accessory dwelling units. The unit shall be deed restricted, meet the Housing
Authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be limited to rental periods of
not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence shall have the
right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the ADU.
F. The proposed- conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all applicable requirements of this title;
RESPONSE: The proposed conditional use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit within a
renovated, single-family residence is in conformance with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan and complies with all other applicable requirements.
RECOMMENDATION: Community Development staff recommends that the
conditional use for the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at 712 West Francis
Street in the City of Aspen be approved with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall:
a. verify with the Housing Office that the allowable floor area of the Accessory
Dwelling Unit contains approximately 576 sf as shown on the plans;
b. verify with the Housing Office that the ADU will contain a kitchen having a
minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot
refrigerator plus freezer;
c. the applicant shall provide the Housing Office with a signed and recorded Deed
Restriction which must be obtained from the Housing Office;
d. clearly identify the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on building permit plans
as a separate one -bedroom unit having a private, exterior entrance and being in
compliance with 1994 U.B.C. Sound Transmission Guidelines (Appendix
Chapter 12, Division II, Section 1208);
e. provide one, off-street parking space on -site for the ADU that shall be shown
on the final improvement plans;
f. submit plans pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Review Standards to
Community Development for review and approval;
g. any new trash areas or service facilities requiring a pedestal or other above
ground equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the property
owner and not located in the public rights -of -way;
h. should the existing telephone or television pedestal along the alley need to be
relocated for the construction of the garage and parking area, an easement shall
be dedicated for the relocated pedestal;
i. all existing and any new easements for utility services shall be shown on the
final improvement plans and recorded;
j.. submit a drainage report and plan to confirm that the new development shall
not release more than the historic surface run-off flows from the site and any
increase in historic storm run-off flows must be routed and maintained on -site;
k. an agreement to construct curb, gutter and sidewalks when needed for the
neighborhood along the Francis Street frontage shall be executed and recorded.
A five (5) foot area along the Francis Street frontage shall remain unobstructed
4
by improvements including vegetation, landscape boulders, fences etc. to
provide space for the alignment of the future sidewalk with the neighboring
sidewalk grades and routes to either side;
1. an agreement shall be executed and recorded requiring the property owner to
join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of
constructing improvements in the public right-of-way; and
m. apply for a tree removal permit two (2) weeks prior to the issuance of a
building permit if any trees are to be removed. The required mitigation for
any tree removal shall be as per Section 15.04.450 of the Municipal Code.
2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (CO):
a. submit as -built drawings of the project showing property lines, building
footprint, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the
property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County
Data Processing Department in accordance with City GIS requirements; and
b. Community Development Department and Housing Office staff shall inspect
the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval.
3. The applicant shall consult with City departments regarding the following:
a. City Engineering for design considerations and any development within public
rights -of -way;
b. Parks Department for tree removal, landscaping, and vegetative species;
c. City Streets Department for any work or development, including landscaping,
within public rights -of -way.
4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during
public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS: Planning and Zoning Commission may
approve the conditions above, approve additional conditions or disapprove the
conditional use for the Accessory Dwelling Unit.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for the Accessory
Dwelling Unit located at 712 West Francis Street, with the conditions outlined in the
Community Development Department memo dated September 3, 1996."
EXHIBITS: "A" - Conditional Use Application; `B" - Referral Comments
5
Attachment 8
County.of Pitkin }
} ss.
State of Colorado }
I�yo rv`
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 (300) feet of the
subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on
they day of��`�� , 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 �jgn was posted and visible
continuously from the day of�,�' 1991"
to the � day of 199 Must be
_
posted for at least ten (10 ) full days before the hearing
date). A photograph of the posted sign. is attached
hereto.
Signature
(Attach photograph here) Signed before me this OJ_ day of
4-vav54 199_—. by
L/r Pic e �� b 2 _ •
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFIC:T,AL SEAL
fy_Comm'ssi0 rest_ d _
Notary lic
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ORBE CONDITIONAL USE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 3, 1996
at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by
Lawrence Orbe, requesting Conditional Use Review approval to include a 576 square foot
Accessory Dwelling Unit in the development of an attached "carriage house" addition to the
existing residence. The property is located at 712 W. Francis, and is described as the East 1/2 of
Lot P and all of Lot Q, Block 15, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact
Bob Nevins at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen,
CO (970) 920-5102.
s/Sara Garton, Chair
Aspen Piknning and Zoning Commission
" WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
xn:41 r 2 My CominiSs ion expires: -
•e�� (i mu64d 'ldaa — — —.
Notary Public
. eaged doll LL& QW@w Icjl!u 0UV.is xHJ PuBAq N,11-120d
jo
i � �� , � i fie► 1 1 •
J
r
•� F s.rr.�1�< i N:
y� y� •T.�OS� I. �.y+'`�r�a .. T�!t+'�ii ..T'^'i'.1%�,�fM+:.i1:tR'+M1.�` �yrl �9
— -, r/�y ''`, .. tr, y •�T'r' ..1 2�N- �� -� . .- l _ _ _ � �;., , .., o ,� , , '!rw'�.�• !•' _.�'f�,.V Ri•R,,.;�' •T'Y�C.�"sS n� C:C r��r��n -`F \�'��yr���_ yI`N».�r'„`•..! ;�?'�r.1t'•"�r�+"r�.�
11�7i3`L 7r• � �'i�!ta W. �'�� F.l�a •'K.�-'�. L .Q kIN ri1l." N �i`�' f �. � 1: ��� � 1 h. l[..�^ ,+,
y• `l r=T w4�..: 5 `,�, �.. !t �°`yi�<4c s ,� :r-"11e.,wN,!��'=v�.'+r' •":,. ,?i' 7� y';rr� Jam.:..
• �y '!'- .I 1 II' ♦..yam � IM. 11 j�n M'� 1( J•�'.. .�J.r !i''.:il.���'-��^.
'•�•'•11.
Yt^! ^• ti ']'s- y,.,�,..._,: �..�'- •x:.��r., v.q a'���%rl�.r•'��{.��-�r .. yr -esr � ' r � g �•l� r. -.. ��-�t•�I`)R..Y!A+<{��L�bRI'*r r.�+n-,ems.. M Y V *'
^'=;.i' :3'kl �x}ti,: i�*ii' `r! •-7 rwUt4' K:: ti.�.�.�.'R. J'?J �- -. �,.y i htr />• vl +��v���� v�t "`��1� �1 �•' �. �� �4�-"�
•1a1ys> .z �t! t, r ;r`..h .. ,. �L 'J.%!~. ri ..;i�:�:.��y'�`?j' i, '' +r ��V '#kf���� "�S�,t'4�.}YO"�� ��' r ^ �fi�d
T�,Jc..d e�• irvr .1 v�:. �� �•. Sfi 2 /•*• a+R3'� �.�t� r ,i'i"t IS.'a�+. l.l_ ��.
•'��' ��C" ' s'.�•.'•i'L•�1'.'c�''m�'}, �'!ar1.r`'it�., r ♦� � OL'R��a'1�C.;gi:t!ldb,e��! •'ry��• �� ,"�i1 ' j•=
-- l..�rr..,.y 'v`Ir' � l.�n: ,'•_ •t1..1. 1T�� i� , .F�.l rL.�i�T T�s'
' ... �. .�, . •. ... _ r r-+�,.;�+.a. may' . � i'.d
T06 N06J
I-ECIIH 'Ok 31,10H6
HIJ(; LTJ 11 = �D6HM HbHz.1%I Ht)I_IbiNt, OF I,_
r.I
TO: Bois Nevins, Community Development Dept.
FROM: Cindy Chdatensen, Housing office
DATE: August g, 1996
FEE: Orhe ADD review
Marcel iB No. 2736}12"8-004
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting development of an AUU to be located in an a#tached
i`carriage house" to the exiting residence at 712 test Francis Street. I am not sure what
the size of the unit is to be, but the unit must fall within the Code:
ACM&Uy duelling units ahaM contain not tens than three handmed (200) square feet of
allowable floor area and not mom than seven hundred j700) square feet of allowable floor
arcs. The unit shall be deed mstrr W, meadng the houak?g authonty's guidelines for
trident e=pied units and shall be Ambd to renal periods of not less than sic (6) monft
in dumUon. owners of the ptfncipal residence shall have the right 2o place a qualited
employee or employees of his or her choosing to the accessory dwel ft unit.
RECOMMENDA77ON". The Housing Office would recommend approval of the request
with the following conditions;
I . The kitchen must be built to the following specifications:
For A ssoiy Owefling► units and Caretaker Dwelling Units, a minimum of a tvvv-
bumer stave with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrr®erat+r plus freezer;
2. Before the applicant can receive building permit approval, the applicant must
provide to the Housing Office a signed and recorded Deed Restriction, which gust
be obtained from the Lousing office.
3. The Dousing ice also requests to inspect the unit prior to Certificate of
Occupancy.
referrmMrbpadu
Exhibit B
proj oc mma OF�b �- 9� 1 PCNCZ- A - 0. U -
project rncation 711 W , Fg_Aj Ci S SF.
we T �z C0 { P a.J CAT
(isidicite street address, lot & block
F,&
(felt/ of /aSPE-7.1
nm6e�., legal
.4) rot Size�a
li cs3nt's Name, Adder & Phone 7 ��C� F?�
hu N- C 0 61 (oil 51zq
Rep=�entative's Name, Address & Phan z S CY9.10S
7) Type of ApoLicaticn (please dvadk all that apply) =
cordi.tiona3- Use caxmvt in 1 SPA Canceptual, HistzCic DO-r_
Special ReView
3040
st= a mzzgin
Final SPA
Fist PUD
imtain vier Plate Subdivisic n
Comma � n.3,� �rri i �� t�,pii • `Z'ext,�lKap E�me�nCxtt .
Zot Solit%Lat I.isse
.�dj us`. _rrt
De✓,_- jpti.C,, of Mi,,-`,irrq 'Us�� (zazmoe� arri type of
aporcaa.mate sq_ r:�e-� of lxd=ocrs; any �ztttvi,cc�s appzwals to
pzc.,oefir) _
pk to 1pV of r or- M S7-IOG ( 13LD& F i r
VC. IYAS 6puron APPP.()Vk . MAP-
A- .O. U.. AVO 70,Nj -
Final Historic Dev.
litic:z
QI�S Allotment
a)
9) Dc�__,c_--�pt _cn of Development Application
A00 t r7o vv OF AAcO 415G SP ikrJ U rO
10) I;ave ycu attac- .ed the fo1 l awincf-
to A 2, M i n i m an ass ion CC nte:Its
to Attad=erTt 3, Specific SubmLSsIcn (Ontoits
to Pttad=ent 4, Review Standards foc Yasr Apc�li.cation
Exhibit A
LAWRENCE F. ORBE III, P.C.
450 Sovrx GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(970) 920-6500 FAx (970) 544-0834
July 30, 1996
To Whom it May Concern:
Please be advised that Denis Cyrus, Box 11166, Aspen,
Colorado 81612, Phone 925-5831, is the representative
authorized to act in my behalf concerning the Development
Application for 712 West Francis, Aspen, Colorado.
Sincerely,
L awr e n r e--�,
t
Commitment To Insure
ALTA Commitment - 1970 Rev.
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE, COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, herein called the Company, for a
.* valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor
of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land
7t� * described or referred to in Schedule A. upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of
Schedule A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or
policies committed for have heen inserted in Schedule A h0orif by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this
Conunitrnent or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations
hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for
shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company.
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1. The term "mortgage", when used herein. shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other
matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge
to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any art of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced
by failure of the proposed Insured to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires
actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but
such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations.
3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties
included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to
comply with the requirements hereof or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring
provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are
hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company
arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the
provisions of this Commitment.
STANDARD EXCEPTIONS
In addition to the matters contained in the Conditions and Stipulations and Exclusions from Coverage above
referred to, this Commitment is also subject to the following;
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct
survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law
and not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records
or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Old Republic, National Title Insurance Company has caused its corporate name and seal to
be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A, to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory.
r
uthorired Signatory
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
A Stock Company
400 Second Avenue South. Minneapolis, Minnesota 5.5401
(611 J 311 1111
By President
Attest ! �1. Secretory
ORT Form 2582
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
A L T A C O M M I T M E N T
SCHEDULE A
Our Order ## Q371075END-2
For Information Only
712 W. FRANCIS,
ASPEN, CO
- Charges -
Alta Lender Policy
Endorsement 104 $140.00
Endorsement 107.3 $413.00
TOTAL - - $553.00
*** THIS• S NOT AN INVOICE, BUT AN ESTIMATE OF FEES. WHEN REF
TO THIS ORDER, PLEASE REFERENCE OUR ORDER NO. REFERRING
Q371075END-2
1. Effective Date: July 10, 1996 at 5:00 P.M.
2. Policy to be issued, and proposed Insured:
"ALTA" Loan Policy 10-17-92 $300,000.00
Proposed Insured:
SILVER DOLLAR LLC
(NOTE: ENDORSEMENTS SHOWN ABOVE WILL BE ISSUED TO POLICY NO.
LTFJ3710751. A NEW MORTGAGEE'S TITLE POLICY WILL NOT BE
ISSUED.)
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in
this Commitment and covered herein is:
A Fee Simple
4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the
effective date hereof vested in:
LAWRENCE F. ORBE III
5. The land referred to in this'Commitment is described as
follows:
ALL OF LOT Q AND THE EAST ONE-HALF (1/2) OF LOT•P
`BLOCK 15
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
PAGE 1
A L T A C 0 M M I T M E N T
SCHEDULE B-1
(Requirements) Our Order # Q371075END-2
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
1. Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of
the full consideration for the estate or interest to be
insured.
2. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be
insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to -wit'.:
3. MODIFICATION OF DEED OF TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 FROM LAWRENCE
F. ORBE ZII TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF ROBERT
N
MORRIS, ASPEN APPRAISAL GROUP, LTD., AND JEFFREY KUKES TO SECURE THE AMOUNT
OF $160,000.00 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 IN BOOK 795 AT PAGE 434.UNDER
RECEPTION NO. 386030, TO PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL ADVANCE OF $140,000.001
INCREASING THE AMOUNT SECURED BY SAID DEED OF TRUST TO $300,000.00.
SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS FURTHER SECURED BY ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS RECORDED
SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 IN BOOK 795 AT PAGE 440 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 386031.
4. SUBORDINATION OF DEED OF TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 FROM LAWRENCE
F. ORBE III TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF HEATHER
-H. THARP TO SECURE THE SUM OF $60,000.00 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 IN
BOOK 795 AT PAGE 442 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 386032, TO THE MODIFICATION
AGREEMENT SET FORTH IN ITEM NO. 3 ABOVE.
5. ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 FROM LAWRENCE F. ORBE
III TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF ROB8RT MORRIS,
ASPEN APPRAISAL GROUP, LTD., AND JEFFREY DUKES TO SECURE THE SUM OF
$160,000.00 (AS MODIFIED AND INCREASED TO $300,000.00) RECORDED SEPTEMBER
29, 1995 IN BOOK 795 AT PAGE 434 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 3860301 TO SILVER
DOLLAR LLC.
THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE REQUIRES RETURN
ADDRESSES ON DOCUMENTS SENT FOR RECORDING!!
NOTE
RECORDING FEES HAVE INCREASED AS OF JULY 11 1995 TO $6.00
FOR THE FIRST PAGE AND $5.00 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL PAGE.
RELEASES HAVEINCREASEDTO $14.00 FOR THE FIRST PAGE AND
$5.00 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL PAGE.
PAGE - 3
A L T A C 0 M M I T M E N T
SCHEDULE B-2
(Exceptions) Our Order # Q37107SEND-2
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the
following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of
the Company:
1. Standard Exceptions 1 through 5 printed on the cover sheet.
6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special
assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office.
7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said 'land.
8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any.
9. GENERAL OR SPECIAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS REQUIRED TO BE PAID IN THE YEAR
1996 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS.
10. DEED OF rZRUST DATED September 29, 1995,FROM LAWRENCE F. OR.BE III TO THE
PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF LEE SHAPIRO/ WILLIAM LEDERER
AND SONIA LEDERER, WESTERN MORTGAGE CO., LTD., ARNOLD ROLDBLATT, RUSSELL
C. ANDERSON, AND DAVID HOCH TO SECURE THE SUM OF $410,000.00 RECORDED
September 29, 1995; IN BOOK 795 AT PAGE 428 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 386029.
11. THE EFFECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER CONSERVANCY, . FIRE
PROTECTION, SOIL CONSERVATION OR OTHER DISTRICT OR INCLUSION IN ANY WATER
.SERVICE OR STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA.
12. 11 - THAT NO TITLE SHALL BE HEREBY ACQUIRED TO ANY MINE OF GOLD, SILVER,
CINNABAR OR COPPER, OR TO ANY MINING CLAIM OR -POSSESSION HELD UNDER
EXISTING LAWS; AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THIS DEED IS HEREBY MADE AND
DECLARED TO BE SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS
CONTAINED IN SECTION 2386 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES,,80
FAR AS THE SAME IS APPLICABLE THERETO" AS SET FORTH IN DEED RECORDED
JANUARY 17, 1888 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 295.
13. ENCROACHMENT OF SHED FROM SUBJECT PROPERTY ONTO ALLEY NORTHERLY OF SUBJECT
.PROPERTY AS SET FORTH ON THE SURVEY PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS,
INC., DATED AUGUST 9, 1995.
PAGE 5
/1 Y 1J / , t
c Mtn
c
Lou
0�� vw ct
0�2a�o�
y 0 0 CC ai �•i L
G 0 _ m NCL
�mmg rn
Z C m in G �1 /t - t;, S - •- -- — - -- -
z�•' `° '7
AV pod
ri
A6 � JS vc A NJ ct
\ � e
0 �
e
PMU nON
POb v ` p� AS l
r Q SIt"r Queen;
te
td
co
a
wa
v�o c s
Rwcrook 8 �ti.•. sb� _
'nDr wer
Lil
� • � ,�.. �'goyoH a�J a�1s�:J
�i $ �• _ " �. � �- ` Meru � _p�
: caste �.
Mesa - u. jo 0601t1 vtM.L ,, c
".jaPo open" td
(JA u-
rc
'o�P/ei11it1�
7
y„.,\) U
This application is for Conditional Use Review of an Accessory Dwelling Unit to
be included in the development of an attached "carriage house" addition to the
existing residence at 712 West Francis Street. The existing residence is currently
being renovated as approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, and the
addition as presented for review was approved by the HPC on June 26,1996. The
ADU is not required, but is being offered by the applicant to help meet the need for
affordable housing in the City of Aspen.
_
f
4
f
1
i
}
'tooP.F 1
1
E
1
r kL
y.
-
_
111111 S- t f i
r i}` jjj
-
__vv
., r 4-
--------"--- t f *7
7,'^-
-- j F
E Ro
v
s
•
C4I
22 Jury
tiNi7�"R- CoN�T. PRUi1'''Cl. PPi Tiri
T,O-
fosco Nool riam I UgbCVL COW,UC-TIOM
to
-T-71
ss i u
f
1
F
1
.-
y
Lv
-
F
�
so - -.
1
t
t --
- 33tt
f
U f F e- F.-
f
t
U f F e- F.-
f
t
Itemized response to Conditional Use Review Standards:
A. This development is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and
particularly with the goal of providing affordable housing within the neighborhoods of
the City of Aspen. The development is well within all dimensional requirements of the
R-6 zone district in which it is proposed and no variance from the underlying zoning
has been sought.
B. The proposed development has been reviewed and approved by the Historic
Preservation Commission as compatible with the historic residence to which it is
attached, as well as with the historic neighborhood into which it is placed.
C. The size of the development is well below the allowed maximums of height, floor
area and volume. The design minimizes visual impacts with lowered wall heights and
roof pitches. The carriage house provides off-street parking where none previously
existed, improving pedestrian and vehicular circulation on the street frontage, while its
location, attached to the house, improves vehicular circulation and maintains existing
open space on the alley.
D. Public facilities and services for the proposed residential use are adequate.
E. The applicant is providing affordable housing rather than generating employees.
F. The applicant believes the proposed development complies with all applicable
requirements.
MEMORANDUM
To: Bob Nevins, City Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer L. (A`
From: Ross C. Soderstrom,'Project Engineer G'
Date: August 20, 1996
Re: ' Orbe Conditional Use Review for an ADU
(712 West Francis Street, City of Aspen: West 1/2 Half of Lot P and Lot Q, Block 15, City
and Townsite of Aspen, CO)
(Reference: Current Building Permit No. 6-109)
After reviewing the, above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the
combined comments made by the members of the DRC:
1. Driveway & Parking: The proposed garage, driveway and parking space, each
accessed from the alley, pose no apparent problems and comply with applicable codes. The
parking c6nfiguration will need to be shown on the final improvement plans submitted for the
building permit change order.
2. Trash & Utility Areas: The submitted site plan does not indicate locations for these
facilities. Any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment must be
installed • on an easement provided by the property owner and not located in the public rights -of -
way. This will avoid any conflict with use of the rights -of -way for public facilities and
improvements.
It appears that the existing telephone or television pedestal in the approximate middle of the alley
fiontage will need to be relocated to construct the proposed garage and parking area. If so, an
easement will need to be dedicated for the relocated pedestal. The water service line for the
property has already been replaced as part of the remodel of the existing house. All existing and
any new easements for utilities must be shown on the final improvement plans and be recorded
prior to issuance of the building permit change order.
1 OF 2
DRCM 1996.DOC
Exhibit B
Menw - Orhe Conditional Use Review for an ADU
3. Site Drainage: One of the considerations of a development application for
conditional use is the availability and adequacy of public facilities to service the proposed use. One
public facility that is inadequate is the City storm sewer system. As such, the new development
cannot release more than historic (pre -development) storm run-off flows from the site and any
increase in historic storm run-off flows must be first routed and detained on the site. A drainage
report and plan must be included in the final improvement plans submitted for the building permit
change order. (No drainage plan is shown on the submitted application drawings nor is a drainage
report filed in the building permit file.)
4. Sidewalk Area: The property owner will be required to execute and record, prior to
building permit change order issuance, an agreement to construct curb, gutter and sidewalks when
needed for the neighborhood along the Francis Street frontage, although none is planned at this
time. A five ft. (5 ft.) sidewalk (or pedestrian) area should remain unobstructed by improvements
including vegetation, landscape boulders, fences; e.g. any new trees must be located to provide
space for and alignment of the future sidewalk with the neighboring sidewalk routes and grades to
either side. The pedestrian usable space must be shown on the final development plan.
5. Encroachments: None observed during the site review with the possible exception of
the above mentioned utility pedestal. The owner is responsible for construction and maintenance of
all landscaping and road shoulder improvements with prior City approval.
6. Improvement Districts: The property owner will be required to agree to join any
future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent
public rights -of -way. The agreement must be executed and recorded prior to issuance of the
building permit change order for the project.
7. Record Drawings: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required
to submit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Data Processing Dept. as-builts drawings for the project
showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities
entering the property boundaries and any other improvements.
2 OF 2
DRCM 1996.DOC
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner
RE: Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit
DATE: August 20, 1996
SUMMARY: The applicants are requesting 8040 Greenline approval to construct a single-family residence
and Conditional Use approval for an accessory dwelling unit. The application packet is attached as Exhibit
A.
APPLICANT: James Valerio and Karen Johnson, represented by Roy Parsons of Gibson & Reno
.Au,U,E YzE-7JV 4� - Z2Va9E PErETe5rciOJ
LOCATION: 1125 Ute Ave.; Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. The Hoag Subdivision includes Ajax Park on Lot
1, single-family residences on Lots 2 and 5, and a duplex on Lot 4.
ZONING: Conservation
LOT SIZE: 3.04 acres
BACKGROUND:
• October 18, 1971: The 5 lot Hoag Subdivision was approved by City Council.
• July 20, 1976: Virden 8040 Greenline Review was approved.
• October 7, 1985: An access road to Hoag Lot 3 was approved by the Commission in conjunction with
the Nordic Council Trail Greenline Review, however, the Forest Service subsequently denied the
request for a Special Use Road Permit.
• December 2, 1986: The Commission approved a new driveway which entered Lot 3 off of the Utility
and Trail Easement, crossed the site almost to the western edge of the property, and switched back to
access the building site from above.
• January 2, 1990: The Commission granted 8040 Greenline approval for the building site on Lot 3 by
Resolution No. 90-4. Access was provided along the panhandle of Lot 3 directly to the building site,
which eliminated the switchback from the driveway.
• January 19, 1993: The Commission amended the 8040 Greenline approval to allow a precast aggregate
concrete stem wall along the access instead of the previously approved boulder retaining wall in order
to lessen the amount of grading and cutting into the backslope.
• March 2, 1993: The 1990 8040 Greenline approval was revoked by Resolution No. 93-7 after the
Commission found that the owner had violated or failed to comply with conditions of Resolution No.
90-4. 8040 Greenline Review was required for any further development of the property.
Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision is adjacent to the Newfoundland Lode, which is located outside of the City
limits and which has received 1041 Hazard Review approval from Pitkin County to construct a single
family residence. These two properties share the access drive from Ute Avenue subject to an easement
agreement recorded in Book 681 at Page 147. Both owners must obtain Special Use Permits from the US
Forest Service for the portion of the driveway located on the adjacent USFS parcel.
REQUEST: The applicants are requesting approval to construct an approximately 7,000 square foot
single-family residence. The entire lot is located above the 8040 Greenline. The proposed studio ADU is
located on the lower level of the residence and contains 412 square feet.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Comments are summarized below and are attached as Exhibit C.
Engineering: Ross Soderstrom's comments are incorporated below with the staff responses to the 8040
Greenline standards. A Colorado registered professional engineer shall sign and stamp the construction
design.
Housing: Cindy Christensen recommends approval of the ADU subject to provision of additional
natural light to the unit, removal of the connection between the ADU and the main residence, and the
standard conditions concerning deed restriction of the unit, compliance with the requirements for the
kitchen, and inspection of the unit prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Zoning: The -Conservation zone district does not have an FAR requirement. The proposed residence
does not comply with the required 100' front yard setback; the applicants shall apply to the Board of
Adjustment for a variance. A variance was previously granted for a residence in this location, but that
approval is no longer valid.
Parks: Rebecca Schickling states that the previous development proposal for this lot estimated that 57
trees with a total of 416 caliper inches would be lost, which would require a payment -in -lieu fee of
$97,667, if no caliper inches were replaced on -site. A landscape plan has not been provided to determine
the tree mitigation impact of the current proposal. A landscape plan shall be submitted to Parks and a
tree permit shall be obtained prior to building permit submittal. Another concern is the impact of utility
installation on the trail; if utilities are extended along the driveway, impact on the trail will not be an
issue.
Fire Marshal: The residence shall be completely protected by a residential fire sprinkler system to be
approved by the Fire Marshal. A turnaround for fire apparatus is being constructed to serve both this lot
and the adjacent Newfoundland Lode.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: Sufficient capacity is available to serve the residence and
ADU. The applicants shall provide tax receipts to ACSD to verify inclusion of the entire lot within
ACSD's service area. All connection costs shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit.
STAFF COMMENTS:
8040 Greenline Review: Pursuant to Section 26.68.030(C), no development shall be permitted at, above,
or one hundred fifty (15.0) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the commission makes a determination
that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development
considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of
mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the
N
applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from
the site to a location acceptable to the city. _
Response: The entire lot contains steep slopes, with slopes of approximately 45% within the building
site. The building site is in the best possible location on the property, since the majority of the lot is
located within a prominent avalanche path. A report from Art Mears dated January of 1987 addresses
the avalanche hazard on the site (included with the application in Exhibit A). The avalanche path is
located approximately 50' west of the proposed building site, which is within a stand of Douglas fir.
Mears notes that the building site may be exposed to avalanches with a return period of 50-100 years,
and recommends that the residence be constructed to withstand avalanche impact and deposition loads.
Mears' comments concerning the driveway are not relevant because the current access driveway does not
cross the avalanche path. Engineering also recommends that the applicants confirm the location and
depth of the existing mine tunnels that underlie the property to avoid areas susceptible to subsidence or
rupture. -
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed,
runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
Response: Due to the steepness of the lot, the development must adequately mitigate its impact on the
existing surface drainage flow. Displacement of flows can increase erosion and flooding elsewhere on
the property and on adjacent properties. A drainage report and plan and a grading plan shall be provided
with.the building permit application for review by City Engineering. Historic storm run-off flows shall be
accommodated on -site; any increase in storm run-off flows shall first be routed and detained on -site. The
existing surface drainage flow pattern shall be retained, and concentrated drainage shall be conveyed so as
not to cause flooding, erosion nor other damage to adjacent or downstream properties.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the
city.
Response: The proposed residence will not adversely affect air quality. No wood -burning fire places
may be installed. Two certified solid -fuel burning devices may be installed (gas log or clean -burning
woodstoves), as well as an unlimited number of decorative gas appliances.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the
terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. '
Response: The entire lot contains very steep slopes. Rather than stepping the structure up the hillside in
response to the slope, the applicants propose a deep cut into the slope, which will create a significant
amount of subgrade space. As shown on the building section (sheet A8 of the application), a cut of
approximately 30' in depth is required to accommodate the proposed square footage. Creating subgrade
space lessens the amount of the structure which will be visible, but such a substantial cut is not
"compatible with the terrain".
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and
natural land features.
Response: As noted above, an extensive cut into the slope is necessary to accommodate the proposed
amount of square footage. The site plan (sheet A2) shows that an area of approximately 120' by 100'
will be disturbed. The entire building site is within a stand of Douglas fir, therefore, a substantial number
of trees will be removed to accommodate the residence. A landscaping plan was not provided with the
application, so staff is unable to determine the number of trees that must be removed. -- Staff
acknowledges that any construction will require removal of trees in order to locate the residence outside
of the avalanche area, but questions whether the grading proposed to accommodate a 7,000 square foot
residence "minimizes... disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features".
The applicant represents that "the remainder of the site will be left undisturbed". Staff recommends
delineation of a building envelope, outside of which no development, including grading and vegetation
removal or landscaping, may occur.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and
grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
,Response: The building site is located in the corner of the lot which is closest to the already developed
lots in the Hoag subdivision and to the building site on the adjacent Newfoundland Lode. The building
site is on the lowest portion of the lot in a wooded area, which will have less visual impact than
anywhere else on the lot. However, the size of this structure will make it highly visible, possibly more so
from a distance (particularly from the north side of town) than from Ute Avenue. A front yard setback of
100' is required in the Conservation zone district. The applicants must request a variance from the Board
of Adjustment to allow the 30' setback, which will keep the structure away from the avalanche zone and
will also keep the development closer to the surrounding development. A combined driveway will serve
this lot and the adjacent lot. No development will be allowed outside of a designated building envelope,
therefore, the majority of the parcel will remain open space.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the
open character of the mountain.
Response: The purpose of the Conservation zone is "to provide areas of low density development to
enhance public recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage the production of crops and animals,
and to contain urban development." A detached residential dwelling is a permitted use in this zone
district. _
The Conservation zone district does not have an FAR requirement. The estimated square footage of the
residence is 6,992 square feet, with a total floor area of 5,653 square feet. This lot would be subject to
the maximum slope reduction of 25% since the entire lot contains slopes in excess of 30%, however,
without an FAR requirement, this reduction of the lot area has no value. Several floor area comparisons
are provided below:
• The other lots in the Hoag Subdivision are zoned R-15, Moderate Density Residential. Under R-15
zoning, Lot 3 would be allowed 7,588 square feet of floor area (which includes the 25% slope
reduction).
• The County restricted the allowed square footage (not floor area) on the Newfoundland Lode to
5,930 square feet for the residence and 750 square feet for the garage, for a total of 6,680 square feet.
The calculation of the floor area that would be allowed on this lot if it was zoned R-15 is misleading
because the impacts of development of this lot are much greater than the impacts of the other Hoag lots,
and it does not seem appropriate to compare the floor area with that of a zone district which allows more
dense development. Although a floor area ratio is not specified for the Conservation zone, staff would
argue that a 7,000 square foot residence is excessive for this site because of the environmental and visual
M
impacts. The design tries to lessen the bulk by creating subgrade .space, however, this must be balanced
with the impact of the cut required to accommodate this amount of square footage.
The proposed residence appears to comply with the maximum allowed height limit of 28'. However, the
roof ridge on the north facade (sheet A6) is approximately 35' above finished grade: the lower level is
totally exposed, and the living room is a two-story space with approximately 24' of windows. Staff is
concerned with the visual impact of this building mass. The extensive amount of glass used on this
facade only serves to accentuate this mass, and lighting from within this space will be highly visible.
This massive facade does not "blend into the open character of the mountain".
The applicants should also be aware that the structure does not appear to comply with the Model Energy
Code, though not enough information has been provided at this time. Compliance must be demonstrated
at building permit review.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development.
Response: The City Water Department and ACSD have sufficient capacity to serve this lot. Utility
service must be extended to the property. Engineering recommends that utilities be placed in the new
driveway in order to minimize grading, erosion and vegetation removal. Use of the dedicated utility
easements, which are parallel to the fall -line of the slope, would cause much greater impact. A separate
special use permit must be obtained from the US Forest Service to place utilities in the driveway.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly
maintained.
Response: The property is accessed from Ute Avenue.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate
access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Response: The Fire Marshal reviewed and approved the County's access permit for the driveway. The
driveway is 12' wide, and currently includes an additional 8' width for the trail beside the driveway from
Ute Avenue to the intersection where the trail separates from the driveway. A 45' by 35' turnaround for
fire apparatus is. being constructed to serve both this lot and the adjacent lot (Newfoundland Lode).
Parking shall be prohibited in the turnaround. Adequate areas shall be provided for snow storage and
removal.
IL Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan:
Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Provide access to natural
resources and areas of special interest to the community.
Response: A trail easement across Lot 3 was granted to the City and recorded in Book 610 at Page 877
in 1990. This trail will be maintained in the winter as a cross country trail. As originally proposed, the
trail was to be located beside the driveway from the intersection of the trail to Ute Avenue. -The Parks
Department hopes to amend the alignment so the trail crosses the driveway at the intersection and runs
along the hillside above the driveway. In its 1041 approval for the Newfoundland Lode, the County
required the applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Office depicting the design and location of the
nordic trail as it relates to the access road and the residence, prior to issuance of an access permit.
5
However, the access permit was approved by the County without this plan. Parks is working with the
owner of the Newfoundland Lode and the US Forest Service to finalize the alignment,
Conditional Use Review: Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, the criteria for a conditional use review are as
follows:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed 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 purpose of the Conservation zone is "to provide areas of low density development to enhance public
recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage the production of crops and animals, and to contain urban
development." An ADU may be appropriate in the Conservation zone, since the low density nature of the
zone district would minimize the impact of the ADU on adjacent properties. The proximity to downtown is
convenient for local residents.
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: An ADU is compatible with the surrounding residential properties. Several AH projects are
located in the vicinity (Ute Park and Billings), as well as other ADUs. The ADU does add additional bulk
to a residence which will have a significant impact on the "open character of the mountain" because of its
size and design.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes
adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking,
trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties;
RESPONSE: The issue of the visual and environmental impact of the structure is addressed above. If it is
determined by the Commission that 7,000 square feet is excessive for this lot, then the Commission may
want to consider denying the ADU in order to lessen the square footage. Also, the ADU is located on the
lower level of the residence. In order to lessen the impact of the north facade, the applicants could expose
less of the lower level, however, this would also decrease the livability of the ADU, since natural light is
only accessible from the north side. If the ADU is denied, the cash -in -lieu payment under the current
guidelines would be $108,368 (based on an FAR of 5,653). Under the guidelines which go into effect on
September 23, 1996, the payment would be $132,845.
If the Commission approves the ADU, Housing recommends that more natural light be provided to the unit,
and that the connection with the rec room be removed.
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: Adequate facilities and services are available.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased
employees generated by the conditional use;
RESPONSE: The ADU must comply with the Housing Guidelines and must be deed restricted as a resident
occupied unit for working residents of Pitkin County. If the unit is rented, it must be used to house a
qualified working resident of Pitkin County.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The proposed unit is one method of meeting the requirements of Section 26.100.050, GMQS
Exemptions, (Ordinance 1 - 1990) and must be deed restricted. If the ADU is denied, the applicant will be
required to provide a cash -in -lieu payment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recognizes that Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision is a legally
developable lot, however, approval of development above the 8040 geenline requires compliance with all
of the requirements addressed above. Staff recommends denial based on the finding that the proposed
development does not comply with the following standards:
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain
on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and
natural land features.
7. Building height and bulk will be .minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open
character of the mountain.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION: The Commission may table the application to allow the
applicants to redesign to address the three criteria noted above.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION: If the Commission determines that the proposed development
complies with the standards, staff suggests that the Commission approve the Valerio/Johnson 8040
Greenline Review and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The residence shall be designed to withstand avalanche impact and deposition loads, as
recommended by Art Mears in his avalanche analysis dated January, 1987.
2. No development, including grading and vegetation removal or landscaping, shall occur outside of
the approved building envelope, except for utility and driveway extension and maintenance. The
building envelope shall be staked and fenced prior to commencement of excavation.
3. A landscape plan and a tree permit shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks
Department prior to building permit submittal. Trees to be retained on -site shall be protected
during construction with fencing around the dripline of the trees.
4. All exterior lighting shall be downcast.
5. All excavated material shall be removed from the site. A plan for deposition of the material shall
be included with the building permit application.
6. No additional square footage shall be added without full 8040 Greenline review; this lot shall not be
subject to the 8040 Greenline exemptions.
7. The applicants shall install a residential fire sprinkler system to be approved by the Aspen Fire
Marshal prior to issuance of any building permits.
8. The unused driveway easement through the lot shall be vacated. The upper portion of the
driveway easement shall be revegetated and the lower portion shall be retained solely as a trail
easement.
9. A Colorado registered professional engineer shall sign and stamp the construction design.
10. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicants shall submit the appropriate deed
restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed
restriction by the -Housing Office, the applicants shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The
deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets
the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or
longer.
11. Prior to issuance of any building permits, kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to
ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs.
12. The connection between the ADU and the main residence shall be removed from the plans and
additional natural light shall be provided to the ADU prior to submission of the deed restriction to
the Housing Office.
13. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall
comply with the 1994 UBC Sound Transmission Control guidelines.
14. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Community Development Department and the
Housing Office shall inspect the ADU to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval.
15. All new surface utility needs and pedestals shall be installed on -site.
16. A drainage report and plan and a grading plan shall be provided with the building permit
application for review and approval by the City Engineer. Historic drainage flows shall be
accommodated on -site; any increase in storm run-off flows shall be routed and detained on -site.
17. The applicants shall agree to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of
constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way. The agreement shall be executed and
recorded prior to issuance of any building permits.
18. 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 deny the Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline based on the finding
that the proposed development does not comply with the following standards:
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain
on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
S. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and
natural land features.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open
character of the mountain."
ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to table the Valerio/Johnson application to to allow
the applicants to redesign to address the three criteria noted above." 1 ewV a. �,5 i,8+4''9
cx ,� G„ 4
ALTERNATIVE MOTION: "I move to approve the Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review and
Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject to the conditions listed in the Community
Development Department Memo dated September 3, 1996".
Exhibits:
A - Application Packet
B - Referral Comments
9
4p
e
ems � 1�►
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin }
}
State of Colorado }
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
SECTION 6-205.E.
It Roy S. Parsons III, AIA
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements
pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in
the following manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto,
by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners
of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on
the 16th day of August , 199 6 (which is 19 days
prior to the public hearing date of September 3, 199�.
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 16th day of August 1996 ,
to the 3rd day of September_, 1996. (Must be
posted for at least ten (10 ) full days before the hearing
date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached
hereto.
ignat
(Attach photograph here) Signed before me this c day of
199CP. by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires
Colrrsi5s, o expires: s,,,.1„mher21142Q
Notary Pub.1io
ATTACHMENT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1)
Project Name: Valerio/Johnson Residence
2)
Project Location: 1125 Ute Avenue
Aspen, Colorado
Hoag Subdivision Lot #3
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate.)
3)
Present Zoning Conservation 4) Lot Size
approx. 132,500 SF
5)
Applicant's Name, Address & Phone No.
Highlands Investment, Ltd.
c/o James Valerio
P.O. Box 1376
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(970) 925-1860
6)
Representative's Name, Address & Phone No.
Gibson & Reno Architects, L.L.C.
210 E. Hyman Ave., Suite 202
Aspen, Colorado 81611
7)
Type of Application (please check all that apply):
Conditional Use
Conceptual SPA
P
Conceptual Historic Dev.
Special Review Final SPA
Final Historic Dev.
X
8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD
Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin Final PUD
Historic Demolition
Mountain View Plane Subdivision
Historic Designation
Condominiumization Text/Map Amendment
GMQS Allotment
Lot Split/Lot Line
GMQS Exemption
Adjustment
Exhibit A
8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft., number of
bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property).
There are no existing structures. This is a previously approved
sub -divided single family lot.
9) Description of Development Application:
8040 Greenline review for a single family residence.
10) Have you attached the following?
X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents
X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents
X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
landuse.frm
July 5, 1996
DAVID
61 BSON
AAA
;AUGUST
Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Dept. RENO
130 South Galena AIA
Aspen, Colorado 81611
`COTT
RE: Valerio/Jonhson Residence `MITH
Conditional Use (A.D.U.) AIA
1125 Ute Avenue
Aspen, Colorado
J 1
r
We are submitting the enclosed application for the Conditional
Use of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (A.D. U.) within the G I B S O N - R E NQ
k `.i , •r c r s. L.L.C.
residence located at 1125 Ute Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. III
The following addresses Attachment 4, Item A-F of the Review
Standards for the development of a Conditional Use:
210 E. HYNIAN
N'' 202
A. The current zoning of the property is Conservation
ASPEN
which allows Accessory Dwelling Units as a Conditional
COLORADO
Use of this zone district. The Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan encourages the provision of
A.D.U.'s within residences to help supply housing within
a v.92) �.J0bs
the Aspen area.
B. The Conditional Use is consistent and compatible with
the character of the immediate vicinity. The
surrounding area consists of similar projects with
existing A.D.U.'s.
!- N. �V!1_Low
N �
C. The proposed residence will have a 412 square foot
studio A.D.U. The A.D.U. will be located at the lower
T[LLU1RIDE
level of the unit at the front side with a separate
CO LO RA D`'
exterior entry. There is a provision for one(1) parking
space for the A.D.U. within the driveway. The A.D.U.
;-,, -]S "o07
will have no adverse effects on the surrounding
properties.
IFACShMILE
1)70.72S.00 58
Valerio/Johnson Residence
July 5, 1996
Aspen/Pitkin County Community
Development Department
Page 2
D. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is located within the City
limits of Aspen and has access to all public facilities and
services.
E. As a requirement of Ordinance #l, replacement housing
program, for a new residence in the Conservation Zone
District the applicant must provide an Accessory
Dwelling Unit or pay a fee in lieu. This A.D.U. fulfills
this requirement.
F. The Conditional Use of the Accessory Dwelling Unit
complies with all standards by the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Ordinance
#l.
Thank you for your time in reviewing our request for the
Accessory Dwelling Unit. Please contact me with any further
questions regarding this application.
Respectfully,
2
Roy B. Parsons III, AIA
valadu.doc
I
June 28, 1996
VALERIO/JOHNSON
HOAG SUBDIVISION #3
8040 GREENLINE: ATTACHMENT 2
1. Please see enclosed letters authorizing Gibson & Reno
Architects L.L.C. to act on behalf of the applicants.
2. This project is located at 1125 Ute Ave. The legal
description is the Hoag Subdivision, Lot #3.
3. Please see enclosed disclosure of Ownership.
4. Please see enclosed vicinity map.
5. This proposal is for a single family residence. The
proposed location of the residence is in the eastern most
corner of the property, and it is designed to fit into the
steep slope. For additional graphic information
concerning this proposed residence, see Attachment 3.
For additional written information, see Attachment 4.
June 28, 1996
VALERIO/JOHNSON
HOAG SUBDIVISION #3
8040 GREENLINE: ATTACHMENT 3
Enclosed are drawings that depict the requested information.
The following information is supplementary to the drawings.
A. Plan Information
1. The Boundary is shown on the Site Plan.
2. The proposed improvements are shown, there
are no significant existing structures.
3. Significant natural features include a steep slope
with large trees covering the majority of the site.
An avalanche zone is identified on the Site Plan.
B. Additional Plan Information
1. Existing contours around the building envelope
are shown at five-foot intervals due to steep
(over 10%) slope.
2. Proposed elevations are shown.
3. The proposed construction techniques will be
poured in place concrete footings, walls and
retaining walls with wood frame construction
above grade. Large log and timber elements will
be used as accents as well as structurally when
feasible. The proposed exterior materials will be
stone veneer, wood siding and fascias, heavy
cedar shake roofing, log accents and log deck
railings. Windows will be clad wood. Concrete
retaining walls, as well as framed walls and roofs
will be designed for appropriate loads for a
steep site and avalanche potential. Snow guards
will be used at appropriate roof locations to
mitigate snow slide.
4. The Zoning (conservation) for this proposed
residence doesn't have F.A.R. requirements. We
have enclosed a square footage/FAR Analysis of
the project so the approved F.A.R. can be
documented.
June 28, 1996
VALERIO/JOHNSON
HOAG SUBDIVISION #3
SQUARE FOOTAGE/FAR SUMMARY:
Proposed Building Square Footage:
Lower Level: 2355 SF
Main Level: 2053 SF
Garage: 576 SF
Upper Level: 2009 SF
TOTAL:
6992 SF
Proposed Building FAR:
Lower Level
801 SF
(34% exposed wall area)
Main Level
1169 SF
(44% exposed wall area)
Upper Level:
2008 SF
(100% exposed wall area)
TOTAL
3978 SF
Areas @ 2:1 due to plate height over 10'-0"
Main Level: 840 SF
(Living Room & Entry)
Upper Level: 835 SE
(Master Bedroom & Study)
Subtotal: 1675 SF
TOTAL FAR: 5653 SF
June 28, 1996
VALERIO/JOHNSON
HOAG SUBDIVISION #3
8040 GREENLINE: ATTACHMENT 4
1. The proposed development is located on a sloped site
suitable for development. There doesn't appear to be
any soil instability or presence of mine subsistence. The
project will be located on a portion of the site away
from an avalanche path. This location complies with an
Avalanche Hazard Analysis dated January 1987, (see
enclosed). There are no visible signs of hazardous or
toxic soils.
2. The size and location of the proposed development
should not have any adverse affect on watershed, runoff,
drainage, soil erosion or water pollution.
3. The proposed development should not have any adverse
affects on air quality.
4. The design of the proposed structure is compatible with
the sloped terrain. The driveway will be located on an
existing roadbed with an already established easement.
5. Use of retaining walls as well as a stepped design will
minimize disturbance of terrain and vegetation.
6. The placement of the proposed structure is located in a
corner of the site closest to the proposed access road,
with the least amount of grading and tree cutting
possible for this site. The remainder of the site will be
left undisturbed.
9
Valario/Johnson - Hoag Subdivision #3
June 28, 1996
7. The Northern most facade of the proposed structure will
have a gable roof configuration that will comply with
maximum height requirements for an 8:12 roof slope.
The upper level of the proposed structure will be below
the maximum allowable height above natural grade. The
use of gables will minimize the visual impact of the roof
and allow the overall building mass to be reduced.
8. Sufficient water and other utilities are available from
Ute Ave via an existing utility easement.
9. Driveway access to the property will occur on an
existing road bed with easy access directly onto Ute
Avenue. The driveway will be shared with the adjacent
property owner who has already gained approval for the
road.
10. Ingress and egress for safety vehicles and snow removal
equipment can be maintained.
11. Access to the existing Nordic Trail on the site will be
maintained for public access.
valhoag.doc
AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS, BARKER PROPERTY, ASPEN, COLORADO
PREPARED FOR
MR, JACK BARKER
Arthur I. dears, P.E., Inc.
Gunnison, Colorado
January, 1987
INTRODUCTION
This analysis of avalanche hazard was requested by Mr. Jack Barker of
Aspen and ha`s the following objectives:
1. site inspection of avalanche terrain;
Z. analysis of avalanche characteristics and risk;
3. review of previous work;
4. recommendations.
Thereport is site. -specific, thus the results and recomme'ndati-ons-
cannot be extended to other locations.
AVALANCHE CONDITIONS
Avalanches affecting the Barker property in Sec. 18, T. 10 S.,
R. 84 W., City of Aspen, originate on the northeast --facing slope of Bell
Mountain. Avalanche starting zones are located immediately below promin-
ent cliffs at approximately 8,800 feet elevation, as much as 1000 feet
above the valley floor. The starting zones, or areas in which unstable
snow accumulates, are small, steep, and generally discontinuous. There-
fore,.avalanches Will usually be small and unlikely to reach the Barker
property. However, major avalanches can occur,in response to exceptional
weather and/or snowpack conditions at any time during the November -
April snow season. Major avalanches are known to have deposited debris
on the old railroad grade in 1964, 1973, and 1974. The largest and most
frequent avalanches occur in the approximately 50-yard wide open slope
on the western edge of the property, which is also the site of the
avalanches that are known to have reached the railroad grade. A ski
trail and the proposed access driveway to the Barker property cross the
lower portion of this path.
-2-
The slope immediately east of the prominent path supports a thick,
triangular wedge of Douglas fir with interspersed aspen. This stand of
trees, which is the proposed site of the new home, shows no sign of
avalanche damage for the life of the forest (approximately 80 years).
Site inspection showed some damage to aspen within the forest, but this
was apparently caused by an unusually heavy early June snowstorm in 1984.
This storm produced similar tgide5pread damage 'throughout central Colorado.
The avalanche conditions at this site were discussed in a detailed
report to Steve Crowley and Thomas D. McAuley which was authored in 1973
by Whitney H. Borland and Hans Frutiger. In my opinion, the Borland/
Frutiger report was a thorough and accurate appraisal of the avalanche
conditions at this site. The present study discusses in greater detail
the nature of the risk involved in building within the potential avalanche
area .
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND AVALANCHE HAZARD
Discussions and a site inspection with Mr. Jack Barker provided --
detailed information about the layout of the proposed development. The
development layout and building envelope is shown on the attached map.
The development is subject to avalanche hazard of 2 types:
1. hazard on the access driveway that crosses the open avalanche
path discussed above; and
2. hazard to the house, which will be built approximately 50 feet
east of the prominent avalanche path, within the timber wedge.
Because hazards "1" and "2" differ significantly, they are discussed
separately below.
The access driveway is clearly within the boundaries of the main
western avalanche path. Both upper and lower legs of the proposed
-3-
driveway have been overrun 3 times during the past 22 years, (in 1964,
1973, and 1974), as noted above. Smaller avalanches may have also reached
the driveway alignment, but gone undetected. Although firm data on
avalanche frequency is not available, an average frequency (at the drive-
way) of 3-5 years seems reasonable, based on vegetation damage and the
sporadic and discontinuous historical record.
Overall risk is based on avalanche frequency and the proposed use of
driveway. If we assume an exposure time (to the avalanche) of 1 minute
per trip and 10 trips per day on the driveway, total daily exposure is
10 minutes (out of 1,440 minutes per day), or 0.7% of the time. If the
avalanche occurs once in every 3 years on the average, the joint proba-
bility, P, that an avalanche will reach someone while he is traveling
the driveway is computed
P = (1.) (10/tOO) = 0.23% per year.
3
.This calculation assumes random avalanche occurrence and random driveway
use. In other words, the prevailing avalanche and/or weather conditions
will have no influence on the use of the driveway.
From the standpoint of risk assessment, this 0.23% annual probability
should be compared with other risks that are commonly accepted. For
example, daily travel during unstable avalanche conditions is common on
Loveland, Berthoud, and Red Mountain passes,each of which is crossed by
numerous avalanches every year. Some of these avalanches occur more often
than once per year. Depending on the route taken through Colorado, the
aval.an'c'he ' hazard en'coun.tered on a trip to Aspen. may exceed the ri,sk._i.n
ascending the driveway.
- 4-
F
In contrast, avalanche exposure of the 'house is, less tolerable
because.we .must assume,it will be occupied continuously, especially
E during severe weather and avalanche conditions. Although the building
envelope is approximately 50 feet inside the timber wedge (east of the
avalanche path), it probably is exposed to avalanches of exceptional
volume because these will spread laterally as they descend and enter
the undisturbed forest. As a rough estimate, the building site could
be reached by avalanches with return periods of 50-100 years (1-2% annual
probability). A building located here and intended for winter occupancy
i
must be designed for avalanche impact and deposition loads. Final design
criteria should be developed in conjunction with building plans and
should incl,ude:
1. Specification -of avalanche forces (resolved into mutually
perpendicular dire(ftions); and
2. Determination of loading criteria (static or impact).
None of these design parameters can be specified at present because
details of building size, shape, and orientation strongly control the
details of interaction with the structure. However, experience at many
avalanche sites in North America and Europe indicates that construction
of an "avalanche- proof" structure is feasible at this location.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations consider the avalanche characteristics
and relative hazard as discussed above.
1. Avoid placement of permanent structures within the prominent
west avalanche path.
2. Allow residential construction within the timber wedge and
inside the building envelope as specified by Mr. Jack Barker
during our field inspection on December 16, 1986 (see attached
map).
- 5-
3. Accept.. ,the avalanche risk on the driveway because this risk is
small compared with,othprs normally taken in winter travel-. -..-
Although the avalanche risk is small when compared to the risk
accepted at many mountain sites (e.g., Vail, Juneau, Ketchum, Alta),
the potential hazard should be carefully discussed with and understood
by future developers or owners of the site. They may reduce the risk
even further through learning about the nature and timing of*avalanches.
Jos
10
06
\`
:paa -
\ l rill
O _
\ - --- - i
9000
i \, • ,•' Ir II I••l \���tl lr��, \ 1 . \' Iowa
�',- ♦ / I •A a ,, 1 v haI 0j//
•.II::''1T. ''•� I� • `' '�'? �I ` 1� 1;1 Bys waCker,� i ((1( I'j
•�•,• AIL: I.�� ,� •,'� l�t - � 11� ,1 '.�, it j', adlo �Italllr nPark RCgt n ri S
sp 1ri .�.,.,, `� .II� i�• ,; 1;1-1 �,I\;•\� TQw r ��� Shalt '' \\..\ \,. I% % _
/ r�r�'•a •• M % / '\ r� 1 \ 3.r I•' \\ \� 't'
�J,./�7 ..,�''n;•,,�,'/1�,., ;,. ' al — �-,3 t, Cowe oven I ��ti. T C oh son,(,s,�
J I• %/ �y/ , A :I•Tunne I Sm ggl H ' u e(. �./l%
}ITr `1:;���/r1`i '••'._r% r `•' _., \� 1 "`�j�l• t ` SFIa
i �- '_1��/'� fr •J�• "•i 1. •••/�,� • ••� t', .,i 1�\ .� ��i.Ill n '•II �''Imt''� '\ ,1 .\'' 1 % /i I l\ i.' � 1
\....� •�n''• • /J//v• 7;/ .• ���• ' 'M` , r �1ol GI go,,
\ • • •''''^•'r 'll "i /�l< • •��J; •• �\t • \ �C �tl •,t.
QI ,' �'11 1 • t ' t / t `Q
Par •�J r� 1l�. ,,,/.�•.,.'l�•• ••l'•l i •V:h �,��\`'til'I'll , 1`' )�`. '' 11 I 1 Q I \ \
- �' •.\�,•h,-..'�; t�//`��;,)'r-�. /�,. �•,, • l�G agj nB `, ••, •.; Ij .� v j;'1 CI , ��1. `• .D 1 j�� '�
:t�\�\jpp ;;' '��/qi ,��• i 1.,,• +%'�•.�)� _ �_' IS .•�.� �.` 1 \�''t l O
�'\\.�\�\••\• \'•O1r%.. �/'1►' •Y •i� �`�% �ih'•I^ •,.,,a..i,�h�._. .,`\ ,",
_
li I, I11 ; 1� 1 ` ` ��. (! l `.i •.. ' ' . . ,�• /.�`'���. \,, ' I� Ft U44NNl
,'I ; �' � .4• �' �/: � .ter .� 9' t ' • u� ' t.l�l `•\•.'\11,1 % �.
anll- , /p'�� �/ ,i �1 •,�' � .•'�,•'I •• �`, r� i• /'r' _ ' I •,1 • 1' r o\
l `�1. \ • . 1 \•�.' Ted r •.. \., ,.. \ 1 '\ •,.. 1\ \ l
LO
'i�'� \��\\\ � '����� -\I'If/�// 1\'\-•\ �\\ ('1 i •��,, t' 111 ',o`\\ �� �III(II1 :, I � i
1 I
\•\ � •�� /� \ ill r i' Ili'r ,1 •"1 t9� I \, ` .\;. �� �:• I \ �' .i,, � (!1 I t ( t 1. (, i � )��
li.�,� \v. �\`\, 1]) -`i I .000•�. \\`~ `\'' 1``\\\ 00•../ 1 \ �t:l� ` �GfaVei P115'-4'� ,',(','�'rr� t,' j� �/ � I,� i'(�•! '
XU__ 1) t f / ,'�•�`:\.:.��\\�. l\1.���v ••`, 1 M
��/,)i�/t � 1 1\I , � I 'f I IIt' 'f 1 , ``. \ 1 `` . \1 � t�t• \\ \� � --• � '\ ,� , 1\\` \, (��' ` I\t
IN
FIGURE 1 . Location map showing
% roxi
,, /,,. •,� .. /, /! �, app mate positions of site '•'�
V\
�C 11� „Xrr and avalanche path.
Scale: 1" 2000' -7!
r
11�Lit-L(�1A�
Juno 20, 1996
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Co 81611
Please accept this letter as authorization for the firm of Gibson
ar�d Reno Architects L.L.C.located at 210 East Hyman Avenue,. Suite
202, Aspen,.Colorado (970) 925 5968 to submit and.process the
application for an 8040 Greenline Review on my behalf.
Sincerely,
ighlands Investments, Ltd
June 20, 19%
AapwVRtldn Co=nudty Devellopm ew I161 at t
130 South CW= Street
Aspen, Coloodo 81611
please accept this 1e= as authoa ration for the firm of Gibson and Reno Amhimata
L.L.C., located at 210 Bast Hyman Avenue, Suite 202. Aspo, Colorado 8 1611 (970)
M-5%8 to submit and pnx=s the Application for an SM Graenline Review on my
behalf.
Sinomniy,
;&M1^�
2
Ran7
n
LAW OFFICES OF
BROOKE A. PETERSON KAUFMAN & PETERSON, P.C. TELEPHONE
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN* (970) 925-8166
ERIN L. FERNANDEZ" FACSIMILE
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (970) 925-1090
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
HAL S. DISHLER
• ALSO ADMITTED IN MARYLAND
•' ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA
• ALSO ADMITTED IN TEXAS
VIA HAND DELIVERY
June 28, 1996
Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please allow this letter to serve as the disclosure of
ownership required by the land use regulations of the City of Aspen
concerning Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. At the present time, according
to the records of Pitkin County, Colorado, Lot 3 of the Hoag
Subdivision is owned by Highlands Investment, Ltd. and Karen
Johnson. These entities acquired title to this property by virtue
of a Treasurer's Deed issued November 23, 1994, recorded in
Book 767 at Page 778 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado.
The Property is affected by the following reservations and
easements:
1. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and
remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or
intersect the premises hereby granted and right of way for ditches
or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as
reserved in United States Patent recorded August 26, 1949 in
Book,175 at Page 229.
2. Easement and right of way for ski lift purposes granted
by Hoag Investment Associates, Ltd., a Colorado Limited Partner-
ship, to Little Annie Limited Partnership, a Colorado Limited
Partnership, in instrument recorded February 12, 1981 in Book 404
at Page 167 and Page 169.
3. Easement and right of way for access purposes, as granted
by Hoag Investment Associates, Ltd., a Colorado Limited Partnership
to the Owners of Lot 4, Hoag Subdivision, in instrument recorded
November 7, 1980 in Book 398 at Page 639.
Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department
June 28, 1996
Page 2
4. Easement and right of way for multi -recreational trail
purposes granted by Jack Barker to The City of Aspen in instrument
recorded February 24, 1988'in Book 557 at Page 729 and in instru-
ment recorded in Book 610 at Page 877.
5. All matters in regard to the easement and right of way
for access purposes, as granted by The United States Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management to Blue Sky Corporation in
instrument recorded December 27, 1977 in Book 341 at Page 11,
August 23, 1978 in Book 353 at Page 316.
6. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on
Plat of subject property recorded November 5, 1971 in Plat Book 4
at Page 218.
7. All matters as set forth in Easement Agreement by and
between Gordon Miller, Stanley R. Shaffran and Joseph S. Zaluba and
Ronald C. Collen recorded June 17, 1992 in Book 681 at Page 147 and
re -recorded June 25, 1992 in Book 681 at Page 873.
Based upon my review of the records of Pitkin County,
Colorado, there are no other agreements, liens or easements of
record which affect the subject property. Should you have any need
for any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Yours very truly,
KAU
A P,
BAP/ 1 j k
cc: Gibson & Reno Architects
let ters\asp-pit.conl
IN
Ion
Aspe'n
. .^e ,(8 M 7907)
i 82� ,�'; ' ' • •••. ••4 • � ' . .� J 8se. , Cowen over,
�� ((( r • •• f o • •r,40 •• lot• `�• • °•Di sal •Tunnel
It
lost,•
so
Is
• �i •, r ` ••• r�",� `VJ �,
• f r� p all is Xx
No Oft
as
YIN
• > ` �' �/(� '1�t.: -�\� � ..CPS, � ••� • 71 � � ••. ,'+� .�
-44
.., . .
..
OD a
z C AV AL
so. so
l 11 ���) � !('(��1�� I('( � � 1 � �1` �• // �� � ••• a / • •
I ry
84
� •
Tah
Ut
i,fj00
1(
Vicinity Map
sly �-na�
rl.
Lcrr I
e
1 1
r S �z o
s.�
KO, A-M
0
\ -
\ N6 v
U w
,cn
Z
EDGE OF AVALANCHE PATH x ��? �� � p 0 U
/ Site Bev. 140'-0" - BLdlding Elev. 100'-0" w
/ QJ 0 W a
J Q Z z
wQ
, Q C�
/ Z
/ p (n w
cr M o
/ a C7 c
--,�------------_--------.-•% Site Plan......._
UTILITY EASEMENT / r=30'-0."
L
V
Unexcavated
Existing Grade
Lower Level
96"-O" -
er Level
Finish Grade
Existing Grade
- Cedar Shakes
Show Gatrds (TYp.)
East Elevation
Cedar Shakes
Wood Siding
Snow Gatrds (Typ.)
Upper Level
112"-6"
Stone Veneer
Log Accents
Log Railings
Main Level
102"-6""
Finish Grade
1/8"=.T-O""
Main Level
w♦
• �r
.. .•
�r
• ••
0
0
Z�
00
00
�a
N.
Z
00
0 1
ZZ
0
0
mM�y.
cc
W�
Q �I
w
ar
a
7,6
r
r
r
0
Q
0
J
0
West Elevation
9/8"=-r-Q..
Lower Le
96.-0..
Building Section
pis••=r-o••
Fe,
0
Z
0 r
0
U �
O
Q
o
Z�W
a
00 Ja
J
V N
j 7 HN
= ui
0 cc Z
Q W
W •d
J Q ZQ
>g a�
Z�
w 0a
(1)W
mo
IL U c
Exhibit B
Memorandum
TO: Suzanne Wolf, Community Development
FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department
DATE: August 28, 1996
RE: Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review & Conditional Use Review for
ADU (Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3)
The Parks Department has reviewed the submitted application and offers the following
comments:
The previous proposal for development of this lot estimated that 57 trees of varying
diameter would be lost to the proposed house construction and lot development. This
was calculated to be a loss of approximately 416 caliper inches of trees or if caliper
inches were not made up on site a payment -in -lieu fee of $97,667. No landscape plan has
been submitted with the proposal, however, the applicant should be made aware of the
possible tree mitigation impact. We would ask that a condition of approval require a
landscape plan be submitted as soon as possible and that no building permit will be
issued without a tree permit being obtained first ( a minimum of two weeks prior to
submitting a building permit). On large tree removal permits we have sometimes asked
that the total mitigation fee be held in escrow until landscaping is complete. However, we
can work with the applicant on this issue when a landscape plan is submitted. All trees to
be preserved on site must be protected during construction including placement of
protective fencing around the dripline of the trees.
The other concern with the application is the utility easement as it crosses the trail
easement. The trail easement must be the brought back to the same condition or better
after utilities are installed. This may include requiring the applicant to stabilize the bank
on the south side of the trail easement to prevent future erosion of the bank.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Suzanne Wolff
FROM: Sara Thomas, City Zonin - -
RE: Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use
Review for ADU (Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3)
DATE: August 6, 1996
1125 Ute Avenue is located in the Conservation Zone, which has the following
dimensional requirements:
Front Yard - 100 feet
Side Yard - 30 feet
Rear Yard - 30 feet
Height - 28 feet
FAR - No requirement
The proposed residence does not comply with the front yard setback and will be required
to apply to the Board of Adjustment for a setback variance.
All heights and FAR calculations will be verified when working drawings are submitted
to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included in the
application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review.
MEMO
To: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department
From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal
Subject: 1125 Ute Avenue, Hoag Subdivision Lot #3
Date: August 13, 1996
Suzanne,
As per conversations with Augie Reno this structure is to be completely protected by a
residential fire sprinkler system, as approved by the Fire Marshal's Office.
Also an approved fire apparatus turnaround is being constructed between the Hoag and
Newfoundland lots.
This project shall also meet all other codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection
District.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me.
Ed
AUG 09 '96 09:57AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC
P. I
MEMORANDUM
T0141 Suzanne WoBT, Communfty Development Dept.
pg. 11�
FATEI: August 9, 1996
RE; Valeirloijohnson Review for an ADU
Parcel ID No. 2737-18248401
1%&U JE: The applicant is requesting to build a 412 square foot studio ADU to be located in the
lower level of a single-family residence.
77F-All 1 0-4
st:
f r
sz
jo it
4. an accessory dwelling unit deed restdotion be recorded before building permit approval
(this form is provided by the Housing Office); and
5. inspection of the unit by the Housing Office prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
Z F.7 17,71T =7 I -
✓7spel2 C012SO11�(afeo(6anilalio12 !Z)i lI 7Cf R E 77""1 .,�.,�,.
565 North Mill Street `� ��
Aspen, Colorado 81611 AVO
996
Tele. (970) 925-3601 FAX #(970) 92 -2537
Sy Kelly • Chairman
Albert Bishop Treas. Frank Loushin
Louis Popish • Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
August 2, 199E
Suzanne Wolff
Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Hoag Subdivision lot 3
Dear Suzanne:
I have enclosed a copy of our comments from the Newfoundland Lode
Mining application of 1994. I believe this is the same area/lot
and the concerns expressed at that time remain accurate. We will
need the applicant to produce tax receipts illustrating inclusion
in our'District if we are to serve the development. We would
require the inclusion of the entire lot/claim.
Capacity is available at this time, and service is contingent
upon compliance with the District's Rules, Regulations, and
Specifications which are on file at the District office. Since we
are still not part of the building department's permit process,
we would request that all connection costs be paid prior to
issuance of a building permit, as a condition of approval.
We will be able to estimate fees for the primary residence and
ADU once detailed plans are made available to our office. There
is a downstream constraint that will. be eliminated through a
prorated system of additional fees.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely.
Bruce Mather 1 y
District Manager
EPA Awards of Excellence
1976 • 1986 • 1990
Regional and National
October 11, 1994
Rick Magi I I
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Newfoundland Lode Mining Claim
request for vested rights
Dear Rick:
Sanitation concerns are addressed in item 7. page 5 of Resolution
91-87 which states "prior to the issuance of a building permit
the Applicant shall obtain a letter from the ACSD stating that
this site can and will be served by the District".
The only thing that I would add is to require the applicant to
include the entire parcel into the District. From reviewing our
maps, it looks as though the dwelling unit area may be currently
included in our service area., but most of the Newfoundland claim
appears to be outside our boundaries. We would normally require
the entire parcel to be included, in the event that the parcel is
developed further in the future. I have the required paperwork
here at the office® It's a relatively simple process that the
applicant pays for. Verification of inclusion can be determined
from the applicant's property tax receipts.
Since the time of the 1991 Resolution, a downstream constraint
has been identified. It will be eliminated through a system of
fee surcharges based upon prorated shares. As usual, service will
be contingent upon compliance with the District's Rules and
Regulations which are on file at the District office.
Please call if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
MEMORANDUM
To: . Suzaiule Wolff, City Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer � S
Date: August 27, 1996
Re: Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use Review for an ADU
(1125 Ute Avenue, City of Aspen: Lot 3) Hoag Subdivision, Aspen, CO)
After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the
combined comments made by the members of the DRC:
Summary
From the information provided in the application and a review of the site, we do not see any
condition which would preclude development of this property given proper site design, utility
design, and structural design of the improvements by the property owner's architect and consulting
engineer. We will accept a construction design signed and stamped by the applicant's engineer who
is a current Colorado registered professional engineer practicing within his/her area of expertise.
1. Parcel Suitability for Development: As discussed in the submitted report Avalanche
Hazard Analysis. Baker Property, Aspen, Colorado by Arthur I. Mears, P.E. (January 1987), the
avalanche exposure of the building site may be minimized by locating permanent improvements in
the eastern portion of the lot although an avalanche of "exceptional volume" could reach the
building site according to this report. We concur with the recommendations of the report that, in
addition to building site location, that the following considerations be fully addressed in the
development plans for the property:
• Design criteria should include specification of avalanche forces land determination of loading
criteria, and ?
• Limiting construction of permanent structures to the area within the timber wedge on the
eastern portion of the lot.
1 OF 4
DRCM2096.DOC
Memo - Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use Review for an ADU
Since the submitted report is nine and one-half years (9 1/2 yr.) old at this time, advances 'in
avalanche resistant design and construction should be applied as appropriate.
The owner should also confirm the location and depth of the existing mining tunnels that underlie
the property to avoid areas susceptible to subsidence or rupture. During the site review, I noticed
that the mine tunnel portal at the corner of the switchback in the old roadway (western portion of
the property) is partially open. This portal opening is an "attractive nuisance" and should be
properly and permanently closed since it lies within fifteen feet (15 ft) of, if not within, a public
trail easement.
Since the proposed site design uses a driveway route through the adjacent property to the east rather
than the existing roadway / driveway which lies in the identified avalanche path on the western
portion of the property, the avalanche exposure associated with the use of this previous access route
has been effectively avoided.
2. Watershed, Erosion, Site Drainage, and Grading: While this application package does
not contain a grading or landscaping site plan, disruption of the watershed and increased soil
erosion may be controlled by minimizing the graded and defoliated land areas. (The text of the
application states "... the remainder of the site will be left undisturbed.... ". Presumably, this means
the area outside of the building envelope.)
One of the considerations of a development application for conditional use is the availability and
adequacy of public facilities to service the proposed use. One public facility that is inadequate is
the City storm sewer system. As such, the new development cannot release more than historic (pre -
development) storm run-off flows from the site and any increase in historic storm run-off flows
must be first routed and detained on the site. A drainage report and plan must be included in the
final improvement plans submitted for the building permit. (No drainage report nor plan were
included in the submitted application.)
The final site grading plan should retain the existing overland sheet flow drainage pattern for the
lot. If the site drainage is concentrated or channelized, a drainage system will need to be designed
and built to convey the drainage to an appropriate and adequate drainage facility without causing
flooding, erosion nor other damage to adjacent or downstream properties. Presently there are
inadequate public storm drainage facilities to serve this area of the City.
c>
3. Roadway Access, Driveway and Parking: The proposed roadway access from an
extension of the driveway to the adjacent property to the east (Newfoundland Lode, Pitkin County)
with a turn -around area for fire and emergency vehicles is acceptable. While the site design,
including access driveway, of the adjacent property was reviewed and approved by Pitkin County
and this application did not include any information about the geometry of the driveway outside of
the property lines of Lot 3, the applicant should provide adequate access (e.g. mutual access
2 OF 4
DRCM2096.DOC
Memo - Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use Review for an ADU
agreement, easements) prior to approval of this application. Typical minimum access for fire and
emergency vehicles is twenty feet (20 ft) of year-round, unobstructed roadway width and an area of
sufficient width for turning around these vehicles, particularly on a cul-de-sac road of over 150 feet
in length which is built on a grade of more than five percent (5%).
The applicant and his neighbors should also coordinate site designs and driveway construction to
provide adequate area(s) for snow storage and removal. The parking configuration will need to be
shown on the final improvement plans submitted for the building permit.
4. Utilities and Utility Easements: The applicant will need to extend utility service to the
property since there are no utilities readily available. In keeping with the need to minimize grading,
removing vegetation, limiting erosion, and preserving the scenic qualities of the area, extension of
underground utilities should be placed primarily in the new driveway, diagonal to the fall -line of
the slope. Since the dedicated utility easements around the Hoag Subdivision lots are
approximately parallel to the slope fall -line, use of these easements should be avoided or
minimized in extending utility services to this lot. Any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or
other above ground equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the property owner
and not located in the public rights -of -way. This will avoid any conflict with use of the rights -of -
way for public facilities and improvements.
All existing and any new easements for utilities must be shown on the final improvement plans and
be recorded prior to issuance of the building permit.
The existing fifteen foot (15 ft) utility and public trail easement along the property line common
with Hoag Subdivision Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5 has been previously identified as the most desirable
routing of area -wide storm drainage improvements for the Spar Gulch basin further up -slope thus
must be left unencumbered for this purpose.
5. Nordic Ski Trail Access: Access to and use of the Nordic ski trail needs to be
coordinated with the site design, particularly the intersection of the driveway and the Nordic ski
trail. While we understand that the design of the retaining wall, presently under construction along
the southern side of the driveway was approved by Pitkin County, we have not seen any design
plans for the intersection of the Nordic ski trail.
Several designs may be used for this intersection including grading the Nordic ski trail down to
cross the driveway at a diagonal; building wooden stairs for sidestepping between the grades of the
driveway and Nordic ski trail; or a combination of these. In any case, proper grading to minimize
erosion and drainage problems needs to be built into the intersection. Adequate mutual, site
distance of vehicle drivers on the driveway and skiers on the Nordic trail for one another a, so needs
to be factored into the design to minimize conflicts between the two uses.
3 OF 4
DRCM2096.DOC
Memo - Valerio/Johnson 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use Review for an ADU
6. Improvement Districts: The property owner will be required to agree to join any
future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which
benefit the property under an assessment formula. The agreement must be executed and recorded
prior to issuance of the building permit for the project.
7. Record Drawings: Prior to C.O. issuance the building pen -nit applicant will be required
to submit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Data Processing Dept. as-builts drawings for the project
showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities
entering the property boundaries and any other improvements.
4 OF 4
DRCM2096.DOC
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director
r
RE: Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 3 (Top of Mill Site) and Lot 5 (Grande Aspen Site)
Conceptual Review - Continued Public Hearing
DATE: September 3, 1996
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission as held a series of hearings for both Lots 3 and 5 of
the Aspen Mountain PUD since March of 1996. At this point, staff has been directed to prepare a set of
conditions that will be considered by the Commission for a recommendation to City Council.
No formal motions have been voted on by the Commission, so staff has prepared several motions for
consideration. Staff notes that each of these proposed motions are available to the Commission, based on
compliance or non-compliance with the standards included within the Aspen Land Use Code. Staff has
summarized compliance with these criteria in a series of prior staff memorandums. The standards are
repeated here to allow the Commission to reference specific criteria during discussion of the range of
motions open to the Commission.
PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW: The project is being processed as a four -step application, with reviews
occurring at different steps.
Staff has summarized the timing of specific requests below.
Step 1- P & Z
Step 2 - Council tep 3 - P & Z Step 4 -Council
Conceptual PUD
--1
Conceptual PUD
inal PUD
(Rezoning
Final PUD
Subdivision (Lot 3)
Subdivision (Lot 3)ext
Amendment
Text Amendment
Conditional Use
8040 Greenline
Rezoning
March - August 1996
Viewplane
September 1996 Not Scheduled Not Scheduled
Notes: Italics represent public hearings
APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR CONCEPTUAL PUD REVIEW: Pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of
the Aspen Municipal Code, a development application for PUD review shall comply with the following
standards and requirements. These standards are applicable for both Lots 3 and 5.
1
General Requirements
A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the
surrounding area.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding
area.
D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments
are obtained by the applicant.
SUBDIVISION: Pursuant to Section 26.88 of the Aspen Municipal Code, land which is subdivided into
two or more lots for purposes of transfer of ownership and/or development is by definition a subdivision
and is subject to the City's review and approval. These criteria are only applicable to Lot 3 (Top of Mill)
parcel. The various review criteria are summarized below:
1. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the
surrounding area.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding
area.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter.
S The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of
flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep
topography, or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the
health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
6. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause ineff ciencies,
duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Proposed Conditions of Approval For Lot 5 (Grand Aspen Site)
1. All representations of the applicant, either contained in the application or stated in meetings before
the Planning and Zoning Commission are considered conditions of approval.
2. At the time of Final PUD submittal, the applicant shall present a detailed plan for the proposed
pedestrian mall linking the Ritz and the Little Nell. These plans shall include detailed landscaping plans,
pavement treatment, proposed lighting, and any proposed street furniture.
2
3. At the time of Final PUD submittal, the applicant shall submit plans, in cooperation with the
Community Development Department, proposing enhancements of the Ice Rink to increase the public use
of the existing space. Proposals may include physical modifications or amendments to the range of uses
currently allowed in the site.
4. At the time of Final. PUD submittal, the applicant shall provide a detailed landscape plan indicating
the treatment of exterior spaces in the proposed development. . The landscape plan shall include the
following:
a. The extent and location of all plant materials and other landscape features;
b. Flower and shrub bed definition;
C. Proposed plant material at mature sizes in appropriate relation to scale;
d. Species and size of existing plant material;
e. Proposed treatment of all ground surfaces (e.g. paving, turf, and gravel);
f. Location of water outlets;
g. A plant schedule with common botanical names, sizes, quantities, and method of
transplant.
5. At that time of final PUD submittal, the applicant shall submit a proposed lighting plan, including
location and design features to ensure that the fixtures are consistent with existing lighting features.
6. At the time of final PUD submittal, the applicant shall submit a statement outlining a development
schedule specifying the date construction is proposed to be initiate and completed, any proposed public
facilities the developer is proposing to construct, and the phasing and construction of the public facilities.
The plan shall ensure that impacts to adjacent property owners and public rights -of way are minimized to
the maximum extent practical.
7. The applicant shall comply withall representations summarized in a memo from the Engineering
Department dated June 26, 1996.
Proposed Conditions for Lot 3 (Top of Mill)
L , All representations of the applicant, either contained within the application or stated before the City
of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council are considered conditions of approval,
unless otherwise amended by other conditions of approval.
2. The applicant shall submit a detailed proposal, acceptable to the Aspen Ski Club, for the relocation
of the Ski Club's facilities.
1.4 3. The applicant shall submit a detailed storm water drainage plan for the site at the time of Final PUD
submission.
4. The height of the Top of Mill units shall not exceed 28 feet as measured from the lowest floor
elevation to the top of a flat or mansard roof, or to a point one-third of the distance up from the eaves to the
ridge for roofs with a slope of 8:12 or greater.
3
5. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan at the time of final PUD submission which ensures, to
the maximum extent possible, the retention of existing mature vegetation and the installation of adequate
landscaping so as to minimize the visual impact of the project, particularly as viewed from Mill Street, Lift
1-A, adjacent ski terrain, and adjacent residences.
6. The applicant shall submit a plan for the relocation of the existing trail to the satisfaction of the City
of Aspen Parks and Community Development Department. If necessary, a written agreement from the
Aspen Ski Company shall be submitted at the time of final PUD submittal. In addition, the applicant shall
submit a site plan with 5 foot contours of the proposed alignment for review by staff.
7. The applicant shall re -study the proposed 4 duplex units on Lot 2 to address visual impacts on the
Fifth Avenue Condos. Potential solutions to be assessed shall include the re -orientation of the
"hammerhead" parking, the shifting of building envelopes to protect existing viewsheds of Aspen
Mountain, or the reduction of square footage or units to lessen the impacts to adjacent properties.
8. At the time of final PUD submittal, the applicant shall submit a proposed construction phasing
schedule for all improvements in the public right-of-way. Particular attention shall be paid to ensuring
existing businesses and residences retain vehicular and pedestrian access to their units to the extent
practical. Adjacent owners and residents shall be given an opportunity to review and comment on the
phasing schedule prior to submission of the plan to the City.
9. The Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes that significant Geotechnical issues remain
unresolved at this time, and in fact may change the site plan, density or unit sizes following adequate
analysis and mitigation. Prior to the submission of a final PUD plan, the applicant shall perform specific
additional studies cited in the Geotech Report dated January 12, 1996 by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical,
Inc., and the recommendations of Jeffrey Hynes, Senior Engineering Geologist for the Colorado State
Geological Survey, summarized in his review letters dated March 8, 1985 and July 18, 1996. These studies
shall be reviewed by the Colorado Geological Survey prior to a hearing before the Planning and Zoning
Commission for the Final PUD plan and other associated approvals. Specific areas of analysis still required
include the following:
a. Additional soil and foundation studies shall be completed to evaluate the site specific subsurface
and foundation conditions for each building site;
b. Additional studies to determine the impacts and required mitigation for a mining tunnel bearing of
about S220E, near the eastern side of the proposed building site on Parcel #3.
C. A debris flow mitigation plan shall be coordinated with the development of a storm water
management plan. This shall be coordinate between the Geotech engineer, site planner, architect, design
engineer and the surface water hydrologist, and the City engineering department.
d. The applicant shall work with the Aspen Skiing Company to develop a method for implementing
the remedial actions recommended in 1985 for the slope movement for the strawpile site.
4
10. All building envelopes will require 8040 greenline review. It is acknowledged by the applicant that
both specific envelopes and overall density may be altered by either Geotechnical considerations or during
review of the conceptual PUD by Council. Therefore, The 8040 Greenline Review will occur for each
separate structure during Step 3 of the PUD process.
11. Tbe ollowing ecommen ation ,r garding t Geote h Repcod shall be-submitted=by-the �.pplicant
at the ti , e o-fityAl PUD' n other su se u�t4pprovals:
12. The applicant shall re -study and address compliance with Ordinance 30, Series of 1995 at the time
of Conceptual Review by Council.
PROPOSED MOTIONS:
Motion 1- " I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend conceptual approval to City
Council for Lots 3 and 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD, with the conditions outlined in the September 3,
1996 staff memorandum."
Motion 2 - I move to recommend denial of Lot 3 for non-compliance with the following specific criteria as
stated in the Aspen Land Use Code, and recommend approval for the Lot 5 portion of the PUD with the
41
conditions outlined in the September 3, 1996 staff memorandum."
Motion 3 - I move to recommend denial of the Lot 5 portion of the project due to non-compliance with the
following specific criteria as stated in the Aspen Land Use Code, and recommend approval for the Lot 3
portion of the PUD with conditions outlined in the September 3, 1996 staff memorandum."
Motion 4 - I move to recommend denial of both Lots 3 and 5, due to non-compliance with the following
specific criteria as stated in the Aspen Land Use Code."
0