HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19950919
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
september 19, 1995, Tuesday
------------------------------------------------------------------
SITE VISITS **
4:30 - WATER PLACE
5:00 - SHADOW MOUNTAIN
5:30 - REGULAR MEETING BEGINS AT ASPEN FIRE STATION
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
Resolution
II. MINUTES
I"
III.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Independence Place SPA Designation & Conceptual SPA
Plan, Leslie Lamont (continued from July 18)
B. Shadow Mountain AH SUbdivision/PUD conceptual
Submission, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, 8040 Greenline
Review, & special Review, Mary Lackner
IV. WORK SESSION
A. Water Place Affordable Housing, Dave Michaelson
V. ADJOURN
** Please meet behind City Hall at 4:30. We will have a van for
transportation to the sites. Many members did not attend the
first Water Place site visit. These site visits are vitally
important to these reviews.
-
\......
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: September 19, 1995
Special Meeting - September 26, 4:30 PM, Aspen Fire Station
AH/RO (CH)
AACP Update (CH)
Regular Meeting - October 3
Small Lodge Text Amendments (CH/AA)
820 E. Cooper Landmark Designation (AA)
Ordinance 30 Code Amendments (LL/DM/AA)
a.nex
MEMORANDUM
E
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Historic Landmark Code Amendment Resolution
DATE: September 19, 1995
The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution for
the Jake Vickery text amendment proposal.
The Commission will need to vote on this resolution. If there is
discussion please move it onto the regular agenda.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE: September 19, 1995
RE: Independence Place - Continued Public Hearing
Staff recommends continuing the public hearing to December 19,
1995. A worksession with the City Council has been scheduled for
October 18, 1995 at noon. The purpose of the worksession will be
to reevaluate the submitted application, the outstanding issues
that remain between the Council and the applicant, and those issues
that have been resolved during the last two years of discussion.
Staff anticipates that the applicant will prepare a new application
for review., At that time a full public notice for public hearings
will be announced.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue the conceptual SPA review
of Independence Place (a.k.a. Superblock) to December 19, 1995011
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
RE: Shadow Mountain Affordable Housing Project Pre -Annexation
Review for Subdivision, PUD, Rezoning, 8040 Greenline,
GMQS Exemption, Special Review, and Ordinance 30 Design
Standards
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
DATE: September 19, 1995
REQUEST: The applicant is seeking City approval for annexation,
rezoning to the Affordable Housing zone district (AH) , Planned Unit
Development (PUD), Subdivision, GMQS Exemption, Special Review for
parking and open space, 8040 Greenline Review, and Ordinance 30
Design Standards.
The 1.26 acre parcel is proposed to accommodate 10 deed restricted
multi -family units located in two structures and four free market
single family dwelling units for a total of 14 units. A copy of
the application packet and maps are included with this memo.
SUMMARY: Staff is not recommending approval of this request at
this time. First we have a threshold issue regarding the geologic
hazards on the property. We don't believe Ian upzoning of this
parcel from one unit to 14 units and. the related increase of
population is appropriate in a rockfall, snowslide, and steep slope
area. The Planning Commission and City Council will need to make
a determination on this issue.
We request that the Planning and Zoning Commission direct the
applicant to:
o redesign the trail alignment through the project to be
located above the proposed multi -family structure;
o preserve the Midland Railroad ROW in a use and design
acceptable to the Historic Preservation Committee;
o dedicate the Government Lot 18 land sliver and the area
above the multi -family structures to the City of Aspen
as park land;
o reduce the density of the project to be compatible with
the development patterns of the neighborhood;
o transpose the location of the multi -family structures
with the free-market residences to reduce the mass, bulk,
and visual disturbance higher on the parcel.
o demonstrate the visual impact of the project, by placing
stakes where the buildings are to be located and poles
at the appropriate spots showing the height of the
structures, by providing a model of the project, showing
the relation to neighboring uses and structures, and by
providing information and site plans showing the building
envelopes for the four free-market lots.
o reduce the size of the deed restricted units as they are
proposed significantly larger than required by the
Housing Guidelines. The Housing Board and staff would
support smaller units in order to reduce the area and
bulk of the project.
APPLICANT: West Hopkins Partners, LLC
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: T. Craig Glendenning.
LOCATION: The Shadow Mountain project is located on a 1.26 acre
parcel which is bordered by West Hopkins Avenue, Mary B
Subdivision, the Pride of Aspen mining claim, and Block 32 in the
City of Aspen. This is at the base of Shadow Mountain on West
Hopkins, between 5th and 6th Street. The property is more
specifically, located in Section 12, Township 10 South and Range 85
West of the 6th P.M.
ZONING: Approximately 46,590 sq.ft. (85%) of the property is
located within Pitkin County and the remaining 8,213 sq.ft. is
located within the City of Aspen. The entire parcel is zoned R-
15.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Staff has received the following referral
comments. These comments are included in the Exhibit section of
this memorandum.
A Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
B Aspen Fire Protection District
C Aspen School District.
Aspen Water Department - comments delayed
I
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
City Engineer
Colorado State Geologic Survey
Colorado State Forest Service -
Environmental Health Department
Historic Preservation Committee
Housing Office
Parks Department
need to submit $55
Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board
Streets Department
Zoning Officer
Staff has also received public comment which is included in Exhibit
M.
2
PROCESS: The applicant has not submitted a pre -annexation
agreement to the City Attorney. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council cannot formally approve conceptual
review for this project as only 15% of the parcel is within the
City limits. The Planning Commission is being asked to make
recommendations to staff to include in the pre -annexation
agreement. Should City Council approve the pre -annexation
agreement, the applicant would receive conceptual approval at that
time.
The six step review process is as follows:
Step 1- P&Z Pre -annexation review of PUD, Rezoning,
Subdivision, 8040 Greenline, GMQS Exemption,
Special Review, and Ordinance 30 Design Review.
Public Hearing.
Step 2- CC Pre -annexation review of PUD, Rezoning,
Subdivision, 8040 Greenline, GMQS Exemption,
and Special Review. Public Hearing.
Step 3- CC Adoption of the Pre -annexation agreement by
City Council, with requirements by Planning and
Zoning Commission, HPC, City Council, and
staff. Public Hearing.
Step 4- P&Z Rezoning, Subdivision, Final -PUD, and GMQS
Exemption recommendation to Council. 8040
Greenline Review and Special Review final
approval. Public hearing.
Step 5- CC Rezoning, Subdivision, Final PUD, GMQS
Exemption, Annexation, and First reading of
Ordinance.
Step 6- CC Rezoning, Subdivision, Final PUD, GMQS
Exemption, and Annexation Second reading of
Ordinance. Public hearing.
STAFF COMMENTS: This section of the memorandum is broken down into
the following categories to review compliance with the adopted land
use regulations of the City of Aspen:
Subdivision 7-1004
Planned Unit Development 7-901
Rezoning to Affordable Housing
GMQS Exemption 8-104
8040 Greenline Review 7-503
Special Review 7-401
Ordinance 30 Design Review
3
5-206.2 and 7-1102
subdivision
The creation of 5 lots requires subdivision approval from the City.
Each of the four free market single family homes will be on a
separate lot and one lot is proposed for the 10 affordable dwelling
units. Section 7-1004.0 sets the following review standards for
subdivision applications:
l.a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) was adopted in
January 1993.
The Housing Action Plan does not identify this site as a potential
site for affordable housing development. This Plan does identify
the Madsen apartments on W. Hopkins to be bought down to preserve
their affordable nature. The Plan further recommends that the
Gramiger property, at the corner of Seventh and W. Hopkins, would
be a "good location for moderate density single family to low
density multi -family." Due to the similar nature of the Shadow
Mountain property and the Gramiger site, staff believes a moderate
density single family or low density multi -family affordable
housing project would be appropriate.
To be consistent with the AACP the applicant will need to follow
the recommendations of the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan by
providing low scale pedestrian lighting and a sidewalk along W.
Hopkins and constructing an off -road trail at the base of Shadow
Mountain. The applicant has indicated a sidewalk/nordic trail
along W. Hopkins, however staff does not find this meets the
recommendations of the AACP.
The Open Space/Recreation and Environmental Action Element of the
AACP recommends the reestablishment of irrigation ditches. There
is the opportunity to obtain a ditch easement from the developer
at this time and staff recommends that this be granted to the City.
This element of the AACP also encourages projects that "integrate
the development of affordable housing and maintenance of open
space." Staff sees the Shadow Mountain project as an opportunity
to meet this goal, if the recommended redesign of the project is
followed.
The Growth Action Plan recommends a minimum of 60% affordable
housing with new residential subdivisions. The applicant will need
to meet this goal as the AH zone district requires a minimum of 60
percent of the bedrooms of the entire project to be located within
deed restricted units. The applicant is proposing a deed
restricted to free market bedroom mix of 59 % to 41%. There is
also some question as to whether the dens and studies illustrated
on the floor plans will later be converted to bedrooms. (The.
n
I"
applicant is at the maximum density permitted for units and number
of bedrooms and cannot convert a den or study to meet the 60%
bedroom requirement.)
The Midland Railroad ROW, which is on the Aspen inventory of
Historic places, bisects this parcel. The preservation of this
historic railroad alignment needs to be integrated into this
project to maintain the historic significance of the railroad to
the community. Staff is asking the applicant to redesign the
project to preserve this historic feature.
The applicant's project does not comply with the AACP because the
Midland Railroad ROW has not been preserved, the project does not
meet a minimum of 60% deed restricted bedrooms, and there is no
off -road trail located through the parcels as recommended by the
Plan.
1.b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in this area.
Response: The Shadow Mountain neighborhood contains a mix of
lodges, multi -family, duplex and single family dwelling units,
located primarily in the R-15, R-6, and LP zone districts. The
adjoining property in the County is zoned AF-1 which is a 10 acre
zone district.
Under the existing development regulations this parcel .is permitted
one free market dwelling unit. A second dwelling unit may be
requested through the metro area GMQS competition.
The project will be significantly more dense than the neighboring
development. Whereby there are. several single family homes on
parcels ranging in size from 6,000 sq.ft. to 1.3 acres. in the
neighborhood. The three 3,000 parcels proposed for the free market
residences will be out of character with the neighborhood. Due to
their relatively high density and mass on a small parcel of land.
The height of the multi -family units on Shadow Mountain at an
elevation of 7945 feet will be the highest development along W.
Hopkins on the mountain..
To better address the transition of the denser City of Aspen
Townsite parcels with the mountainside, staff believes that the
multi -family units be placed on the flat portions of the lot
adjacent to the road. The free market lots are less dense and can
be located at a higher elevation, thereby making a more gradual
development progression across and up the parcel.
Staff believes the development of this parcel should reflect the
transition of the original City of Aspen Townsite with the
environmentally constrained and visually sensitive nature of Shadow
Mountain. To reach this concept, staff is recommending that the
density of the project be reduced to better reflect the sensitive
environment and the neighborhood.
1.c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas.
Response: The mining claims on Shadow Mountain would be most
suitable for purchase by the City and/or County for open space
lands. The Gramiger Parcel is recommended for a moderate density,
single family, affordable project. The remaining properties are
unlikely to develop beyond their potential for one unit, unless AH
proposals are also submitted for them. Staff does not believe the
development of the Shadow Mountain project will adversely affect
the future development of these surrounding properties.
1.d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
Response: The proposed development will be required to comply with
the requirements of the AH zone district and relevant provisions
of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
2.a. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock
or soil creep, mudf low, 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.
Response: As discussed in the 8040 Greenline Review, staff has
concern with geologic hazards which include potentially unstable
slopes, fault line, rockfall, drainage, snowslide, and subsurface
conditions and their affects on the residents of the proposed
subdivision. There is also a concern of wildfire hazard which the
Colorado State Forest Service has addressed.
2.b. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or
premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary
public costs.
Response: No inefficient spatial patterns, premature extension of
public facilities or unnecessary public costs will be created by
the proposed development. Any infrastructure improvements or
upgrades that are required to serve this project will be the
responsibility of the developer. During the review process
financial assurances will need to be specified to insure completion
of the project.
Planned Unit Development
0
The applicant is seeking a variance from Section 7-1004 (C) (4) (a) (3)
which requires a minimum width of 60 feet for local streets to a
proposed width of 34 feet. The PUD provisions of the Code do not
permit a variance for street widths. Ordinance 69, Series of 1994,
permits special review consideration for variances of road design
standards. This item is further discussed under the Special Review
section of this memorandum.
The applicant's inability to meet the 60% bedroom count cannot be
varied under the PUD provisions. This issue is discussed under
the Project Issues section of this memorandum.
No other variances are requested through the PUD provisions,
however the applicant is requesting a PUD overlay on the project.
Staff supports the request for a PUD overlay due to the steep
slopes on the parcel. The slope density reduction calculation
prepared for this property reduces the developable area from 54,803
sq.ft. to 30,609 sq.ft.. The applicant's proposed unit mix
requires 30,450 sq.ft. of lot area.
At Final review the applicant will
landscaping plan, an architectural
facility plan, and a traffic and
review by the Planning Commission
be required to submit a detailed
site plan, lighting plan, public
pedestrian circulation plan for
and City Council.
Rezoning (Amendment to the Zone District Map)
As part of the annexation of this
of the property is required. The
property be zoned AH when it is
Section 7-1102 establishes the
rezoning application.
property into the City, rezoning
applicant is requesting that the
annexed into the City of Aspen.
following review criteria for a
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable.portions of this chapter.
Response: The proposed development will need to comply with all
provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: As discussed under the Subdivision section of this memo,
the applicant's proposal is currently not consistent with the AACP.
Staff is recommending that this application be tabled so that
redesign of the project can take place that will make it consistent
with the recommendations of the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of residential and
lodge uses. As discussed under the Subdivision section of this
memo, staff believes this parcel can accommodate a project that is
a transition from the more dense City of Aspen Townsite with the
environmentally constrained and visually sensitive nature of Shadow
Mountain. The proposed 14 unit project would need to.be reduced
and reverse the multi -family and free market units location to be
consistent with this requirement.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety.
Response: The applicant has determined that this project will
generate 57.6 total average daily traffic trips, based on an
assumption that there is a"strong transit system" in place. Staff
disagrees with the use of "strong transit system" and prefers a
more moderate approach as was taken for the Williams Ranch Project.
Using the next slightly less restrictive category of "weak transit
system" the project generates 74 daily traffic trips.
The traffic report (Exhibit N of the application) summarizes that
the increase in traffic generated by the project will not decrease
existing access routes beyond an operating capacity of Level of
Service "A". This report does not mention the potential bicycle
and vehicle conflicts on W. Hopkins which is a designated
pedestrian and bicycle commuter route, nor does it address the
traffic constraints on Main Street (the closest primary street to
the project) .
Like the Williams Ranch project, there are road constraints in the
Shadow Mountain/Main Street neighborhood that will be impacted by
the increase of vehicle trips by this project. Staff recommends
that the applicant submit a traffic analysis addressing proposed
road improvements and Main Street capacity prior to City Council
review, as there is not enough information to adequately determine
if the road system can accommodate this additional traffic. The
applicant will be responsible for mitigating impacts related to the
traffic generation of this project.
E. Whether and the 'extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether
and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
Response: The applicable utilities have indicated an ability to
serve .this project. Recent long-range planning discussions have
indicated increased level of attendance at the public schools.
Since the affordable housing aspect of this project targets
families, there will be an increase use of the school system. This
application has been referred to the school district who has
requested that the applicant comply with the proposed Aspen School
District land dedication requirements for appropriate school impact
mitigation.
There is a significant drainage problem along W. Hopkins that needs
to be addressed in more detail prior to Final Review by a licenced
engineer.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: Upon buildout of this project, there will be a
substantial change to the visual character of the site due to road
and building excavation. There should be no significant impact to
the natural environment if the recommendations of the professional
reports addressing soil stability, construction methods, rockfall
mitigation, and wildfire mitigation are followed. It is estimated
about a dozen trees will need to be removed to accommodate the
proposed development. The applicant will need to work with the
Parks Department to determine adequate mitigation.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen.
Response: There are several issues associated with this project
that relate to community character. The Midland Railroad ROW needs
to be preserved as a community benefit, the development to an
elevation of 7945 is inconsistent with existing development
patterns, and the proposed nordic/sidewalk trail is a cumbersome
design which is not consistent with the character of the remainder
of the Shadow Mountain trail. All structures associated with the
project are subject to the Ordinance 30 design review guidelines.
There are several elements of these criteria that the applicant
does not meet. This is discussed further in under the Ordinance
30 Design Review section of this memorandum.
As proposed staff does not believe the proposal is consistent and
compatible with the community character.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which
support the proposed amendment.
Response: The parcel has been vacant for
changes have affected the subject property
supports the proposed amendment.
9
many years. No recent
or neighborhood which
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
Response: The proposal seeks to add affordable housing to the
community which is provided by the private sector. The project
supports the purpose of the AH zone district and the AACP.
GMQS Exemption
Ordinance 54 of 1994, substantially amended GMQS for residential
and affordable housing development for the City of Aspen and the
metro area of Pitkin County.
Section 8-104 (A) (1) Annual Development Allotments limits the number
of free market residential associated with AH projects to 8 units
per year, Resident Occupied to 8 units per year, and Affordable
Housing (category 1-4) units to 43 per year. Presently, none of
these allotments has been awarded to any project. They are granted
by City Council (or the BOCC if located in the County) on a first
come, first serve basis.
To qualify for the Resident Occupied and Affordable Housing unit
exemptions the units must be deed restricted in accordance with the
housing guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
The review for such housing, number, location, size, sale/rental
mix, and proposed price categories of the units should all be
considered. The applicant is proposing 4 RO units, 6 Category 4
deed restricted units, and 4 free market dwelling units. The deed
restricted units are proposed as follows:
of Units Type of Unit Approx. Size Price
4 2 Bedroom, RO units 1,350 sq. ft. Market
3 2 Bedroom, Category 4 1,100 sq . ft . $193, 200
3 1 Bedroom, Category 4 1,000 sq.ft. $182,600
Staff has concern that the applicant is providing only high end
affordable housing units, and that none are proposed in the
Category 1-3 range. The 1995 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Guidelines establish the following priorities for the development
of affordable housing:
Entry level sales units (studio and 1 bedroom - Categories 1,
2, and lower priced Category 3);
Rental units (Categories 1, 2, and lower priced Category 3;
Family -oriented sales units (Categories 3 and 4); and
All other unit types are of secondary preference.
10
As proposed, the applicant is only providing units that are of
secondary preference to the Housing Office.
8040 Greenline Review
The Shadow Mountain project is subject to 8040 Greenline Review
because development is located within 150 feet of the 8040
elevation line. At Final Review the Planning Commission grants
8040 Greenline Review. This provision is included in the pre -
annexation review so that potential issues and concerns can be
identified.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be
located is suitable for development considering its
slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine
substance and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and
avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain
hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize
and revegetate the soils, or where necessary, cause them
to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to
the city.
Response: The 1041 Hazard Maps adopted by Pitkin County indicate
possible geologic hazards on this parcel which include potentially
unstable slopes, fault line, rockfall, drainage, snowslide, and
subsurface conditions. Since it is a parcel this is primarily
located within Pitkin County, it is prudent to provide an
evaluation under the County 1041 Hazard Review regulations.
The applicant has submitted a preliminary geologic report which
assesses the subsurface conditions of the property which is
included in Exhibits J, K and L of the application.
There is evidence of mine waste on this property which the
Environmental Health Department has recommended to remain on -site
but be covered by structures, paving, or one foot of topsoil and
revegetated.
The primary concern of the Colorado Geologic Survey is with the
rockfall hazard. Mr. Jeffery Hynes concurs with the findings of
the CLT/Thompson and Nick Lampiris reports and reiterates the need
for a rockfall protective structure to be located upslope of the
development. However, he notes there is nothing in the narrative
or drawings to indicate any commitment to such a structure. CGS
cannot recommend approval of this application without a commitment
of a rockfall protective structure.
It should be noted that since this parcel is currently under the
jurisdiction of Pitkin County, the County would be bound to
recommending denial of any development on this site. Section 8-
105(D)(1) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code states: "Development
is prohibited within Rockfall Areas. In the event that there is
M
no hazard -free area on a site and a development application is
subsequently denied, an applicant may petition the BOCC for
consideration under Takings Determination." The fact that the BOCC
would deny one single family residence on.this parcel due to the
rockfall hazard should be carefully considered by the Commission.
A hazard is present, and applicant is considering an upzoning of
the property from one single family dwelling unit to a total of 14
units, the risk of rockfall hazard and the increase of population
at its base does increase the risk of development within this
hazard area.
Snowslides have been addressed in the Lampiris report included in
Exhibit N of the memo. Mr. Lampiris concludes that snowslides can
reach the rear of the proposed structures, but he believes that a
strong, reinforced concrete wall could be built. He further
recommends that this wall be designed by an avalanche mitigation
expert for the specific design parameters.
Approximately 50% of the parcel consists of slopes in excess of
20%. The remaining 50% is less than 20%. Portions of both multi-
family buildings are located on slopes between 20-30% and some
areas are in excess of 40% slope. For reference, the County
discourages development on slopes in excess of 15% but allows some
mitigation in these areas and fully prohibits development on slopes
greater than 30%.
Mr. Lampiris has also concluded that, "Soil subsidence cannot be
evaluated at this time without drilling or geophysical techniques
being utilized." Staff is requesting more detailed information on
soil subsidence prior to submission for final review so this can
be adequately addressed.
The CTL/Thompson report cautions the developer that the proposed
excavation for the parking garage will be difficult because of
boulders and a significant amount of rock excavation of bedrock
will be required. It is also anticipated that groundwater will
enter the excavation. CTL/Thompson is recommending another
subsurface investigation to determine the bedrock surface
elevation. Staff has concern that the geologic.conditions on the
property will require significant financial resources to develop.
Staff has concern that this parcel is encumbered by several
geologic hazards, some of which have not been fully evaluated at
this time. While working. in concert with Pitkin County, we have
trouble justifying an upzoning of this parcel from one single
family residence to 14 dwelling units and subjecting a larger
population to the geologic hazards present. This is a threshold
issue that the City must consider prior to annexation of this
parcel.
12
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: There is presently a significant drainage problem on
West Hopkins Ave. The applicant has not addressed how their
proposal will help alleviate this existing,problem.
The applicant will need to take appropriate measures to control
runoff and prevent soil erosion both during construction and post
construction phases of the development. At Final Review the
applicant shall address the methods used to control runoff and soil
erosion during all phases of the project.
There is no storm drain system along W. Hopkins Ave.. Therefore,
the size and the leach capacity of the proposed retention/detention
areas will be critical. Water captured on -site cannot find its way
to Hopkins Ave.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant
adverse affect on the air quality in the city.
Response: The applicant will need to comply with the City
requirements which prohibit all woodburning devices, allow two
certified devices per building, and permit an unlimited number of
decorative gas appliances.
Since the applicant is proposing to develop within the non -
attainment area the applicant will need to specify how the increase
in traffic and VTM will be mitigated and submit this report to the
Environmental Health Department prior to submission prior to Final
Review.
Any measures which reduce individual automobile use will decrease
potential air quality impacts, however none have been proposed in
the application.
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: No cut and fill analysis has been submitted by the
applicant. There is an approximately 20 foot boulder retaining
wall located between the two multi -family structures. The multi-
family structure are also located at a fairly high elevation of
7945 which is not particularly compatible with the natural terrain.
Staff is recommending that the off -road trail alignment be located
above the multi -family structures and to follow the 7950 contour
elevation to be harmonious with the terrain.
13
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable,
disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features.
Response: Significant grading is proposed below the 7950 contour
elevation. Almost all natural vegetation, primarily grasses and
a significant number of trees, will be removed. It is proposed
thatapproximately two-thirds of the site will be manipulated with
grading.
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 lowest two-thirds of the site is utilized for
development purposes. The higher density deed restricted units are
concentrated on the middle portion of the site. Staff would prefer
the lower density units to be located in the vicinity of where the
multi -family structures are proposed to break up mass, reduce
density, and to preserve more of the scenic quality of the
mountain.
Since this site is constrained, and the development on the S. side
of W. Hopkins is significantly lower density than what is proposed,
staff would prefer additional density to be reduced from the
project to accommodate this criteria.
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 applicant has not taken the new FAR calculations for
steep slopes into account for this project. The multi -family
structures are proposed to be a total of approximately 14,100
sq.ft. in size. The four free market residences are proposed for
a total sq . footage of 10.51o. ( The maximum permitted) . Staff
believes this will need to be reduced inorder to comply with the
FAR requirements of Ordinance 30.
Ordinance 30 has also revised the height calculations for the City
of Aspen. The applicant will need to comply with these
requirements. The basic height permitted is 25' to mid -point of
the roof and a maximum of 30' to the peak. The multi -family
elevations in the application packet do not provide adequate
information as to the proposed height of the building, a rough
estimate by staff indicates that the buildings are significantly
over the permitted height.
Although the AH zone district permits an increase in height to 30
feet by Special Review, the applicant has not requested this
14
increase. Staff does not feel a height increase would be
appropriate for this development.
As proposed, the project does not blend into the open character of
the mountain.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are
available to service the proposed development.
Response: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Aspen Water
Department, and Holy Cross???? have indicated that they have and
adequate capacity to serve the project. Additional information
needs to be submitted to Rocky Mountain Natural Gas and US West
Communications before they can render a decision regarding service.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly maintained.
Response: Additional information regarding the impact to the road
system will need to be submitted prior to review by City Council.
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 applicant has not paid the $55 referral fee to the
Colorado State Forest Service, so no comments are available for
this meeting. The Aspen Fire District will need to approve the
final road system at Final Review.
Snow removal has not been addressed to the satisfaction of the
Streets Department. Snow needs to be stored on -site, as no plowing
of snow onto W. Hopkins is permitted. This shall be further
addressed at final review.
11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails
Plan map is dedicated for public use.
Response: The Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan
identifies an off -road trail through this parcel. Staff is asking
for the applicant to redesign the project to incorporate this trail
into the project.
special Review
Parking and Open Space requirements are set by Special Review in
the AH zone district. As noted earlier in the memo, the applicant
is seeking a road design standard variance under Special Review.
Final action on the Special Review elements of this project will
take place at the Planning Commission at Final Review.
15
Parking: There is some conflict in the application regarding the
number of parking spaces proposed to be provided for the free
market units. The application states one space per bedroom to
equal 16 spaces, however the proposal is seeking approval for a
total of 12 free market bedrooms. This needs to be clarified by
the applicant.
The applicant is proposing 19 parking spaces for the 17 deed
restricted bedrooms in the project which represents 1.9 spaces per
unit.
Staff is in support of this parking program as it should be
adequate to accommodate the vehicles generated on -site by this
project. Unused spaces should be available for guest parking.
Open Space: The site design indicates that the upper one third of
the property will be not be developed and preserved as open space.
This area, which is estimated to be approximately 18,000 sq.ft.,
does not meet the City's definition of open space. Staff
encourages as much of this upper area as possible to be dedicated
as open space and divided into a separate open space parcel at
Final Plat. The City is also requesting that the Government Lot
18 land sliver on the eastern portion of the parcel be dedicated
to the City and combined with the City of Aspen park parcel
adjacent to it. Should these suggestions be complied with by the
applicant, staff would recommend approval of the Special Review for
open space.
As a comparison, staff reviewed the Ute Park, West Hopkins, and
East Cooper AH projects and found that none of these developments
provided any usable open space.
Road Design Standards: The applicant's request for a variance from
the road design standard for the width of the development drive
from 60 ft. to 34 ft. and the offset from Fifth Street to 98.7 ft.
rather than the standard of 125 ft. can be reviewed under the
provisions for Special Review. Ordinance 69 of 1994 added section
7-404(E) to the Special Review criteria of the Aspen Municipal
Code. This language states:
Subdivision design standards. Whenever a special review is
for development which does not meet the subdivision design
standards of Section 24-7-1004 (C) (4) , the development
application shall be approved only if the following conditions
have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where
strict adherence to the subdivision design standards
would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring developed
areas, and/or the goals of the community.
16
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard
variation requested and provide justification for each
variation request, providing design recommendations by
professional engineers as necessary.
The applicant has not addressed these provisions of the Code. As
specified earlier in the memo, no provision for snow storage has
been made for the proposed access road. Staff needs more
information from the applicant to determine if the road variances
would be compatible with these standards.
PROJECT ISSUES:
Ordinance 30: The applicant ha-s been directed to review the
Ordinance 30 design standards and to redesign the multi -family
structure to comply with these requirements. Due to the threshold
issues and redesign recommendations, staff does not feel specific
Ordinance 30 design guideline review should take place at this
time. Basically, the initial review by staff indicates there are
significant design flaws with the project that will need to be
addressed once the issues in the summary have been resolved.
60/40 Bedroom Mix: The applicant is proposing 17 deed restricted
bedrooms and 12 free market bedrooms, resulting in 58.6% deed
restricted and 41.4% free market. This does not meet the
Affordable Housing Zone District requirement of 60 % deed restricted
and 40% free market bedrooms. This development proposal consists
of •
Type of Unit # of Units # Bedrooms Total Bedrooms
Free Market 4 3 12
AH- Multi-Fam 7 2 14
AH- Multi-Fam 3 1 3
The proposal should be revised to reflect the 60/40 requirement,
as there is no mechanism in the Aspen Municipal Code to vary this
standard.
Staff has mentioned earlier in this memo that there needs to be a
mechanism to insure that the number of bedrooms represented in the
application are maintained throughout the life of the project.
Several units are indicated to have a study or a den, and if they
are converted into bedrooms the project no longer would comply with
the density requirements of the AH zone district. This also goes
for the free market units which cannot contain more than three
bedrooms each.
Housing Office Comments: The Housing Board comments are included
in Exhibit H of this memorandum and their recommendation follows:.
17
The Housing Board commended the applicant for his effort to conform
to the neighborhood, but still had concerns with the visual and
density impact of this project.
The Housing Board acknowledges that density and visual impact are
the concern of the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning
Commission. However, the Board is concerned that, if these issues
are not adequately addressed by the applicant, the development
could have a negative affect on the housing program. The Housing
Board recommends the following:
o The applicant should more clearly demonstrate the visual
impact of the project, by placing stakes where the
buildings .are to be located and poles at the appropriate
spots showing the height of the structures, by providing
a model of the project, showing the relation to
neighboring uses and structures, and by providing
information and site plans showing the building envelopes
for the four free-market lots.
o The proposed units are significantly larger than required
by the Housing Guidelines. The Housing Board would
support smaller 'units in order to reduce the area and
bulk of the project.
o Provided that the Planning and Zoning Commission are
comfortable with the density and visual impact of the
site, the Housing Board would accept the pricing for the
AH units as proposed by the developer.
Annexation: As part of the annexation proceedings, the City may
request the developer to provide off -site public improvements in
exchange for annexation to the City. As stated earlier in this
memorandum this review will generate recommendations to be included
into the pre -annexation agreement to be reviewed by City Council.
SUMMARY: There are many outstanding issues relative to the
applicant's request for pre -annexation approval. The proposed
upzoning of the parcel which permits one single family unit to 14
units in an area with rockfall, steep slopes, and snowslide hazards
is a threshold issue for the Commission to consider.
Staff has also identified several other significant issues relative
to design and density that should be further addressed by the
applicant prior to the Planning Commission forwarding a
recommendation to City Council on this request. These items are:
o redesign the trail alignment through the project to be
located above the proposed multi -family structure;
o preserve the Midland Railroad ROW in a use and design
acceptable to the Historic Preservation Committee;
18
o dedicate the Government Lot 18 land sliver and the area
above the multi -family structures to the City of Aspen
as park land;
o reduce the density of the project to be compatible with
the development patterns of the neighborhood;
o transpose the location of the multi -family structures
with the free-market residences to reduce the mass, bulk,
and visual disturbance higher on the parcel;
o demonstrate the visual impact of the project, by placing
stakes where the buildings are to be located and poles
at the appropriate spots showing the height of the
structures, by providing a model of the project, showing
the relation to neighboring uses and structures, and by
providing information and site plans showing the building
envelopes for the four free-market lots; and
o reduce the size of the deed restricted units as they are
proposed significantly larger than required by the
Housing Guidelines. The Housing Board and staff would
support smaller units in order to reduce the area and
bulk of the project.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
Commission discuss the threshold issue of the geologic hazards and
the requested upzoning of the parcel. After a decision has been
made on this issue staff recommends that the Commission direct the
applicant to address the preceding comments.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to table the pre -annexation review of the
Shadow Mountain Project and direct the applicant to address the
preceding comments indicated in the Summary section of the
September 19, 1995 memorandum from the Planning Office to the
Planning Commission."
0W]
Application packet and plans
Exhibits:
A
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
B
Aspen Fire Protection District
C
Aspen School District
Aspen Water Department - comments delayed
D
City Engineer
E
Colorado State Geologic Survey
Colorado State Forest Service - need to submit $55
F
Environmental Health Department
G
Historic Preservation Committee
H
Housing Office
I
Parks Department'
E J
Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board
K
Streets Department
f L
Zoning Officer
M
Public Comment
N
Nick Lampiris Report
apz.ah.shadowmtn
20
�s en Consol dar leaf 6a 1alfign AI lrt& Exhibit A
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (970) 925-3601 FAX #(970) 925-2537
Sy Kelly • Chairman Michael Kelly
Albert Bishop • Treas. Frank Loushin
Louis Popish Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
September 7. 199S
Mary Lachner
Planning Office
180 S. Galena
Aspen. CO 81611
Re: Shadow 11ountain Conceptual
Dear Mary:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has
sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this proposed
protect. Service is contingent upon compliance with the
District's Rules. Regulations, and Specifications which are on
file at the District Office.
Service will require the completion of a line extension request
and collection system agreement. We would request that the
applicant be required to show evidence nt having both completed
and approved by the District. prior to final submission. Our line
in this area was installed in 1989 and the project will be
subject to a prorated share of the costs of the 1989 extension.
We realize that more detailed information will be forthcoming as
the project moves through the planning review process. We will
need -to, review the sewer plan and profile as plans become
available. The alignment of the existing public sewer is not
accurately shown and the applicant's engineer 'is encouraged to
contact our office for more information. The conceptual alignment
for the on site servi-ce may require some minor adjustments.
Th.e foundation details included in the submission show foundation
drains. Foundation drains cannot be connected to the public
system. Abandonment of the on site septic system should be
reviewed by Environmental Health.
Sincerely,
Bruce Blather 1 y U
District Manager
EPA Awards of Excellence
1976 • 1986 - 1990
Regional and National
a -
SEP 995
OcVELOP► ENT +
Exhibit B
Memorandun
To: Mary Lackner, Planner
CC:
From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal
Date: August 31, 1995
Subject: Shadow Mtn Parcel # 2735-124-00-003,201,029-661
Mary,
This project shall complete all of the requirements of the Aspen Fire
Protection District, as stated in this submittal.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
BEd _..
Exhibit C
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
FROM: Aspen School District
SUBJECT: Shadow Mountain Affordable Housing Project
DATE: September 13, 1995
We have reviewed the subject application and have determined that
the proposed development of this project will have impacts on the
School District's facilities. To put these impacts into
quantitative form, we have applied the standards of Ordinance 32,
Series of 1995, School District Land Dedication Standards, which is
currently pending final approval by City Council.
The following table summarizes the results of our evaluation:
Unit Type
Number of
Units Proposed
By Applicant
Land
Dedication
standard
Required Land
Dedication
Dormitory
0
0
0
Studio/One
Bedroom
3
52 sq. ft.
156 sq. ft.
Two Bedroom
7
416 sq. ft.
2,912 sq. ft.
Three Bedroom
4
707 sq. ft.
2,828 sq. ft.
Four Bedroom
0
1,081 sq. ft.
0
Five or More
Bedroom
0
1,236 sq. ft.
0
Total 1
14 units
Not Applicable
5,896 sq. ft-JI
Because of the small size of this property and its location
relative to existing school facilities, and the small land area
required for dedication, it does not appear to be suitable for the
development of school facilities. We would recommend, therefore,
that each of the units be required to make a cash payment to the
City in -lieu of land dedication, based on the formula for such
dedications contained in Ordinance 32, as it is finally adopted.
Payment should be required prior to and on a proportionate basis to
the issuance of any building permits for the dwelling units.
Exhibit D
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department (� f,
Date: September 8, 1995
Re: Shadow Mountain AH Subdivision/PUD Conceptual Submission, Text and Map
Amendment, GMQS Exemption, Special Review & 8040 Greenline Review
(Metes & bounds parcel in County; Parcel ID No. 2735-124-00-003, -201, -029, -661)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
Planned Unit Development
1. Access - The Land Use Code requires a 125 foot centerline offset for streets. The proposed
offset is about 100 feet. This dimensional requirement may be varied by special review.
Considering the low traffic in the area, the reduced centerline offset appears acceptable.
2. Easements
a. For final submission, the improvement survey must be revised to clarify and indicate that
"all easements of record as indicated on title policy number , dated ,
have been shown hereon."
b. Page 5 of the application refers to a 25 foot wide electric easement, but the improvement
survey indicates 20 feet. This must be clarified. The final plat must indicate the easement
on a sheet or in a detail that also shows site development in order to confirm that no
development will occur on the easement. The application indicates that the electric lines are
buried in the Hopkins Avenue right-of-way. If the easement is not in use, perhaps it should
be a condition of approval that the easement be abandoned.
3. Slope Analysis - Note that the plan states: "Using reconstructed grades - Contours were
reconfigured to eliminate the two existing tailing grades." The Planning Office should confirm this
proposal.
1
4. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - These are indicated both within and adjacent to the project. It is
recommended that the homeowners association for the entire development be responsible for snow
removal of the sidewalk on Hopkins Avenue. This could be in the subdivision agreement and in
the homeowner declarations and covenants.
Handicap ramps are required at the corners. The project engineer will be required to provide
curb and gutter elevations on West Hopkins Avenue as well as storm sewer design related to the
new curb and gutter per Section 7-1004.C.3.a(11). This curb and gutter is shown on the drawings
but not discussed in the text.
These improvements in the public right-of-way must be constructed prior to issuance of the
first certificate of occupancy in the subdivision and must be certified by a registered engineer as
being constructed in accordance with City specifications.
5. Public Trail Easement - The proposed easement does not align with either of the existing
easements at the east and west boundaries of the parcel. The proposed trail easement is not
beneficial to the City trail system. Whatever final trail easement alignment is approved, it is
recommended that the developer grade out the trail since it is often unfeasible to construct such
improvements after the surrounding area has been developed. If the proposed trail alignment is
approved, easement width is needed across the front of the free market lots adjacent to the Hopkins
Avenue right-of-way. There would be a five foot buffer from the curb to the sidewalk, a five foot
wide sidewalk, and seven and a half feet remaining of public right-of-way. The as -built width of
the trail would be 14 feet. Therefore at least seven feet of easement is needed and typically more to
permit for construction. As much as thirteen feet of easement may be needed.
Note that there is currently a transformer located within the proposed easement.
6. Site Drainage - The drawings state that retention/detention structures will be designed prior to
construction. Instead, this should be required prior to recording the final plat.
7. Snow Storage Areas - Should these be required? Where will the sidewalk snow be placed
alongside the interior, private road? Onto the Nordic trail? Is this acceptable?
8. Parking - The discussion on page 9 of the application appears contradictory: ".... number of
parking spaces not to exceed .... two spaces per residential dwelling unit .... for a total of 16
spaces." Four lots times 2 spaces is 8 spaces. Are the lots duplex lots? Guest parking is discussed.
Also, the deed restricted units are proposed to offer guest parking spaces. Although the guest
parking spaces result in greater total number of parking spaces, this may not be inappropriate since
a more typical subdivision would offer on -street parking spaces which are not available in the
current proposal since no rights -of -way are being dedicated and since the private road is too narrow
for on -street parking.
The final plat must clearly indicate, label and dimension all parking spaces. Note that two of
the spaces shown on sheet A3 do not appear functional.
2
9. Roadway Standards - On page 9 of the application is the statement that "all access roads
comply with the design standards as set forth by the Pitl�in county Road standards ...." The final
submission must be designed to comply with City Land Use Code and Municipal Code design
standards.
One range point will be required to be installed in the intersection of West Hopkins Avenue
and the proposed private road.
10. Traffic - The traffic impact reported contained in the application appears to be complete. The
traffic generation of this project may be compared to Williams Ranch. With about one quarter of
the units of Williams Ranch, about one quarter of the traffic may be expected. This project and the
community however benefit from nearer proximity to Main Street without the need of extensive
vehicular circulation through neighborhoods.
Given the City's efforts in establishing a pedestrian and bicycle way on West Hopkins, it
would be beneficial if the subdivision agreement and the declarations and covenants acknowledged
the limitation of traffic on Hopkins to only one block, with Hopkins restricted from general
circulation and access. For this subdivision, the access would be from Fifth Street. Further support
of this would be to post a "right turn only" sign at the subdivision exit.
To further encourage alternative transportation, the project should be required to provide
general use bicycle racks.
11. Utilities = The section containing the utility service letters is missing a letter from the City
Water Department.
Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an
easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way.
The utilities construction at Williams Ranch may be performed such that gas, power,
telephone, and television all occupy the same trench. This technique may be desirable for this
project also. This is for the applicant's information only and is not a requirement.
12. Site Plan - An existing conditions landscaping plan should be required in order to assist staff,
P & Z, and Council in determining the extents of permitted disturbance outside of building
footprints or building envelopes.
13. Street Lights - The applicant should be required to install one street light adjacent to each end
of the parcel.
14. Streetscape - In addition to constructing sidewalk, curb and gutter, the applicant should also be
required to plant streetscape trees and landscaping in accordance with City guidelines. This is not
indicated on the landscaping plan and should be indicated on the final plat landscaping plan.
15. Final Plat -
a. The final plat must contain certificates of approval by each of the utilities serving the
project and by the Parks Department.
3
b. The final plat must indicate electric transformer easements as needed.
c. The parcel must be fully monumented and so indicated on the final plat.
d. The final plat must meet the requirements of Section 7-1004.1) of the Land Use Code.
e. The final plat should also be required to be submitted on a 3.5" computer diskette in DXF
format compatible with the City/County GIS ArcInfo system. The base data for the parcel
prior to subdivision shall be obtained from the City/County data processing department to
ensure that the subdivision DXF file fits the GIS system.
16. Improvement Districts - The applicant should be required to agree to join any improvement
districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way.
17. Work in the Public Right -of -wad - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of
development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for
vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130).
18. Development As-builts - Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the various phases
of the project, the applicant shall submit reproducible mylar as -built drawings of sidewalk, utility
improvements, driveways, topography changes, and all other work located within the public rights -
of -way, showing horizontal and vertical locations of buried utilities, including their size and
identification, together with any other facilities or features encountered during excavation with the
rights -of -way. (Reference Section 19-90 of the Municipal Code.) The as-builts shall be signed and
stamped by a registered professional engineer. The as-builts shall also be provided to the City on a
3.5" computer diskette in DXF format compatible with the City/County GIS ArcInfo system. The
base data for the parcel shall be obtained from the City/County data processing department to
ensure that the subdivision DXF file fits the GIS system.
As-builts of building footprints, walkways, driveways, and altered topography shall be
provided on diskette only prior to certificates of occupancy.
Rezoning
1. As represented in the application, rezoning is acceptable for engineering concerns of sufficient
roadway capacity, sufficient utilities, and sufficient mitigation of drainage impacts.
2
Annexation
1. As discussed in "traffic" above, the traffic impacts would be significantly less than Williams
Ranch, which was required to pay an annexation impact fee for roadway improvements needed in
the Smuggler Area. If annexation impact fees for traffic mitigation are contemplated, and if this
project represents about one quarter the development of Williams Ranch, then this project could be
required to pay a transportation impact fee of $25,000.
A statement of contiguity was not included in the application and should be included for
final submission. Also, the annexation map should be included in the final submission.
8040 Greenline
1. As suggested above, an existing landscaping plan should be required to assist in determining the
limits of disturbance during and after construction to existing vegetation. There is a conifer
indicated on the survey that is not shown on the site plan although it appears that the tree might be
able to remain.
cc: Stan Clauson, George Robinson, West Hopkins Partners, LLC
M95.188
5
GEOLOGICAL -SURVEY TEL No.
Sep 8,95 14:55 No.014 P.02
Exhibit E
STATE OF COLORADU
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL ISURVITY
I)ivision of MkerAls and Genlogv
DepartrTioll of Natilral Resources
1313 Sherman SUM, Rwm 715
[�nvcr, Col oradc) 110203
["'llone (303) 866-' 7611 DEPAXIMINT OF
I AX (303) 866-2461
September 8, 1995 PI-9&0= NATURAL
RESOURCES
Ms. Mary 1,ackner ffijy Romer
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Gove(nor
Amt.-, 5, 1 11w.
130 South Galena Street EX(.kCt1fkk tic Ilhe(1k)rwl
Aspen, 81611 MIC11pul It. hring
Di Vi sk l I )i F('4F Ior
vich'i 0AVart
swt(.- (4-ologi-A
Dear Ms. Lackner: ilntl J)irt-4 lul
We bave, reviewed the, materials submitted regarding the above referenced proposal as weF
as the general and engineering geology of the site.
We concur with and reitetate the findings and recommendations made. by Nick Lampi ris and
CIL/Thompson, particularly the, need for a rockfall-protective structure upslope of the
residential structures.
However, there is nothing in the narrative or drawin&s to indicate any comndtnient to such
a structure aind we cannot reconunend approval of this application witbout, such a
commitment.
The CrL/Thompson recommendation regarding an uphill access to the barrier for periodic
A
maintenance Andrepair as necessary is essential to the long-terin functioning of this feature.
'Fh* OPP ocate the trail and perform two
is acems seems to be an excellent ortunity to red
dcsirable tasks at the same c.
!,ue to the mobility and limited time duration of anyone using the trail, the rockfall hamr",'
can be comsidered insignificant with respect to personal injury risk to trail users.
Yours very truly,
Jeffrey L I lyn
Sciiior Engineering Geologist
JH,VB:\Idt
Exhibit F
VU2+003, _ � 0
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
From: Betsey Kipp, Environmental Health Department
Through: Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Officer'iLC1
Date: September 9, 1995
Re: Shadow Mountain Conceptual Submission
Parcel ID #2735-124-00-003,-201,-209,-661
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
Shadow Mountain AH Subdivision/PUD Conceptual land use submittal
under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has
the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1. 7 "it shall be unlawful for
the owner or occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or
reconstruct an on -site sewage disposal device."
The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through
the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this Department. The
ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle the
increased flow for the project has been determined by ACSD. The
applicant has provided documentation that the service agency is
capable of serving the development (see Exhibit G).
As indicated in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report
by CTL/Thompson, Inc., the Parlor Car Restaurant was previously
located on a portion of the property and was serviced by an
individual sewage disposal system. During excavation, if a septic
tank or leach field are uncovered, proper removal and disposal of
the tank and contaminated soils must be done through this
Department and an accepting landfill.
A condition of approval should be that (if encountered)
the septic tank and leach field must be properly disposed of
with the approval and supervision of this Department.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 "ALL buildings,
structures, facilities, parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the
municipal water utility system."
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is
consistent with Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply
of safe water. The City of Aspen Water Department shall determine
1
if adequate water is available for the project. The City of Aspen
water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of
Health for drinking water quality. Although a water main exists
within the utility easement on the south side of Hopkins Avenue,
the applicant will need to provide documentation that the project
will be serviced by the City of Aspen's water supply.
A condition of approval must be a letter of intent from
Aspen's Water Department to service this project.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1. 3 "For the purpose of maintaining and
protecting its municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and
supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources
contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal
water supplies are diverted.,,
A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive
and parking areas will be evaluated by the City Engineer. Based on.
a report by Banner Associates for proposed drainage improvements,
this application is not expected to impact down stream water
quality.
There is no condition of approval at this time.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the
Municipal Code] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all
available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city ... 11
The land Use Regulations seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as
well as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
The major concern of this Department is the impact of increasing
traffic in a non -attainment area designated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Under the requirements of the
State Implementation Plan for the Aspen area, PM-10 (which comes
almost all from traffic driving on paved roads) must be reduced by
25% by 1997. In order to achieve that reduction, traffic increases
that occur as a result of development must be mitigated, or else
the gains brought about by community control measures will be lost.
To be consistent with the Aspen Element of the PM10 State
Implementation Plan, two things must be done: 1) the applicant must
analyze the PM10 emissions from the proposed project and 2) the
applicant must commit to specific, enforceable control measures to
offset or mitigate these PM10 emissions.
The first step has been adequately addressed, but the second has
not. We agree with the applicant's analysis of the impacts of the
project, assuming it is deed restricted so there are no woodburning
devices. (We included zero emissions from woodburning devices in
our calculations and if such devices were installed in the future,
the mitigation measures would be insufficient.) We agree with the
analysis that shows average daily traffic from the four free market
units of 28 trips/day, which equals 140 vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
F
per day in the nonattainment area. This assumes a strong transit
system such as is available to the residents of this project. We
also agree that the trips brought about by the affordable units
fully offset the fact that these employees either do or would have
to commute a longer distance within the nonattainment area (and
beyond) .
The application does not address step 2 above i.e. the commitment
to specific, quantifiable, enforceable control measures to offset
the 28 trips/day (140 VMT) generated by the project. This needs to
be a condition to be met before detailed submission. This
represents a very small amount of required mitigation which should
not be difficult for the applicant. The applicant needs to
determine what mitigation measures they will use to offset the
pollution from these 28 trips/day. They may consider paving unpaved
alleys, driveways, or other areas in the nonattainment area,
removal of existing "dirty" fireplaces or woodstoves, incentives
in their parking structure that encourage people to store their
cars instead of using them, or other measures. We will be happy to
work with the applicant to assist them in this process.
A condition of approval is that the applicant provide
specific, enforceable comments for mitigation measures
to offset the increases in PM10 caused by the project,
and that this mitigation plan be approved by the Aspen/
Pitkin Environmental Health Department prior to detailed
submission.
FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant has indicated that no
woodburning fireplaces will be provided within any of the units.
Current laws do not allow woodburning fireplaces, so this statement
does not go beyond complying with existing laws. If the applicant
intends that no woodburning stoves are to be allowed, a condition
of approval should be a deed restriction prohibiting any
woodburning device in this project.
FUGITIVE DUST A fugitive dust control plan is required which
includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and
disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove
mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures
necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line
or causing a nuisance. Aggressive dust control measures will have
to be used to protect the surrounding residences.
A condition of approval will be the receipt and approval
of a fugitive dust plan by this office before final review.
UNDERGROUND PARKING The applicant must have the underground
parking structure ventilation system designed by a Registered
Professional Engineer specializing in mechanical ventilation
3
systems to ensure that ventilation is adequate to prevent carbon
monoxide from reaching high levels inside the facility or the
nearby areas outside it. In order to determine whether the
proposed design prevents excessive levels of carbon monoxide from
concentrating inside the structure and in nearby areas and
buildings, the applicant will need to submit the proposed
ventilation system plans to the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment(CDPHE) and the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental
Health Department (APEHD) for approval. The applicant will also
need to contact CDPHE and APEHD to apply for an air pollution
permit.
A condition of approval before final review and approval
will be the approval of the ventilation plans by CDPHE and
APEHD.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a
significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing. threat to the public
peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors.
.....Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas
and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those Levels."
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound
level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the
hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. It is very likely that noise generated
during the construction phase of this project will have some
negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware
of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise
levels.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES/AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION;
As noted in the application and studied by CTL/Thompson in their
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment(Exhibit K), the proposed
project will be located on the site of previous mining activities.
Although the County has the authority to enforce institutional
controls on sites outside of the Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site,
the County and this Department would recommend that mine tailings
remain on the site and placed under structures or pavement. To
further reduce the potential for human contact, landscaped areas
should be covered with a minimum of one foot of clean topsoil
and revegetated.
... ENV:WP:LAND USE:SHADOW.MOUNTAIN.CONCEPTUAL
4
Exhibit G
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mary Lackner, City Planner
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Shadow Mountain Affordable Housing Development
DATE: September 11, 1995
In regard to the conceptual submission for Shadow Mountain
Affordable Housing Development, there is a historic resource
located on the parcel. The resource is one of the few remaining
sections of the Colorado Midland Right -of -Way.
The right-of-way is being considered for adoption to the City's
"Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures." It is considered
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
HPC first discussed adopting the right-of-way to the Inventory on
December 14, 1994 at a publicly noticed meeting. At some date
around that time, I recall having a conversation with Craig
Peterson of West Hopkins Partners, about the right-of-way and what
the impact of listing on the Inventory would be. I informed him
that HPC would want to see the right-of-way left intact, without
structures or other permanent alterations made to it. Retaining
the right-of-way as a trail would be appropriate.
HPC put off the issue of designating the right-of-way to June 28,
1995 (another publicly noticed hearing) in order to be able to do
a site visit and to develop a more accurate legal description for
the site. They voted to recommend adoption of the right-of-way to
the Inventory on August 9, 1995. This recommendation is to be
forwarded to City Council.
The conceptual submission shows a paved road and structured
directly on the right-of-way. This action will destroy the
resource. Staff recommends that the applicant explore any other
road conf iguration possible. Some crossing of the right-of-way is
probably necessary, but in general, it should be maintained in an
open state.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Hearings for the Re -Evaluation of the City of Aspen "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" - Round II
40TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to all property owners that public hearings have been scheduled before the Aspen
Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) to complete the review of the existing "Inventory of Historic Sites and
Structures". The properties listed below are subject to re-evaluation. Based upon Section 24-7-709 of the Aspen
Municipal Code, the HPC will be evaluating all properties in the City of Aspen not included in Round I and Round II
which were originally constructed prior to 1910 and which continue to have historic value, and such other structures
identified by the HPC as being outstanding examples of more modern architecture. The HPC may add, delete or modify
the listing of properties on the Inventory. All properties listed on the Inventory are subject to HPC review for
demolition, partial demolition and/or relocation pursuant to Section 24-7-602A of the Municipal Code.
City and Townsite of Aspen
Lots A -I, Block 7, Parcel A; 437 W. Smuggler. Owner: Charles Marqusee
Lots D-J, Block 12; 801 W. Bleeker. Owner: Savanah Limited Partnership.
Lots N&O, east 27' of N, west 18' of O, Block 25; 1018 E. Hopkins. Owner: Robert Card.
Lots C, D & E, Block 26, and Lots 3, 4 & 5; 517 North St. Owner: Lowell & Eleanor Meyer.
Lots R&S, Block 28; 504 W. Hallam. Owner: Sally Rae Glenn.
Lot A, Block 34; 1001 E. Hyman. Owner: Mark Tache & Christen Cooper Tache
LotsF,G & west 1/2 of H, Block 36; 407 W. Hallam. Owner: Chester & Beverly Firestein
of C, Block 42; 325 W. Francis. Owner: Merrill Ford.
Lots R-S, Block 45; 300 W. Hopkins. Owner: Joseph & Alma Gildenhort
Lots A-C & west 6.64' of Lot D, Block 50; 233 W. Hallam. Owner: Esther Benninghof.
Lot F, Block 58; 113 W. Bleeker. Owner: Aspen Hotel Partners, Ltd.
Lots C-F, Block 72; 223 E. Hallam. Owner: Ferenc & Mirte Berko.
Lots C&D, Block 73; 209 E. Bleeker. Owner: Mary Eshbaugh Hayes
Lots E-I, Block 90; 403 W. Galena (Pitkin Center Condominiums). Owner: Guido Paul Meyer.
North 1/2 of Lots A-C, Block 95; 304-308 S. Galena. Owner: Arcades Associates, Ltd.
Lots G, Block 99; 625 E. Hopkins. Owner: Bogaert Family Trust
Lots E-F, Block 104; 719 E. Hopkins. Owner: Theodore & Katherine Okie
Metes & Bounds Parcels
A portion of the East Aspen Additional Townsite Entry, Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M.;
855 Gibson. Owner: Ralph & Lynne Whipple
Northeast part of Lot 1, Sunny Park Subdivision; 101 Park Ave. Owner: Dieter Bibbig.
Lot 1, Block 2, Riverside Addition and all that part of Regent St. lying southerly of and adjacent to said Lot 1 projected
southerly to the southerly line of Regent St. Also the northerly 15' of Lots 9, 10, 11 and the northerly 15' of
the westerly half of Lot 12, Block 2, Riverside Addition; 106 Park Ave. Owner: Tim Mooney.
A tract of land in Section 7-10-84, being a part of Tract 40, East Aspen Addition & the Sunset Lode, U.S.M.S. No.
5310, and also sometimes described as part of Lots 1, 2 & 3, Block 5 and part of Lots 3&4, Block 6, and a part
of Queen St., Hughes Addition; 935 King St. Owner: Ernst Kappeli.
A tract of land in Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M.; Aspen Grove Cemetery. Owner:
c/o Ramona Markalunas
A tract of land situated in the NW 1/ of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M.; Red Butte
Cemetery. Owner: c/o Jane Stapleton.
A tract of land situated in the east 1/2 of Section 125 Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., and in the
west 1/2 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M.; 101 & 220 Puppy Smith. Owner:
Aspen Center for Environmental Studies
A tract of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M.; the Aspen Meadows property is
bounded by Meadows Road, Gillespie Street, Roaring Fork Road and the Roaring Fork River, in Aspen, CO;
Aspen Meadows Trustee Housing, Chalet Housing & Riding Ring. Owners: The Aspen Institute, Inc., the
Music Associates of Aspen, the Aspen Center for Physics, and Savanah Limited Partnership.
Northeast 1/ of Section I I, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M.; Maroon Creek Bridge on the Highway
82 right-of-way. Owner: Colorado Department of Transportation.
--- A tract of land including portions of Lots A -I less the south 20' of Lots A-C, Block 32; Lots A -I and O-S of Block 39;
Lots H & I and part of F, Block 47; and Lots K-O and P-S, Block 54; all in the City and Townsite of Aspen;
known as the Midland Railroad Right -of -Way. Owners: Thomas Cleary, Paul Young III, Michael and Sharon
Flack, Randolph Marten, Andrew McKelvey, Walter Paepcke Life Insurance Trust, Fernando Gonzalez Parra,
Ramon Gonzalez and Margarita Parra, Kitty and Walter Sherwin, Mark and Jennifer Sherwin, and Staspen
Limited Partnership.
Other
Lots 1, 2, 13 & 14, Block 9, Eames Addition; 720 S. Aspen. Owner: Holland House Ski Lodge.
7 �ot 1, Anderson Subdivision; 1101 E. Cooper. Owner: Albert & Edwin Anderson.
mot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD; 915 S. Mill St. Owner: Savanah Limited Partnership.
Lot t, Oden Lot Split; Aspen Brewery Ruins. Owner: Oden & Company.
Sugar Condo Duplex; 701 W. Smuggler. Owners: Leslye & Fred Sugar and James Lowrey, Jr., Trustee.
Victoria Square PUD; All of Block 17, City and Townsite of Aspen; 709 W. Hallam, 721 W. Hallam, 727 W. Hallam,
700 W. Bleeker, 708 W. Bleeker, 720 W. Bleeker, 225 N. 6th St. Owners: Gerd Zeller, Richard Hutcheson,
Jay Weinberg, Mary Lou Sabatasso, and Arthur Lazarus & Katrina Hempel.
Lots 3&4, Block 3, J.R. Williams Addition, and an adjoining metes and bounds parcel; 557 Walnut. Owner: Angeline
Griffith.
A public hearing shall be held on Wednesday, December 14, 1994 at 5:00 PM in the 2nd Floor Meeting Room at City
Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. For further information, please contact Amy Amidon in the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office at 920-5096.
s/.Ioseph Krabacher, Chairman
Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Published in The Aspen Times on November 25, 1994
City of Aspen Account
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Hearings for the Re -Evaluation of the City of Aspen
"Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" - Round III
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to all property owners that public hearings
have been scheduled before the Aspen Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC) to complete the review of the existing "Inventory
of Historic Sites and Structures". The properties listed below are
subject to re-evaluation. Based upon Section 24-7-709 of the Aspen
Municipal Code, the HPC will be evaluating all properties in the
City of Aspen not included in Round I and Round II which were
originally constructed prior to 1910 and which continue to have
historic value, and such other structures identified by the HPC as
being outstanding examples of more modern architecture. The HPC
may add, delete or modify the listing of properties on the
Inventory. All properties listed on the Inventory are subject to
HPC review for demolition, partial demolition and/or relocation
pursuant to Section 24-7-602A of the Municipal Code.
City and Townsite of Aspen
Lots A&B, Block 34; 437 W. Smuggler. Owner: Thomas Hoffmaster
Lots H&I, Block 35; 325 N. Third. Owner: Klaus Eppler, Trustee
Metes and Bounds Parcels
A tract of land in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of
the 6th P.M. ; the Aspen Meadows property is bounded by Meadows
Road, Gillespie Street, Roaring Fork Road and the Roaring Fork
River, in Aspen, CO; Aspen Meadows Trustee Housing, Chalet
Housing & Riding Ring. Owners: The Aspen Institute, Inc.,
the Music Associates of Aspen, the Aspen Center for Physics,
and'Savanah Limited Partnership.
A tract of land situated in the NW-4- of Section 12, Township 10
South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M.; Red Butte Cemetery.
Owner: c/o Jane Stapleton.
�- Midland Railroad Right -of -Way: A tract of land which crosses the
following properties: Lots 1 and 2, Little Cloud PUD; Tracts
A, B and C of Parcel A. Government Lot 20 Subdivision; Martha
Washington Lode (USMS No. 5793) and Mary B Lode (USMS No.
19640); part of Lots D-I, Block 32, and Lots K-N and part of
Lots O, P and Q. Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen; Lots
A-G, S2 of Lot F, and S 40' of Lots H & I, Block 47, City and
Townsite of Aspen. Owners: John Tucker, Lyle Reeder &
Stanford Johnson, Pitkin County, Lost Diamond Inc., City of
Aspen.
A public hearing shall be held on Wednesday, June 28, 1995 at 5:00
PM in the 2nd Floor Meeting Room at City Hall, 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen. For further information, please contact Amy Amidon in the
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office at 920-5096.
sjDonnelly Erdman, Chairman
Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
Published in The Aspen Times on June 10, 1995
City of Aspen Account
Exhibit H
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mary Lackner, Planner
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: September 11, 1995
RE: Shadow Mountain AH Subdivision PUD Conceptual Submission,
Text and Map Amendment, GMQS Exemption, Special Review &
8040 Greenline Review
Parcel ID No. 2735-124-00-003, -201, -029, -661
ISSUE: The applicant, West Hopkins partners, LLC, is proposing
development of four free market lots and ten deed restricted units.
The applicant is proposing to deed restrict the units to be
designed, constructed and sold in conformation with the guidelines
for Category 4 and Resident Occupied criteria.
BACKGROUND: The site is 1.26 acres and is located on the south
side of Hopkins at the base of Shadow Mountain approximately five
blocks west of Aspen's central commercial core. The topography on
the site includes the steep slopes of Shadow Mountain to the south
and comparatively gentle grades of the valley floor to the west,
east, and north. The parcel is undeveloped and sits across Hopkins
Avenue from the Boomerang Lodge and the Madsen Chalet.
The project is currently zoned R-15 PUD under which the applicant
could build one 15,000 square foot home. The applicant could also
go through GMQS and possibly build three homes. The applicant is
requesting rezoning to AH.
The proposed development calls for approval of the following:
No.
Bedrooms
Cate_ocorry
Square Footage
4
3-bedroom
Free Market
3,000
sq.
ft.
4
2-bedroom
RO
1,350
sq.
ft.
3
2-bedroom
4
1,100
sq.
ft.
3
1-bedroom
4
1,000
sq.
ft.
The program yields a zone district required mix of 29% free market
and 71% deed restricted units. 29% of the units are designated
R.O., consistent with the Housing Board recommendations for that
mix. This program also yields a bedroom mix of 59 % deed restricted
(17 bedrooms) and 41 % free market (12 bedrooms) , assuming the free
market lots will have three bedroom single-family detached homes
built on them.
Parking for the deed restricted units will be provided at a maximum
of two spaces per unit. The design of each building will allow for
the construction of a two -car parking garage parked tandem with
storage, while one space will be provided for each of the one
bedroom units at the south end of the development drive.
Below are the current guidelines which set the minimum net liveable
square footage and maximum selling price for deed restricted units:
Minimum Proposed
No. of Square Unit Sq.
Type Bedrooms Footage Footage
Maximum
Selling
Price
RO 2 1,200 1,350 Market Value
C4 2 950 1,100 $193,200
C4 1 700 1,000 $182,600
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board met on September 6 to discuss
this project. The Housing Board commended the applicant for his
effort to conform to the neighborhood, but still had concerns with
the visual and density impact of this project.
The Housing Board acknowledges that density and visual impact are
the concern of the Planning office and Planning and Zoning
Commission. However, the board is concerned that, if these issues
are not adequately addressed by the applicant, the development
could have a negative affect on the housing program.
The Housing Board recommended the following:
The applicant should more clearly demonstrate the visual
impact of the project, by placing stakes where the buildings
are to be located and poles at the appropriate spots showing
the height of the structures, by providing a model of the
project, showing the relation to neighboring uses and
structures, and by providing information and site plans
showing the building envelopes for the four free-market lots.
The proposed units are significantly larger than required by
the Housing Guidelines. The Housing Board would support
smaller units in order to reduce the area and bulk of the
project.
Providing that the Planning and Zoning Commission are
comfortable with the density and visual impact of the site,
the Housing Board is would accept the pricing for the AH units
as proposed by the developer.
SEP. 12 p 95 4: 3OPM
P. I
Exhibit I
I From: Joha D. Krueger, Parks f)cpartment�.-Tr<tils,pervi8ilu
Rebecca BAer, Asst Poxks Director -I
R C.- Shadow Mountain AH Subdivision/PUT) Couceptual 8- libmission,Tuxt and
Map AmendalaltI, GMQ8 Fxen7lption, * 8040 GrwWine Review
SPeCial Review &
(Nrcel ID No - 2735-124-00-0031,-201 � -(P,91 -661
DATE: September 8, 1995
After a site inspezdon witll the appliemt.? and a xview of the rufe'renem applicatiolft
the. Parks Department offers he fO]lc-,wij4 comment8:
ftblit' raMae-AW: We do not favor thepropoqed txail msemw and aligii=rit
as detaiJed in the application. Jt Poses several problems,
1, LOCATION- Previous maAter pl4us showed the Uzil allOve, the site in tho yes.
This Would make for a better comection to planned and CXiisdng tMils. 'Me upper
I ocation has 4so been identified W the "PRI)ESTMAN WALKWAY AND
HIKE "AY SYSTEM PLAN", of 1990, as The PjVfeMd trail lomfion.
2- SAFETY- 'nle trai1
l creates a wnflict betmon the trail usm. wid automobile
traffic entering and loaviijg the site where the i.Tosses the drivpewaylcntrance,
3. USE- 'Me proposed lQcation will nOt make for a Lis able, Nordic trilil. It is 0
exposed tosunli& and it will [-& 11aKI (Q keep any 3(jow jov
Vn on the trail. The
driveway cross&jg iAill make it necessary for'Nordic users tomitup and rmove tbcir
equipment, Walkers and hikm will also have to stop Md check ft-w tniffic.,
4. TRAIL E-ASEMFNT WIDTH- The xvidtll jjto meet tjjO,.qpCCLfj
cations Usted
in the "PED PLAN" for a multi -use trail. The miwimum width should be 10 feet with
2 foot safety areas on each side. The plafts call for only 10 feet wid in some locations
only 7.5 feet laide. The developer should do the trail grzWing or provide. for a
ten'WraxY ConAmetio", cas-Qment 20 feet.
ti .�Hagsj
Pat
5. AESTH)RTTc.S_ T6 uPPOr tail 10cad= provideq a superior trail experienov. it
would ec, tbrough the trec.q., be hidden from the buildings, WiJ provide a great Vim of
the area. The proposed lo-vvQr aligmnent goes along tlic road Md Wross Me driveway
,LT --
and then parallels the dnivemy norm
6. PROPERTY VALUE- The lower UAH goes thraugh ti)z free maricet liqit-S, ThU
upper Aig=emt would he above, the Qmployee units and hidden in the trees in many
areas. It would also Providr. MSS access to the truil fort owners orthe mpioyee
units.
Tbe- oth" W11cems tOgWing the. c0l=Ptual WficatiOn is in.. gards to landscaping
and open space, The streetscaN should iiaolude trc-c plantings and be appioved
through the Engineering and Parks DcpartmenLspriior to issuanoa of M's. The
VPficafiOn st0l,,-s that irms will be relocated wi site but due to the coamptual nature of
the project at this time we would lik-e te vvork th the , lie
Wa1 PP ant furt1jer U) revicw all
landscape plans for the project 1T_ on fmal approval. The application also states that
ja 19,000 SF of open space at dy,- south end ofdie pars iJ wi I I be dodicated to thy: 0 ty of
Aspen-" We m unclear what exactly this statemmi refers to but would disems jvitb
the applicant hu-ther. However, at this thne it is unclear what benefit this dedication
may provide the City but are, open to discuss* ag further.
x
SEP .12 '95 4:39PM P. 3
I
NIVINt7opV MC)CVMS7 0 .- I
Ui� LIU
q "k-
i� •
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mary Lackner
Planning Office
FROM: Jane Ellen Hamilton
Open Space and Trails
DATE: September 7, 1995
RE: Shadow Mountain AH Subdivision/PUD Conceptual Submission,
Text and Map Amendment, GMQS Exemption, Special Review
and 8040 Greenline Review
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I have reviewed the information submitted for this land use
application and, on behalf of the Open Space and Trails Board,
offer the following comments:
The applicant's offer of steep, undevelopable terrain as an open
space dedication would not meet any of our definitions of what
constitutes "open space" and suggest the applicant offer meaningful
land as an open space component of its proposed development.
The proposed trail alignment will connect trail easements on either
side of the property and will go around the development instead of
through it. The Board's concerns are as follows: the driveway the
trail must cross will serve several residences, and therefore will
be heavily trafficked causing hazards to trails users - the
crossing must be well marked for both trail users and driveway
users, and we suggest a stop sign on the development side of the
trail for safety purposes; the easement proposed for the trail is
only 10' in width with a proposed 7.5' paved trail - our standard
easement for a trail is 16' wide to enable proper maintenance and
our standards require a minimum 8' tread width to assure safe
passage by two bicycles, strollers, etc. It is our opinion that
anything of lesser width may endanger users of the trail, and this
trail will likely have heavy usage.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Exhibit K
To: Mary Lackner
From: Jack Reid
Date: August 30, 1995
Subject: Re:Comments.- shadow Mountain AH Subdivision
N
qkP
AUG 3 1 1995
-IT
I did not see snow plowing or removal specifically addressed
in the submission® There should be an area designated to store
snow plowed from the project. When this area is full, the snow
could be hauled off. It will not be appropriate to plow any snow
from the project, onto W. Hopkins Ave. If it is planed to plow the
snow to the sides, instead of removing, there should be a snow
storage zone running between the street and sidewalk. That area
should be 8 feet wide on each side of the street. If the sidewalk
is run immediately behind the curb, it will be plowed in every time
it snows.
There is no storm drain system along W. Hopkins Ave. Although
I agree with the proposed drainage plan, the size and leach
capacity of the proposed retention/detention areas will be
critical. Water captured by roof drains or drainage swales should
not find its way to W. Hopkins Ave.
Exhibit L
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner
From: Bill Drueding
Date: September 14, 1995
Re: Shadow Mountain Housing Development
(1) With only preliminary drawings, I cannot verify height, FAR
or open space requirements. These will have to be in compliance at
the time of building permit submittal.
(2) It should be noted that if grades are disturbed or
reconfigured, then "natural grade" shall be determined by the
building inspector. Refer to definition. of natural grade Sec. 3-
101 of the Land Use Code.
(3) The use of the labeling of rooms as "Dens" and "Study" is
often an issue. There is a bedroom defibnition in Sec. 3-101.
However, if you just eliminate the bathroom access we'll have
v),early the same configuration of the labeled bedroom. The use and
configuration of these rooms should be addressed at this time.
Exhibit M 0
Fra«
L a c "etlo
T3/0.wu r w r
r
?.,8'-f6
�/, IL �sv c �14 v 25 1 �b" �71 O�9) �
t1 0.,- A. CC 6 A*: �
Ko c k pa., 6.. w +`tC.
Be'i�. `!-�,s. %'� a..S- Cow,.'Cy $ �bd.u� is �e+s OAc�..e�., e e
pAtov*tAk 'il,.&-t a Aa.u.*,(ePCA S 1-PA w4. 04Qee4:fc
7L &Wuejot p,� aoUCjoK 014,CAJ j 01 *LA.* TAO.,�C
.ati *-V LM GUti.Ra W otA R.tJ&e+* A fi.4 alVicLa. Gi.4w. H
AlAd s ro"Ao-I a/14a kA *'W tU- kWOaArc
e-\ Mai`wA«:Q PK"f ajuca.. 7L Gu.J w• Jdt y'a'`e
/GA e f 64A-C '�► � m S s �AT�ALT9 e1 4PVZ� cuc.�J , criou.QaQ
A4ZAAA- d.4. d rv)n i't c t w i ( 9Q.i�k kaxi--fa4f/ a.44.A,
wo e,Jta a.jurAan IA t(,.L, wes.s eto
Ate. k,".A 86 "AU&I. �&Woak. 0 7" .setl,m s
0
po%oj-Lr# waa ,i,,,.i#Ay%Ucck .+q
I�ce�� p� 'T�� a•�,�� way Ao-wk itt- wtcT s ,
(7(,t4jjc AZtXA.r,ft 'FAat,Q ,
T� cw+�.►.wf h,2vr s� Jt rA
�4ue% alk ��.� I�,�, M o u I k, -N� ►tit i d—rY% o j4J
A td+t 10 e ".tidti► ox 'iL� okccaj
Ili plw� nwbw<<*e�Q 104&111 dnp,etw.�ec "F�..�
cbdwc�i�es eI �e ece.a.Q �a-?a,-s e� be`KL ,
C,- -P+Z Absu.Q& /ua..d+e
'lid- `ice 7nwQ 6A. Aocc;tsl Sv",�U+s{ �
A"A wlks ,
4OL& :�Du^,G44 4.� LaycouCa;ud d1 0. c4t�P L'&�
Mallow eaTO4A.limn Di
Eantarly 6a&, ctiQse ao P&A�C.
(S.u. o.Lioa4Q sketc4 e., °Ste btvdif vj AAPAom�eN
aATc A LI, &t4^ *�� JOAt y &AS / 1-jout Co.;
w..� ce bOAA actwti.d 11700 lal , w
o„e-tiJd (olbe" ,
St t
0 '1'GA�j
W..daa�erly `�I,a �Sa..j., aeb.,M,.�J 380 �..t 'Flvekq'1n
`Nv � TiSka 6AL, ar.Gdw�s��„ aQnd.« iJ..,s,
`+lu dA#.�
(2�
u+.b- �e.,51.f rti-t MAAo44- 'Qcwc--k � 4N.dk 7YwC�
tra:Is cew,,.Z,,.� i *L4 OftlSl,e�,!
+VVAA, 0 VJ kA4,44
I I PIA
IL tL, -pu-s oarz
f 6e tn,.r,e�,Iu�2 oKV? moo'
�Y&AA"$ awt e Ot a et -71 #%44,161
..GX t 4n Ro:.4 4.� .tk �.f�:C�..�' Jejkvt.
0
tA ,,t ..i... �,ua,a'i,e,. AJAAue s 2A.'U..a
1.b$ok% b604 6 �r A�en4 'Nu- l�ael. A6
+&AaOLW.� Hem-Zd at rwrKmuiot,.
ee,4u-GoO,A Ia,.CXL ib IL9. 0 e. Catr�..�F,.
al 41? A-4 C,,. t- L'I, A
IMH ,
lS
ON J33HS
E
t -a 31vam ON
Ot"vva
uBMW
a� e v o
"W°" Ned 3dVOSaNV*l / 1N3NdO- 3A3C] 1 Y
�11 S �� )) yy�� tt��
OOOMN(OKA ldO N3dSb ?� ON
CN
33n8dslij
3Qd8E) E)NLLSIX3 ' I too
6��
O dfDow
wu
tras ftft%Woo
I f
•
13��1s H
�/� •S
p
a
�.
4 �
�
U
3�
0
m
m zh
0
z
z
c/)
> —4—
u
z
O I h—j.
�"- t.
40�OO/
v,
WEST 140,.
1(/`�`
Ns AVENUE
�Vb
Al,
$*woo
xt
ok.Poo
SHADOW MOUNTAIN
cn 500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO
WEST HOPKINS PARTNERS, LLC
(970) 925-1942
CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS
SW M 1ftM464 AW' RM )94 * AV 01) 11611 - RU: JQV=-UW - FAIL JOM""
220 E =DIALK) AYL * MUNAM (X) S14M * TUL. Xynt -37, . FAIL UVria OW
Nicholas Lampirls, Ph.D,
Exhibit
CONSULTING 0. EOLOG I ST
P.O. BOX 2
SILT, COLOHADO 811652
(303) 816-6400 (24 HOUPIG)
JI-kric"
e -0
1. � lylf}
17 C) 1"I C: c� I
h 1 1 i t- Y (:.)f 'd
�!-:i %"."3 1. 1"'J A a
v c) vq v
is n r o a r I'-) 4. I-)
U' lJ 1
1 (A J. z-.t i:5 r- c.) n r- i. rl f; ') r
r - v'-'4
1"
('7A v (.J j
I lily I tx! 1, n -I c 1-C. to 1::)
y
In a`i81
'I... J (j
J.
I::. r - vrJ f c.)) f: 15 C1.
Ti t..1 r I t co
r t.;::) r I' f f 1.( 1, 11
c) n 4-,-A c':
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Leslie Lamont, Community Development Director
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Planner
DATE: September 19,1995
RE: Water Place Affordable Housing Project - Work Session
SUMMARY: The proposed Water Place Affordable Housing Development would house
essential city employees, including emergency response personnel, adjacent to the city's water
facilities. Based on comments during a two-step submittal in March of 1995, the applicant (City
of Aspen) is requesting a work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission, followed by a
similar session with the City Council. Following input from the work sessions, the applicant will
pursue a four -step review process. Significant revisions from the March 1995 submittal include
the following:
• the elimination of a fourplex previously proposed for the lower portion of the property adjacent
to Castle Ridge, and replacing with two triplexes on the west side of Dolittle Drive, opposite
the single-family and duplexes. The former site of the fourplex is no longer proposed for
development, and the applicant intends on dedicating the area as open space;
the units proposed near the bluff above (south) of Castle Ridge have been set back an
additional 25 to 50 feet to lessen the visual impacts from existing units and State Highway 82;
and,
• based on a user survey of City employees, the proposal includes additional townhome units,
increasing total dwelling units to 18 in 11 individual structures.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen Engineering Department, represented by David Hauter (Project
Manager)
LOCATION/ZONING: Lot 4, City of Aspen Thomas Property. The property is located at the
end of Doolittle Drive, south of Castle Ridge Housing complex, and includes the City water plant.
The entire parcel is approximately 54 acres, with approximately 5 acres proposed for residential
development. The property is zoned Public (PUB) with an SPA (Specially Planned Area) overlay.
The adjoining residential uses to the North are zoned R-15 PUD SPA.
REQUEST: The applicant is proposing an affordable housing project consisting of 6 single-
family lots, three duplexes, and two triplexes, for a total of 18 dwelling units in 11 independent
structures. This is an increase in density by two (2) units from previous submittals, due to the
replacement of a fourplex with two triplexes. Also included in the project are the construction of
two storage buildings south of the water plant complex of approximately 2,160 and 3,290 square
feet each, and associated road improvements. These two garage -like structures are intended for
housing heavy equipment and service vehicles used by the City's Water and Electric Departments.
The applicant's submittal package, which includes a conceptual site plan, a description of
significant revisions, a preliminary financial plan, a summary of potential chlorine hazards and
evacuation radius, as well as memos addressing transportation issues are all attached for the
commission's review (Exhibit A).
ISSUES: During the previous submittal, several issues where identified by both staff and the
Commission. These issues, as well as proposed modifications by the applicant, are summarized
below.
VISUAL IMPACT
Building Envelopes. The proposed building envelopes may be quite visible from both adjacent
development (Castle Ridge and Twin Ridge) as well as from the State Highway 82 corridor. The
applicant has set back the building envelopes approximately 25 to 50 feet from the edge of the
bluff overlooking Castle Ridge. Staff has requested that the applicant place story poles within the
building envelopes shown on the site plan for review by staff and the Commission. In addition,
staff has requested that the proposed building envelopes and road alignment be conceptually
depicted on an aerial photograph to determine the impact on existing vegetation.
The elimination of the proposed fourplex at the lower reaches of the property appear to isolate the
visual impact of structures to the upper portions of the site, however the revised location and
orientation of the proposed triplexes will make screening difficult from State Highway 82. Staff
notes that a site review indicated that additional buildable land is available to increase the setback
from the bluff, although the future emergency access road to the water plant would have to be
shifted south.
Road Improvements. Dolittle Road is substandard for existing uses, and the applicant proposes to
improve the road with a pavement width of 24 feet, and install curb and gutter on the downhill side.
The existing road width varies from 14 to 16 feet, with existing grades at or exceeding 10 percent.
Existing residents have noted that the road retains snow and ice due to the north facing descent and
existing vegetation, and additional traffic may be problematic.
Widening the template to 24 feet will require significant disturbance of existing vegetation on both
the up and downhill slopes. The proposed uphill and downhill slope reach 2:1, which may make
topsoil retention and revegetation difficult. The applicant has had on -going discussions with City
staff regarding the horizontal and vertical alignment of the roadway (see 8/28/95 memo from Jay
Hammond, SGM to Scott Smith, Gibson Reno Architects).
Trail Alignment. The applicant is proposing an improved trail connection from upper Dolittle
Drive to the Twin Ridge intersection (see site plan). The relocation of dwelling units from this area
may minimize impacts on existing vegetation when compared to previous trail alignments. Staff
has requested that the alignment also be shown on an aerial photograph, and be field -located to
minimize disturbance of the mature oak stands.
2
Parking. A proposed parking area of approximately 5000 square feet is conceptually shown in the
front of the proposed triplexes. Staff would suggest that the parking should be relocated or broken
up to avoid the visual prominence of parking mass this size.
TRAFFIC SAFETY
The proposed road design does not meet standards regarding curve radius or cul-de-sac design. In
addition, Dolittle Drive has a traffic mix that includes heavy equipment associated with the water
plant and other City Departments. Staff notes that the proposed expansion of the water plant
facility will also increase the number of heavy equipment using this portion of Dolittle Road. Staff
has requested that the Engineering Department assess the number and time distribution of existing
city vehicles to determine if trips could be shifted out of the AM/PM peak period to minimize
impacts. Additional residential development, in addition to the expansion of the water plant
facilities, will also increase conflicts associated with the these types of vehicles.
Traffic impacts, as well as the proportional share for necessary road improvements, have been
premised on a trip generation number used by the Housing Authority based on other affordable
housing projects that have access to transit service, estimated at 4 vehicle trips/per day. Staff
notes that this factor is considerably less than expected generation used by the Institute of Traffic
Engineers for mult-family (approximately 6.5 to 8.5), as well as single-family units (9.0 - 10.6).
CHLORINE STORAGE
The water plant stores approximately 4600 lbs. of liquid chlorine for disinfection at any time,
which presents issues regarding evacuation requirements. Chlorine is 2.5 times heavier than air,
and tends to "plume" downhill. Accidental releases can be deadly at concentrations of 500 PPM.
The applicant has submitted a summary of risks associated with exposure to chlorine gas (see
September 7, 1995 memo from Mark O'Meara, attached). A "large" spill would require the
evacuation of existing units in Castle Ridge, Twin Ridge, and several residents West of the water
plant (see evacuation radius map). All units proposed in the Water Place project would fall within
the 1500 foot radius depicted in the Water Department memo.
Staff notes that an Emergency Response Plan has not been finalized. Staff recognizes that
precisely estimating the statistical probability of an event triggering evacuation is difficult.
However, an evacuation plan would assume that Dolittle Drive could handle both response
personnel arriving at the site (although some will be on -site), as well as the evacuation of residents
in the area. The road template, proposed roadway grade, and traffic volumes entering and exiting
the area during any necessary evacuation event should be conceptually analyzed.
PROCEDURE: The applicant intends on holding work sessions with both the Planning
Commission and City Council prior to submitting a conceptual SPA. Consistent with comments
from the March 1995 submittal, the application will go through a four -step review.
Attachment: Exhibit A (Applicant's Submittals)
C: Oa R P O R ., A T rE D
September 8, 1995
Mr. David Michaelson
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: WATER PLACE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Dear David:
Attached hereto is the additional information requested for the above referenced
project. Pursuant to the directive of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the attached
information shall pertain to the Conceptual Submission only as the project will now
go
through a five step process. Please note that conditions of Conceptual a pertaining
ert to future review phases such as Final Submission have not been addressed at this time but
but
will be addressed at the appropriate stage of the process. Whiles specific informa i
been provided for the technical issues such as development pro ram infrastru ton has
the design of the development has been reverted back to a cone Our tual level. ur etc.,
reasoning is that we hope to be able to have constructive work sessions with
and Zoning Commission and Council, and be able to incorporate input from these fanning
meetings into the project design. By providing a specific design now, prior to the work sessions, we subject the project to being reviewed on the basis of that specific design
rather than generating new ideas. The plans incorporatingthe work sessiong
finalized and forwarded to the Planning Office for review prior rior to the u input will be
Planning and Zoning. P public meeting with
Revisions and Additional Information
1. I The most significant. revision involves the relocation of the units previous]
sited on the lower portion of the site next to Castle Ridge. This portion of the site i y
longer being considered for residential development. Instead this site will be lefts no
undeveloped and identified as open space with a provisionter p
for a future ark. In turn
development will be confined to the upper portion of the site adjacent to the water > all
facility. Additionally, the limits of the development have been pushed back fr lant
of slope by 25 to 50 feet. This will significantly reduce the visual act l im of om the edge
the adjacent properties as well as the Highway 82 corridor, p the units from
2. A user needs survey was conducted which has provided valuable
information as to unit types and costs currently in demand by emergency response
and
City employees. Based on the results of this survey the program has been modified
include more townhome units resulting in an overall increase in densit • to ei ht to
from the previous sixteen. A summary of the employee survey and the revisedpro
units
has been attached hereto, program
312 E, Aspen Airport Business Center, Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-6717 FAX: 1303t 925-6707
3. A preliminary financial plan has been attached hereto. This plan outlines
the projected development costs and revenues.
4. As previously submitted, the Applicant has requested that a significant
portion of the proposed development be categorized Resident Occupied. This will serve
to provide additional flexibility for future buyers whether emergency response personnel
or City employees. The sales price, however, will be set at initial sale, at the rates
proposed in this application, and shall appreciate from that point at a rate of 3%. Of this
3%, only 1.3% will be retained by the owner and 1.7% will go towards a capital
replacement fund. This appreciation, cap on the initial sale price will ensure that the units,
although categorized as R.O. will remain affordable through subsequent sales. The actual
mix of R.O. and Category units is provided in the program summary attached hereto.
5. Within the proposed development program the vast majority of the units
will be identified for emergency response personnel with the remaining units for City
employees. In the event that an emergency response personnel buyer cannot be identified
for a unit held for emergency response personnel, the unit will be sold to a City employee.
In the event that no City employee can be identified for a unit, the unit will be sold by
lottery to a qualified member of the public.
6. As it is anticipated that a substantial number of residents of the proposed
development will be employed by the City, and therefore work in the same location during
the same hours, van pool service will be provided. This will result in a decrease of vehicle
trips per day generated by the proposed development.
7. A chlorine evacuation plan has been attached hereto.
8. With the relocation of the fourplex from the lower portion of the property
(next to Castle Ridge), the proposed pedestrian trail can be located in a manner so as to
minimize disturbance to the existing vegetation.' The revised location has been reflected
on the attached plan. This location shown on the plan is conceptual as the final alignment
will be field located in order to provide the greatest level of site sensitivity.
9. The lower portion of the site where the fourplex was previously located
will now be identified as open space with a provision for a future recreation area.
10. Attached hereto is a report outlining the proposed improvements to
Doolittle Road to provide additional safety for vehicular traffic. As stated in the original
application, an increase in maintenance will also occur providing yet another increase in
safety. Also attached is a report revising the projected impacts of the proposed
development on the surrounding road system and the proposed financial mitigation.
11. The Fire Marshall has made specific recommendations for the proposed
development based on access provided by Doolittle Road. The Applicant will comply
with all recommendations. The recommendations made by the Fire Marshall may change
due to improvements to Doolittle Road. In this case, the Applicant will continue to
comply with the recommendations.
12. At this time, the road system within the water plant is being planned to
incorporate improvements to the water plant as well as the proposed Water Place
development. A plan of the road improvements has been attached hereto.
If you have any questions or comments on the information provided, or should
require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerel ,
Thomas G. Stevens
Attachments
Doolittle/Addinfo.2
sm
00vuo 100, "Nadow
Aomoad orujarlofi nowici u"vM
ENGINEERS
- � SURVEYORS
(303) 925-6727 G�'�
FAX (303) 925-4157 ORDONMER
GORDON'MEVER -- P.O. Box 2155
Aspen, CO 81612
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Smith, Gibson Reno Architects
FROM: Jay Hammond, SGM, Inc.
DATE: August 28, 1995
RE: Water Place Housing, Doolittle Drive Meeting Notes
Just a quick recap of my meeting on July 25th with Chuck Roth and David Hauter regarding the
status of Doolittle Drive as it accesses the Water Place Housing project site. Generally, we
reviewed the Roadway Plan and Profile drawing dated April 24, 1995 with regard to proposed
improvements to the common access along Doolittle Drive to the site. We noted the typical
section for Doolittle Drive with a pavement width of 24 feet and curb and gutter on the downhill
side. Chuck requested that some additional gravel shoulder of 2 feet in width be shown on the
uphill side of the roadway.
We reviewed the curve radius in the vicinity of the previously proposed fourplex structure and the
grades of the overall roadway. The curve radius is currently in the range of 65 feet and our plan
would improve it to about 85 feet. The code requirement would be 100 feet. The overall grade
is just under 10%, which meets code requirements. We discussed at some length the feasibility
of improving the curve radius and grade conditions for Doolittle Drive. I noted the constraints
caused by the presence of the two large diameter water supply lines in the vicinity of the top of
the road. We determined that, even with relocation of the waterlines (at potentially significant
expense and disruption) and lowering the road in the vicinity of the project entry by 7 feet, we
would only improve the overall grade conditions by about 1 %. We also discussed "lengthening"
the road by moving out onto the downhill slope near the top of the road and by cutting into the
hillside near the curve. Again, impacts were significant and benefits were limited.
Following our discussion, Chuck and David indicated an increased comfort level with the access
road improvements as proposed. They did ask me to pursue some additional speed limit
considerations based on AASHTO standards as well as advisory speed signing for the vicinity
of the curve. I will pursue these issues prior to the P & Z worksession in September.
JH/jh 95030SS2
cc: dhuck Roth, P.E.
David Hauter
1001 Grand Ave., Suite 2E v Glenwood Springs, Colorado • (303) 945-1004
ENGINEERS
(303) 925-6727 SG SURVEYORS
SCHMUESER — P.O. Box 2155
FAX (303) 925-4157 GORDON MEYER - Aspen, CO 81612
n
September 7, 1995
Mr. Tom Stevens
THE STEVENS GROUP
312 Aspen Airport Business Center
Aspen, CO.
81611
RE: City of Aspen, Water Place Housing Project, Revised Road Improvement Contribution
Dear Tom:
I am writing in follow-up to our meeting yesterday regarding changes to the Water Place Housing
project unit program as it impacts the proposed contribution to improvements along the lower
Castle Creek Road in Pitkin County. One item that I had mentioned in our meeting was the fact
that Pitkin County has issued a new document titled Pitkin County Road Management and
Maintenance Plan, as adopted by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Resolution
# 95-97, which includes new traffic generation requirements for residential development. In
reviewing my report to you dated March 24, 1995, however, I was reminded that we had used
traffic generation figures based on Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority trip generation figures
for comparable affordable residential units with an available transit option rather than the trip
generation figures in the previous Pitkin County Road Specifications and Standards in effect at
the time. My inclination is that the figures generated by the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority from
actual studies of comparable projects remains the more appropriate traffic generation figure for
the Water Place project. The only significant change to our calculation of traffic impacts due to
the Water Place Housing project, therefore, relates to the increase in the unit count from 16 to
18 units. Using the trip generation figure of 4 vehicle trips per day per unit as determined by the
Housing Authority, the traffic impact of the Water Place Housing project would now be 72
vehicles per day (vpd).
The second relevant comment involves the annual average daily traffic (AADT) figure for the lower
Castle Creek Road that I had used in my previous report to calculate the pro-rata contribution
by the Water Place project. At the time, based on traffic count information most recently acquired
in the Fall of 1993, 1 calculated an AADT figure of 5,226 vpd. More recent counts from the Winter
of 1994-1995 indicate a somewhat lower AADT of 4,123 vpd (Calculating the AADT from limited,
often one -day, traffic volume information is certainly tricky. I do feel that the additional data is
useful in that it indicates that the true AADT on the lower Castle Creek Road may not yet exceed
5,000 vpd.) By averaging the more recent data, it would suggest that the current AADT on the
lower Castle Creek Road is probably closer to 4,675 vpd than the 5,226 indicated in my March,
1995 report. Adding the calculated 435 vpd associated with future build -out in the upper valley,
the base figure for build -out traffic becomes 5,110 vpd and the total including Water Place
becomes 5,182 vpd. While this figure still exceeds the 5,000 vpd threshold, our
recommendations regarding the appropriate level of improvements to the lower Castle Creek
Road remain unchanged though I would increase the estimated cost of the work slightly at this
time to-$300,000.00.
1001 Grand Ave., Suite 2E • Glenwooq Springs, Colorado • (303) 945-1004
September 7, 1995
Mr. Tom Stevens
Page 2
The contribution of the Water Place project to the traffic volumes at build -out on the Castle Creek
Road therefore represent 1.39% of the total volume and the pro-rata share of the lower road
improvements is now $4,168.27. Current discussions would still indicate that the Highlands and
Moore projects will be paying for improvements to the Castle/Maroon/82 intersection.
I hope these comments are helpful, call me if you have questions or require further detail.
Very truly yours,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC.
ay . Hammond, P.E.
Principal, Aspen Office
JH/Jh 95030TS1
cc: Scott Smith, Gibson -Reno
David Hauter, City of Aspen
I
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
MEMORANDUM
To: P&Z Commission Members
From: David Hauter, Project Mana
Date: September 7, 1995
Subject: Water Place Housing Project: An overview of a conceptual masterplan
and road improvements planned for Water Treatment Plant.
The Water Treatment Plant is scheduled for two new storage buildings and
comprehensive roadway improvements in 1996. The existing roadway within the Water
Treatment Plant is contiguous with Doolittle Drive. The existing Water Plant roadway is
inadequate for the occasional semi -truck delivery and needs to be expanded to serve the
two proposed new storage buildings. The attached Site Plan indicates the sites selected
for the new storage buildings and shows the proposed internal roadway. Generally the
roadway improvements for both the Water Plant and Water Place Housing can be
reviewed and designed as one project. The new upper road within the Water Treatment
Plant as proposed will terminate at a turn -a -round as shown. All the major road
improvements within the Water Treatment Plant will be designed as a two-way road wide
enough to accommodate semi -trucks.
The attached site plan is conceptual and is being submitted along with the Water Place
Housing Project for your initial review and comments. The existing emergency
access/egress road to the east of the Water Plant above the Water Place Housing
development will be maintained for emergency use only to the Water Plant.
EXIST.
RESEVOIR
i�
I
I
I
I
PROPOSED (18) UNITS
WATER PLACE HOUSING
LOCATED NORTH OF WATER
TREATMENT PLANT GONNEGTED
TWO-WAY MAIN AGESS/EGRESS
ROAD. REGRADE TO 8% MAX.
AND RESURFACE. `
gac
poND �'gsH
�Q I
I I EXIST. ExIS
I I LARIFIE GEAR �vELL
_ I I
I I FUTURE
Q 2NDCO R
PROPOSED OFFICE SA
SEMI-TRUCK I I LARIFIE zw v
TURN A -ROUND �T
`• I I �
1 ADM/N pis r
NEW I I 4N7-
FI Er TRIO- AI a�FN
Dom__
STORA B D I zv
FUTURE I p�RKlh1� cNL Q B�D/ME
EXPANDED BLOR/NEE
RESEVOIR I I
FUTURE
I I — HOC,<ER
EXIST ROOMS
_NEN I I STORAGE
NATE$ DITFT. BLDG.
� E3Lr-)G.
I I
I i
NOTES:
I. A 50' DIAM. CLEARANCE 541-1- BE MAINTAINED AROUND THE CHLORINE BUILDING,
2. TWENTY (20) ON -SITE PJNR<INO SPAGES SHALL BE PROVIDED.
3. THE MAIN TWO-WAY ROADW�Y SHALL BE DESIGNED TO AGCOMODATE A SEMI-TRUGK TURNING RADIUS.
_ I I
�A5TER PLAN
ANC�OO ROAD IRON
noeT;
CITY OF ASPEN a ^ATER TREATMENT PLANT prepareb bi� : O. I h
SCALE: I'' - 100'-O" city ®f aSp�n
MEMORANDUM{PRIVATE}
TO: P & Z COMMISSION MEMBERS
THRU: DAVID HAUTER, PROJECT MANAGE
FROM: MARK O'MEARA, WATER DEPARTMENT, CHIEF PLANT
OPERATOR
DATE: SEPTEMBER 7,1995
SUBJECT: WATER PLACE HOUSING PROJECT: OVERVIEW OF CHLORINE
STORAGE HAZARD AT THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
The chlorine stored at the Water Treatment plant is used for disinfecting of the City of
Aspen's potable water supply. At any given time, the amount of liquid chlorine on site
may be up to 4600 lbs. Under most circumstances, storage consists of 2 one ton
containers, one full, and one 50-75 % full. The remainder of the chlorine stored is in four
150 pound cylinders for back up in case of failure with the primary feed system.
The Water Department staff has considered the risks involved with the storage and use of
chlorine as a disinfectant. All of the storage and use facilities on the Water Department
site are continuously monitored with an on line gas detector which is connected to the
dispatch system for early warning purposes. This piece of equipment serves as an early
warning device for the three rooms which have chlorine use and distribution. This
equipment will alarm to the Communications Department for dispatching an alarm
condition to plant personnel and a response team immediately.
GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT CHLORINE
COLOR: Greenish yellow both as a liquid andas a gas
ODOR: Very pungent detectable at less than 1 part per million (chlorine bleach)
WEIGHT: 12.6 pounds per gallon,
1 volume of liquid = 456.7 volumes of gas
1 ton of liquid chlorine will expand to approximately 20,000 cubic feet
of chlorine gas.
HAZARDS: Oxidizer, promotes combustion in other materials.
Corrosive, causes visible destruction or irreversible alteration of living
tissue, and causes metals to rust.
Toxic, can cause damage or disturbance to bodily functions when it
enters the body..
Irritant, can cause reversible inflammation at the site of contact.
EXPOSURE LIMITS
0.2 - 3.5 ppm Odor detection
1.0 - 3.0 ppm Mild Mucous membrane irritation tolerable for up to 1 hour
5.0 - 15 ppm Moderate irritation of upper respiratory tract
25 ppm Immediately dangerous to life and health
30 ppm Immediate chest pain, vomiting, cough, dyspnea
40 - 60 ppm Toxic pneumonitis and pulmonary edema
430 ppm Lethal over 30 minutes
1000 ppm Fatal within a few minutes
Primary concerns will be those originating from unscheduled releases of chlorine liquid or
gas.
The "Guidebook For First Response to Hazardous Material Incidents" U.S. Department of
Transportation outlines the following for small and large chlorine spills:
Small spill
First isolate in all directions 900 feet.
Then, protect those persons in the down wind direction 3 miles.
Large spill
First isolate in all directions 1500 feet.
Then protect those persons in the downwind direction 5 miles.
A reportable spill is one that is equal to or greater than 10 pounds.
Due to the topography and weather conditions, the behavior of the spill is unpredictable.
Chlorine is 2.5 times heavier than air and will tend to drift downhill. Wind velocities,
precipitation, and temperature will all have an influence on how isolation of the area will be
performed.
The Water Department staff has been developing an Emergency Response Plan specifically for
chlorine releases which incorporates other hazards and many safety issues. This plan will
involve many agencies and organizations from within the community and the State of
Colorado.
4 ..•--`-���� ti ��\ `\`�� ,' ~ate""•.., ti.-` � r , ..
tiN l I
p
a•
CO
�
�r
o
N
cC
�
CJi
w
asr,•,tf�i�+z
A s0*=LA
�Am�sr*i
f • �'
�
•-��rmrnr�Ys•
W =cz== -v
�
Q
rm; CA
ram► W 'are
'e
C•G�x+•r�-IH
�
24
6N
............ /
r • �,.�.� rat>rG� ' ✓" � . I ��"
Y
w��
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
Community Development Department
FROM: Steve Barwick
DATE: September 7, 1995
SUBJECT: Water Place Mousing
The purpose of this memo is to respond to some of the concerns expressed by P&Z board
members during their first review of the Water Place housing project.
A summary of the building types, sizes, and projected costs for this proposal is shown in
the following table. The City expects that the full cost of the project will be recovered
through the sale of the units. The expected unit cost is based upon a preliminary budget
which includes all aspects of project construction. There is no project subsidy built into
the following unit cost figures.
Type
# Bdrm
# of Units
Unit S.F.
Unit Cost
Single Family Home
3
2
11224
$179,236
Single Family Home
4
2
11600
$234,296
Single Family Home
4
2
1,740
$2545796
Duplex
3
6
1,188
$1731964
Townhome
2
6
1,090
$1592614
Total
18
A. One of the concerns raised by board members was that at the time of the first review
the City was unable to verify the demand/affordability of these units as they relate to City
employees.
Response: The City has concluded a survey of the housing needs of the City's
emergency response and management staff which indicates that we would be able to sell
all of the Water Place housing units to such staff members. At this time it appears that
all but 3 or 4 of the units could be occupied by emergency response employees. Should
there be any units remaining, they could always be sold to other City employees.
B. Another concern mentioned during the first review of this project was that one board
member objected to the planned use of the units for City employees.
Response: The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority has already reviewed this
project and unanimously approved the concept of sales to City employees only.
Although it is unusual for projects to be restricted to the staff of one employer, the
Housing Board felt that the fact that this project was 100% affordable housing and was
not using any funds from the Housing/Daycare Fund was an important overriding factor.
In fact, one board member stated that "Aspen wouldn't have a housing problem if more
employers did this type of project."
The Aspen City Council has also addressed this project on several occasions and continue
to support the concept.
C. Several questions were raised concerning the Housing Authority categories of these
units and the possibility of unit price appreciation.
Response: The City's application to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
included 9 Resident Occupied (R.O.) units with the remainder being category 4. This
mix of units was approved in order to give the City flexibility in the use of these units.
The prices shown above fall mostly within category 4 limits, with only the largest 4 units
priced into the R.O. category.
City staff is assuming that most or all of the $493,600 which will be produced through
the sale of the Cemetery Lane units will be used to help pay for the infrastructure costs of
the Water Place housing project. City staff feels that it is important to keep unit prices
affordable in order to create some units for our lower paid staff. By utilizing these funds
for infrastructure we can include some Category 2 and 3 units in the mix available to
employees. The Aspen City Council has expressed support for this concept on several
occasions.
The maximum annual unit appreciation will be 1.3 percent for all of these units. The
appreciation will be based upon the original sale price and will not be affected by the
Housing Authority category. Therefore, the sale price of many of these units will
continue to be less than the maximum allowed for their category. In this way the City
will maintain flexibility in matching employees with specific units, but the overall mix of
unit affordability cannot be changed.