HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19950606
AGE N D A
==================================================================
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
June 6, 1995, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
city Hall
==================================================================
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II . MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Stauffer Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling unit, Kim Johnson
,.._.c,
B.
Nichols Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Kim Johnson
.,~
C. Trueman/Aspen Company SPA Use Variations, Mary
Lackner (continued from May 2)
D. Mocklin Subdivision, Special Review, Rezoning & GMQS
Exemption, Leslie Lamont (tabled 5/16)
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Timroth Access Road 8040 Greenline Review, Mary
Lackner
B. Farish ESA Reconsideration, Kim Johnson
V. ADJOURN
,....,...,.....
.~-..
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
Upcoming Agendas
June 6, 1995
Overlay Committee - June 7
125 Park Ave - Nichols (KJ)
Lang - 1103 Waters (KJ)
Staley - 1440 Crystal Lake Rd (KJ)
Special Meeting - June 20, 4:00 PM, Joint Meeting with County P&Z
AH Zone District Amendments (LL/SK)
Regular Meeting - June 20
Aspen School District Text Amendments (ML)
Water Place (KJ)
Vickery Conditional Use Review for 2 ADUs, Text Amendment &
Historic Landmark Designation (ML/AA)
Overlay Committee - June 27
Bellock/Morrison (KJ)
E. Francis - Allen (KJ)
Regular Meeting - July it
Hirschfield Conditional Use Review for ADU (LL)
616 W. Hallam Conditional Use Review for ADU (KJ)
Lang Conditional Use Review for ADU (KJ)
E. Francis (Allen) Conditional Use Review for ADU (KJ)
Regular Meeting - July 15
Independence Place (LL)
a.nex
TO•
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Zoning Commission
Kim Johnson, Planner
Stauffer Conditional Use for an Attached Accessory
Dwelling Unit
June 6, 1995
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Stauffer
Conditional Use for an approximately 660 s.f. studio accessory
dwelling unit to be legitimized within a remodeled residence/garage
with conditions.
APPLICANT: John Stauffer, represented by Don Huff
LOCATION: 1460 Sierra Vista Dr. (Lot 37, Filing 1, West Aspen
Subdivision). The zoning for this 16,074 s.f. parcel is R-15.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use for
the construction of a first floor level 660 s.f. studio accessory
dwelling unit within a 4,808 s.f. residence (after its
remodel/addition). The conditional use process seeks to legalize
a bandit unit which has existed in the garage for many years. The
unit will have internal access to the home via a doorway to the
entry foyer. Additionally, there will be an exterior entrance on
the east side of the house and a doorway from the garage. The
project entails upgrading the unit including venting skylights,
sound insulation, and general sprucing up of floor covering, paint,
etc.
Because the ADU is above grade, the applicant is eligible for an
FAR bonus for the property. The applicant has submitted floor
plan, elevation, and site drawings for the proposed ADU. See
Exhibit "A".
PROCESS: The Planning Commission shall make a determination on the
Conditional Use for the accessory dwelling unit. This residence
also received special review overlay approval on September 7, 1994.
This review was required because the structure exceeds 85% of the
FAR limit.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Housing: The proposed unit meets the requirements of Section 24-
5-510 of the Aspen Municipal Code. It shall be between 300 and 700
square feet of net livable area, deed restricted to resident
occupancy, and have minimum lease periods of 6 months. Precise
floorplans of the accessory dwelling unit must be approved by the
Housing Office prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
deed restriction shall be approved by the Housing Office, recorded
with the County Clerk, and proof of recordation forwarded to the
Housing office prior to issuance of any building permit. The
kitchen must meet the requirements established in the 1994 Housing
Guidelines, which includes a minimum of a two -burner stove with
oven, a standard sink, and a 6 cubic foot refrigerator plus
freezer. (Exhibit "B")
STAFF COMMENTS: The Commission has the authority to review and
approve development applications for conditional uses pursuant to
the standards of Section 7-304:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located.
RESPONSE: This proposed unit will allow the property to house
local employees in a residential area, which complies with the
zoning and Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture
of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity
of the parcel proposed for development.
RESPONSE: The accessory dwelling is compatible with the principal
dwelling and other single family and duplex residential uses in the
surrounding neighborhood. Planning and Zoning have received no
complaints about the existing bandit unit.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties.
RESPONSE: A parking space is not required by code for a studio
accessory unit. Parking is not considered critical because of the
parcel's location near the Cemetery Lane bus route. The unit will
not be visible as a separate dwelling. There are no other
anticipated impacts associated with this ADU.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable
water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services,
drainage systems, and schools.
RESPONSE: All public facilities are already in place for the
neighborhood.
F
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use.
RESPONSE: The unit must comply with kitchen requirements of the
Housing Guidelines. The applicant must file appropriate deed
restrictions for resident occupancy, including 6 month minimum
leases. Proof of recordation must be forwarded to the Planning
Office and Housing Office prior to issuance of any building
permits.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: If approved with the conditions recommended by staff,
this use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan for
provision of sound, livable affordable housing units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval of the Stauffer
Conditional Use for a 470 s.f. first floor level accessory dwelling
unit with the following conditions:
1. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. The
accessory dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to resident
occupancy with minimum 6 month leases. Upon approval by the
Housing Office, the Owner shall record the deed restriction
with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits, a copy of the
recorded deed restriction for the accessory dwelling unit must
be forwarded to the Planning Office.
3. The unit shall comply with the kitchen requirements contained
in the Housing Guidelines.
4. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling
unit on Building Permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C.
Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements.
5. Precise floorplans of the accessory dwelling unit must be
approved by the Housing Office prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
6. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
3
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Stauffer Conditional
Use for a 470 s . f . f irst f loor level accessory dwelling unit within
the residence at 1460 Sierra Vista Drive (Lot 37, West Aspen
Subdivision, Filing 1) with the conditions recommended in the
Planning Office memo dated 6/6/95."
Exhibits:
"A" - Proposed Site Plan, Floorplan, and Elevations
"B" - Housing Office Referral Comments
4
h16tt
A
ATTACHMENT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
Project Name: The Stauffer Residence
2. Project Location : 1460 Sierra Vista Dr Aspen Colorado 81611
Lot No. 37, West Aspen Subdivision Filing No 1
City of Aspen, Pitkin County Colorado
3. Present Zoning: 'R -15 ' 4. Lot Size: 16,074 sf
5. Applicant's Name, Address, & Phone:
John Stauffer
4915 New Providence Av.
Tampa. FL 33629
(813) 286-7473
6. Representative's Name, Address, & Phone:
Don Huff
P.O. Box 388
Woody Creek, CO 81656
(303)925-4718
7. Type of Application : Conditional Use
8. Description of Existing Uses :
This Project is an existing single family residence it consists. of_approx. 4.332 sf
of living area. It contains ( 4 ) existing bedrooms and an existing' bandit' living
unit in the garaae space This Property has received approval from the Planning
Dept., earlier this year, on a Special Review Application responding to the
Owner's desire to add on to the house
9. Description of Development Application:
It is the intent of this Application to receive approval for the addition of and the
legitimization of an existing space to function as an Accessory Dwelling Unit
This proposal complies with all ordinances standards and other stipulations
that exists with aovenrning bodies having jurisdiction over the Project
10. Have you attached the following:
.. a- ••t - • � ., tll't 11 �11__11__ fly_ •■ •■ -■
XX Response to Attachment 4.. Review Standards for Your Application
� aATTACHMENT 2
Proiect Data: Applicant : John Stauffer
2.112.2•, 2.41 4915 New Providence Av.
Tampa, FL 33629
1(813) 286-7473
Representative: Don Huff
P.O. Box 388
Woody Creek, CO 81656
(303) 925-4718
Legal : Lot No. 37
West Aspen Subdivision
Filing No. 1
Pitkin County, City of Aspen,
State of Colorado
Address : 1460 Sierra Vista Dr.,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
ATTACHMENT 2
Project History : The property located at 1460 Sierra Vista Dr., Aspen,
2.5, was purchased by the Stauffers in the Spring of 1994. Since that
time they have been involved in various stages of remodeling
and procuring improvements to the Property.
An existing 'bandit' unit occupied what originally functioned
as a (2) car garage. This unit.was comprised of a 'studio' type
layout, containing a separate entry, kitchen, 314 bath, living
and sleeping areas, and storage and closet areas.
The intent of this proposal is to apply for a 'Conditional Use'
approval, which would legitimize an affordable employee
housing unit and enhance the Owner's use of the Property.
Project Schematic
: The comprehensive design development involves several
areas of renovation. The A.D.U. will occupy the original
garage, as a result a new (2) car garage with a 'drive-thru'
configuration will provide this needed element in the residence.
The garage incorporates east and west facing doors, removing
that element from the street facade. Certain improvements are
to be implemented in the A.D.U., these include an additional
entry door connecting the new garage to the Unit, and the
mechanical room area is to be reconfigured as to allow a
direct, exterior access to the space. There is also proposed,
the addition of (2) new venting roof windows in the living area,
as well as the enlarging of an existing west facing window.
Other improvements include the replacement of the door that
accesses the main house, to provide a more sound isolation
between the units, also general upgrading such as new floor
covering, paint, and basic 'touch-up' of the Unit.
The second area of the proposed remodel involves the addition
of a main level Family Room, in an area currently functioning
as an outdoor deck. Other areas of the proposed remodel
include the addition of a 'new front entry' device, connecting
walkway from the new garage to the main house, and certain
site improvements. Also intended are general maintenance
improvements that include replacing the existing 71-11' siding
with lap cedar or redwood siding, roof replacement and addition
of insulation at the Pool Rm., and the replacement of 80% of
the existing single glazed windows with insulated 'Low-E' units
to improve the energy demands of the house.
ATTACHMENT 4
Review Standards : Development of Conditional Use
Project: The Stauffer Residence
4.A. The proposed Conditional Use complies and is consistent with the
various planning criteria as stipulated by the Aspen Area Comprehen-
sive Plan, and is in accordance with the goals, objectives, and stan-
dards associated with the 'R-15" Zone District.
4.13. This Proposal is compatible with the West Aspen Subdivision, and pro-
motes a design response that harmonizes with the adjacent Properties.
4.C. The Proposal enhances the Property and provides certain visual
improvements to the existing structure. The design exceeds standards
relevant to parking, vehicular circulation, and open space requirements,
and does not promote any adverse impacts on the surrounding
environment.
4.D. All services, utilities, and access to public and private facilities are exist-
ing in the current proposal.
4.E. This Proposal addresses the procurement of employee living units, that
are a means of affordable housing to residents of the area.
4.F. This Proposal complies or exceeds all relevant standards, codes,
ordinances and other stipulations of local, state and national govern-
ing bodies that have jurisdiction of the Property, this includes the
standards and objectives of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
N
BUILD fJE4? PR IU#O 1
log uiwtr� EA t�i: "ye►✓r.B o—iCToww'" , M,
I-Lar 371
j t 1apT4 5a F'1'.)
A
\s ee• sc w L 6wgym
li .,, '> •., ICE MJ: It - A V 1 9 T i1� 0' Ak, 1 V E
51_
Ir
L4
%n
4
%n
4
"..l1 ��ri•i Hb -tt4 HOUSING 0FC ... .
P.1
5(hibir
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson.. Planning Office
FROM: Cindy Christensen, HOUSjng Office-
D.TS: May 10 r 1995
RE: Stauffer Conditional Uga Review for an Acee,a
uk it grary vel.l g
P&rael ID No. 2735-111.,05-OD2
The size of the accessory unit falls within uid
Code: the guidelines of the
Accessory dwelling unks $hall contain not less than three hundred (300) square feet a�owgabl
Hour area and not more man seven hundred (700) square allowable flop.. area. The unit sh I
be deed restricted, meting the housing autho l
be limited to rental period$ of not leas than 91�$ guidelines for resident occupied units and shall
residence shall have the right to Place a qualified employee or employees of ) months in duration. Owners
is or her �ncpgl
the accessary dwelling unit. choosing in
The applicant states that the accessory dwellingunit i
of approximately 470 square feet of laving are, and � �o consist
the original garage. 1f approved, a new two ear s to occupy
bra i.l t . garage will be
The kitchen must also be built to the following specifications:
WIChen - For Accessory Dweeing Units and Caretaker Dwelling Um'ts, a Miriimurr� aF a two -
stove with wen, standard sink and a e-cubic foot refrigerator burner
gera'tor plus freezer.
This unit falls wi'.hin the Code and, therefore eta approval. The applicant must � staff recommends
signed and recorded deed Restriction, d which too Housing Office a
the Housing Office. The Housing Office must have he n be obtwined from
and page number prier to building permit ecarded book
approval.
1�sd1 reterral� stout tr . adu
!g MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Nichols Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit
DATE: June 6, 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Nichols'
proposed ADU located at 125 Park Avenue / 101 Dale Avenue with
conditions.
This development is also being reviewed by the Overlay Review
Committee for compliance with the Neighborhood Design Guidelines.
APPLICANT: Gary and Lucinda Nichols
LOCATION: 125 Park Avenue / 101 Dale Avenue, at the southwest
corner of Park and Dale. (Lot 10 and 11 Block 6 Riverside
Addition, and the south 1/2 of Dale Avenue adjacent to Lot 10)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is demolishing and replacing
a duplex. Within the basement of the western duplex unit is
proposed a 625 s . f . one bedroom ADU. External access is from a
sunken lightwell along the alley side of the parcel. This
lightwell is also the emergency egress for one of the bedrooms in
the basement. No parking is specifically dedicated for the ADU.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please refer to Exhibit "A" for complete
referral memos.
The Housing Office recommends approval of the unit with conditions
including the standard recordation requirements and also that the
kitchen area be expanded by either decreasing the bathroom or
decreasing the "media cabinet" space.
Engineering responded that there is some confusion about the legal
description which must be cleared up prior to issuance of any
permits. (The applicant stated to Planning that this issue has
already been resolved.) Also, because Park Avenue is designated
as a pedestrian route, the applicant must sign a curb and gutter
agreement or install a sidewalk during their construction. A
drainage plan must be approved by Engineering before the building
permit is issued. The fence encroachment must be eliminated or
licensed prior to building permit issuance. A parking space is
recommended for the ADU because of such limited parking in the
neighborhood streets. A trash and recycle area must be indicated
on the building permit site plan.
1
Zoning mentions that the proposed stairs for the ADU are
encroaching in the rear yard setback. (The applicant's architects
will provide revised drawings at the meeting).
STAFF COMMENTS: Planning agrees with Engineering's concern about
the need for a dedicated parking space for the ADU because of the
roadway constraints along Park Avenue. According to the drawings
submitted, the western unit provides three parking spaces and
contains two bedrooms plus the ADU. The exterior parking space
should be dedicated for the ADU on building permit plans and future
condominium plat.
Also, staff is concerned that more privacy of the ADU be provided.
Specifically, the exterior entry patio is shared by a sliding door
for the other basement level bedroom. As this is the only
habitable outdoor space for the ADU, staff believes that another
egress window should be designed for the principal residence's
bedroom. This causes some redundancy of window wells, but can be
accommodated with a rather small penetration in the basement wall
along the west or north sides. Perhaps a high window which does
not provide visual access into the patio space could also be
included for the bedroom. The other change staff recommends is
that the interior entry into the ADU not be through the bedroom of
the unit. Again, it seems that the privacy of the ADU would best
be served if direct access from the main house would be to the
living space of the ADU rather than the bedroom.
Conditional Use review criteria per Section 24-7-304 are as
follows:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located.
RESPONSE: This proposed unit will allow the property to house
local employees in a residential area, which complies with the
zoning and Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture
of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity
of the parcel proposed for development.
RESPONSE: The accessory dwelling is compatible with the principal
dwelling and other single family and duplex residential uses in the
surrounding neighborhood.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
Kd
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties.
RESPONSE: A parking space is not required by code for a one
bedroom accessory unit. However, parking is critical in this
neighborhood because of narrow street widths which do not
accommodate any on -street overflow parking. Therefore, Planning
and Engineering recommend that one on -site space be dedicated for
this ADU. The unit will not be visible as a separate dwelling.
There are no other anticipated impacts associated with this ADU.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable
water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services,
drainage systems, and schools.
RESPONSE: All public facilities are already in place for the
neighborhood. The street issue is discussed above.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use.
RESPONSE: The kitchen area for the unit appears inordinately small
compared to the bathroom and "media cabinet". Housing and Planning
are conditioning the approval with the requirement to increase the
size of the space for a more functional cooking facility. Also,
as discussed above, the interior and exterior accesses into the
unit do not provide adequate privacy for the unit.
The applicant must file appropriate deed restrictions for resident
occupancy, including 6 month minimum leases. Proof of recordation
must be forwarded to the Planning Office and Housing Office prior
to issuance of any building permits.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: If approved with the conditions recommended by staff,
this use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan for
provision of sound, livable affordable housing units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval of the Nichols
ADU with the following conditions:
1) The kitchen area must be expanded by decreasing either the
media area or bathroom area.
3
2 ) The interior entry for the ADU shall be moved from the ADU
bedroom to the ADU living room.
3) The stairway for the ADU shall comply with applicable setback
requirements.
4) One parking space shall be dedicated for use by the ADU on
the building permit drawings and any future condominium plats.
5) Egress needs for the basement bedroom adjacent to the ADU
shall be accommodated by a separate window well.
6) The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. The
accessory dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to resident
occupancy with minimum 6 month leases. Upon approval by the
Housing Office, the Owner shall record the deed restriction
with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
7) Prior to issuance of any building permits, a copy of the
recorded deed restriction for the accessory dwelling unit must
be forwarded to the Planning Office.
8) The unit shall comply with the kitchen requirements contained
in the Housing Guidelines. Precise floorplans of the
accessory dwelling unit must be approved by the Housing Office
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
9) The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling
unit on Building Permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C.
Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements.
10) The applicant shall consult the City Engineer and Parks
Department and shall obtain permits from the Streets
Department for any work or development including landscaping
within the public right-of-way.
11) Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits,
the applicant must sign a curb and gutter agreement, or
include in their building permit plans the provision to
install a sidewalk during construction. Also, a drainage plan
must be approved by Engineering, the fence encroachment must
be eliminated or licensed, and a trash and recycle area must
be indicated on the building permit site plan prior to
building permit issuance.
12) All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
M
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Conditional Use
for a 625 s.f. basement level accessory dwelling unit within the
proposed Nichols duplex at 125 Park Avenue / 101 Dale Avenue with
the conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated June
6, 1995."
Application Information
Exhibit "A" - Referral Memos
5
Project Data
Project Location: 125 Park avenue, Aspen, Colorado
Aspen Neighborhood: Smuggler
Zone: Medium -Density Residential (R-6)
Use: Duplex
Lot Size: 7688 sf
Allowable
proposed
Building Gross Area:
Lower Level
2360 sf
(Excluding Decks)
Street Level
2329 sf
Upper Level
1852 sf
n.a.
Total
6541 sf
Floor Area:
Lower Level
n.a. ,
Street Level
1852 sf
Upper Level
1869 sf
3870 sf
Total
3721 sf
(149 sf under)
Above Grade Decks
580.5 sf
724.75 sf
(15% of F.A.R.)
(144.25 sf over)
Lot Coverage
2719.5 sf
2351
(368.5 sf under)
Deck and Canteliever
407.9 sf
295 sf
extensions
(15% of lot coverage)
(112.9 sf under)
Off Street Parking
No spaces required for
No spaces provided
one bedroom ADU Unit
3 Spaces required for
3 Spaces provided
West Unit
4 Spaces required for
4 Spaces provided
East Unit
N
Not every street or road is
rwned on maps or Wad in
street guides. C«ntr uWn c
streou and roads may be in
g progress in certain areas.
Vicinity Map
Cl)
i
X
W
ti
V
a0
lowL)
o
0
M.
a
Ln
++
.�
O
<1
I
I
1
1
LLefy
I
I a
•
W of
Park AVVII
AMMENDMENT 01
APRIL 12, 1995.
REISISED PARKING LAYOUT
FOR EAST UNIT
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
Ut3 DU �@X a r c h i t e c t s
� 125 park Aven p ,
d861 'z1 n'dv mun Buillema Ajoss933d
opeaoloo ua sd
xaldn(3 anuand 3aed 5Z L if
8 I I
tm
C
N
r
@
O
3
N
o
i
�
m
o
IM
U81d A0011 JOAO-] AaMO-1
opejoloo buedsv
xeldna enUOAV,V8d M
Fo- m
0
0
W
3:
0
-j
(0 � �Mmu ad= Now
bull A-d-d
C\ �'., - , (
anUOAV )IJud
oun ApodOJd
IFE
veld JOOIA lu"Lu,
o a I y op J0103 U.
xeldn(] enUSAV )Ijr
uald aooI-A Jana-1 aaddn
op solo ua sd
g I xaldnQ anuand Vlad ( L f9
uolJan013 (anuand al8a) 41JON
opaa0103 ua sd
S , 3 e , 1.4 H xaldna anuand NAB)d 5Z L
8 i
uulJen813 (Aelle) IsoM
opeaolo� uG sd
e , y xeldna anuGnd 31asd 9ZL 9
IIIAY 22 195 0, 3: 52PM ASPEN H(DUSINP.G SFr Xr#161t 1%
1� =- �Vlv- I
TO,-. ,',rohnsonp Planleiiylg- Of f ice
FROM: CIndy Cbristeno,,'1,11,
DATE; majr 22v 1-995
aor an AcCessory Dwelling
Rig G 0X0 1, U." on a I
ni t
The Housing of five reco-fximando approval for the requested accessary
dwelling unit with the recommended. changes a$ stated belolvi;, �
Acoo �--gorV- cmaing units shall cant -nits viaq less than three hundred (300) square feet ref allowable
floor are)&,9nd not more then seven hundred (7rjl)) square feet of allowable floor area. The unh shall
be deed ffynMated, meeting the housing authority's gu'ldellnes for resident accuPied urihs and atoll
be jimited w renal periods of nat lesg th2n SIX (6) months in dursliw, owners di the Principal
rP,sldencs shall have the fight to PISCe Q qi.qaiified employee or employees of his or htr�r rhonsinq, in
the OcMA303q! dtYPIUM0 U011-
The applicant states that, the propooed accessOrY dwelling un't
to consist of approx'Imately 625 square feet Of living area, and is
si be IOC&ted withinle
fa,11ily residence heloNg the natural
to the -ag
grade
The kitchen must also be built : L0 tl-16 t'o
Kitchon - For Aoaet,,,,%0rY owmflnq Unks and daretalter Dwelling Units, a wlnhllulm 04: &-1 fimicuburner
move with ovaki, �tnjndard sink, RrIfA a 8-aubi� foot reffigerator plus freeze,
According to the plans, the Jcitchen duc-�V, MeeU tj-1e ahove-r3tated
definition, but otaff Would recommend expanding the kitchen by
either c38crea8inq the bathroom or decreasillg the @,rea statand I'medi-n
receive building permit
cabinet." Before the apylicarit can
approvals the applicant must Provide to the Housing office. the net
liveable calculation og the a0cessory dwelling unit ao defined by
signed and recorded Deed Restric-,-tion,
the Housilig offic,,e, and a Office, The Housing office
which can be obtajzaed from t�he Mousing
must- have the recorded book, and page, number prior to building
pexinit approval,
�word�ref4,rral\niCbls - adu
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department
Date: May 16, 1995
Re: Nichols Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
(125 Park Avenue 101 Dale Avenue; Lots 10 & 11, Riverside Addition)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Legal Description - The legal description states "..... and the south 1/2 of Dale Avenue adjacent
to Lot 10." The Vacations & Closures map does not indicate any vacation of Dale Avenue. I have
telephoned the applicant concerning this. No approvals or permits should be granted until the
property ownership is clarified.
2. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - Section 19-98 of the Code requires that a property owner install
sidewalk, curb and gutter prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The "Pedestrian Walkway
and Bikeway System Plan" does not indicate Dale Avenue for sidewalk at this time. The applicant
will be required to provide a signed and notarized sidewalk, curb and gutter construction
agreement, together with recording fees, prior to issuance of a building permit.
The "Ped Plan" does indicate Park Avenue as a designated pedestrian route. The applicant
should be required to construct sidewalk, curb and gutter prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. This may entail associated storm inlet and pipe work which the City may be able to
provide at the time of construction. If this course of action is not followed, a sidewalk, curb and
gutter agreement would need to include a construction easement for a width of five feet adjacent to
the Park Avenue property line to permit future construction of a sidewalk to be located at the
property line due to the narrow public right-of-way.
3. Driveway - Section 19-101 specifies 25 feet between "curb cuts" (driveways). This dimension
is not labeled on the application drawings, but it appears to scale off acceptably from the driveway
at the adjacent property. Depending on the property ownership question, the allowable driveway
width may vary. Maximum driveway width for a parcel of 60' or less frontage is 10'. A lot with
greater than 60' frontage is permitted up to an 18' wide driveway. If the site is redesigned for any
reason, it is preferable for the driveway to be located on Dale Avenue due to the high traffic
volumes on Park Avenue.
1
The driveway grades and cross section must provide for the sidewalk.
4. Storm Runoff - The applicant must provide for no drainage to enter the City street system both
during and after construction. A drainage plan must be provided to City Engineering together with
the building permit application.
5. Encroachments - The improvement survey indicates a fence being located within the public
right-of-way. The fence must either be relocated to private property, or an encroachment license
must be applied for prior to issuance of a building permit.
The improvement survey indicates a deck and a portion of a building that encroach into the
"original R.O.W. location." As in item 1 above, the property ownership must be clarified prior to
approvals or permits.
6. Parking - Given the narrow rights -of -way in the area, there will be no on -street parking
available. Therefor we recommend that a parking space be required for the ADU.
7. Utilities - 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.
8. Trash & Utility Area - The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area, which
may not be in the public right-of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and
recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment
must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers.
9. Improvement Districts - If appropriate, 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.
10. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of
development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for
vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130).
cc: Cris Caruso
Gary, Lucinda & Kenneth Nichols
M95.113
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson
FROM: Bill Drueding
RE: Nichols Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling
Unit
DATE: May 3, 1995
---------------------
---------------------
The stairs to the Accessory Dwelling Unit are not permitted in the
setback. Refer to the "yard" definition in section 3-301; (A)(5)
states that steps which do not exceed thirty (30) inches above or
below natural grade are permitted to project into the yard without
restriction.
FAR, site coverage and height requirements cannot be verified at
this stage of development, but must be met prior to building permit
submittal.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Trueman Lot 1 SPA Amendment - Public Hearing
DATE: June 6, 1995
SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking City approval to vary the uses
permitted on Lot 1 of the Trueman Subdivision SPA which is located
in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district.
APPLICANT: Trueman Aspen Company, represented by Philip Bloemsma.
LOCATION: Lot 1, Trueman Subdivision.
ZONING: NC - Neighborhood Commercial zone district.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an SPA use
amendment to allow more locally oriented uses than are presently
permitted in the NC zone district.
Please refer to application information, Exhibit "A"
PROCESS: This project is being reviewed through the Final SPA
review process, since the addition generally complies with the
Conceptual SPA plan that was approved in 1977, as permitted by
Section 24-7-804(E)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
The Planning Commission shall forward a recommendation to City
Council for the proposed SPA amendment.
STAFF COMMENTS: Section 24-7-804 (D) (2) , Specially Planned Area
regulations of the Municipal Code, permits use variations from the
underlying zone district if the variations comply with the
standards of Section 7-804 (B) of the Code.
The purpose of the NC zone district follows:
The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone
district is to allow small convenience retail
establishments as part of a neighborhood, that are
designated and planned to be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, to reduce traffic generation,
and mitigate traffic circulation and parking problems,
and to serve the daily or frequent trade or service needs
of the neighborhood.
The applicant is seeking to add the following uses as permitted
uses in the Trueman SPA.
1. Travel agency
2. Second hand store
3. Kitchen supply store
4. Optical lab
5. Office supply
6. Lighting store
7. Photo/framing store
8. Furniture store
9. Auto parts shop
10. Children/toy store
11. Bookstore
12. Gift and card shop
13. Take-out food shop
14. Florist
15. Lock shop
16. Sporting goods store
17. Appliance store
18. Pet Store
19. Clothing and shoe store
20. Audio/Video/Computer/Communications store
21. Bed, bath and linen store
22. Arts and crafts
23. All current conditional uses would be
permitted uses.
considered
To help the Planning Commission understand the nature of the
applicant's request, the existing permitted by right and
conditional uses of the NC zone district are included in Exhibit
"B" . Staff has also included the purpose of the CC, C1, SCI and
O zone in this exhibit to assist the Planning Commission in their
decision.
Staff believes the applicant's request could have substantial
implications on the Trueman SPA. The purpose of the NC zone
district should be considered when reviewing the nature of the
proposed uses.
The Planning Office has provided the following comments about each
of the proposed uses to be added to the Trueman SPA. In
parenthesis are the zone districts in which these uses are
currently allowed by right.
1. Travel agency (CC, C1, O)
A travel agency is considered a professional office. These uses
are permitted in the three primary commercial zone districts in
Aspen. Staff does not support increasing the ability of this type
of professional office to be extended into the NC zone district.
2. Second hand store (CC, C1)
Second hand stores are popular retail establishments that serve a
N
niche that regular retail does not provide. This is a retail use
that can be narrowly defined. Staff recommends this as a use
permitted in the NC zone.
3. Kitchen supply store (SCI)
A kitchen supply store can mean many different things, from the
sale of kitchen appliances and cabinets to specialty accessory
kitchen items. Depending on the emphasis this use would be most
appropriate in either the SCI zone or the CC and C1 zones. Staff
does not see a kitchen supply store serving the daily or frequent
trade of the neighborhood.
4. Optical lab (CC, C11 0)
No explanation is offered in the application as to the nature of
an optical lab. Medical offices are permitted in the CC, C1 and
O zone districts, which seems appropriate for an optical lab.
Staff does not see an optical lab as appropriate in the NC zone.
5. Office supply (CC, C1)
Office supply may be an appropriate convenience use in this area.
6. Lighting store (SCI)
A lighting store would be a construction related or specialty type
store. Staf f does not believe it meets the purpose of the NC zone.
7. Photo/framing store (CC, C1, SCI)
Photo and framing stores have been interpreted to be included in
almost all commercial zone districts. Their scope of business
varies quite significantly from high end stores like the Hill
Gallery to more general photo and framing like Fox Photo.
Depending on the nature of the business this may be an appropriate
use in this area. Staff recommends that this be a conditional use.
8. Furniture store (CC, Cl)
Furniture stores vary in their orientation to customers. Depending
on the type of business this may be an appropriate use in this
zone. Staff recommends this be a conditional use.
9. Auto parts shop (SCI)
Cap I s Auto Supply is located in the Office zone district across the
street from the Trueman center. It is a non -conforming use in the
O zone, but it is a local serving business. An auto parts shop
would be an appropriate use in the NC zone.
10. Children/toy store (CC, Ci)
3
Although mostly geared to the commercial core area, a children
store or toy store could be oriented to serving the local
population. Again, depending on the orientation of the particular
business, it may or may not be appropriate in the NC zone. Staff
recommends that a children/toy store be a conditional use.
11. Bookstore (CC, Cl)
Bookstores are also a conditional use
landmarks. The grocery store carries
interest to their customers. Depending
of bookstore it may be appropriate
recommends that this be a conditional
12. Gift and card shop (CC)
in the O zone in historic
some magazines and books of
on the orientation and type
in the NC zone. Staff
use.
Staff does not believe a gift shop is appropriate in the NC zone
district. The combination pharmacy, card shop, beauty shop, gift
shop of The Drug Store provided a variety of uses that were
oriented to the local neighborhood. A gift and card section of a
larger local oriented store would be appropriate.
13. Take-out food shop (CC)
A food market is a permitted use in the NC zone. The definition
of a food market is "... a store which primarily sells packaged,
bulk and fresh foods, which may have indoor seating up to ten
seats, and no wait service." Staff believes this definition
provides for the type of food service that's appropriate for the
NC zone. An emphasis of the NC zone is to reduce traffic trips,
therefore staff does not believe a take-out food shop (i.e. fast
food) would be consistent with the purpose of the NC zone.
14. Florist ( CC, Cl)
A florist would be a use consistent with the purpose of the NC
zone. Staff recommends that this be a permitted use.
15. Lock shop (SCI)
Staff believes this would be an appropriate use in the NC zone
district, and could be permitted by right. It should be noted
there is a lock shop in the Trueman center at this time.
16. Sporting goods store (CC)
Although Aspen's local population is oriented to outdoor and
sporting activities, this use would be extremely difficult to
enforce in an NC zone district. Staff believes this use is most
appropriate in the main commercial zone districts of town.
4
17. Appliance store (CC, Ci)
An appliance store is most appropriately located in the SCI zone
district, however it does generally serve the local population.
Staff recommends that an appliance be a conditional use as the
orientation of such business can vary significantly.
18. Pet Store (CC, C1)
Generally it is the local population that would patronize a pet
store. Staff believes this would be consistent with the NC zone
if it was subject to a conditional use review.
19. Clothing and shoe store (CC, Cl)
Although clothing and shoe apparel is needed by the local
population as well as visitors, staff does not believe a clothing
or shoe store is appropriate in the NC zone, as they are permitted
in the other commercial zones in town.
20. Audio/Video/Computer/Communications store (CC, C1, SCI)
Video rental, and T.V. service and repair are permitted uses in the
NC zone. Staff believes that this use represents an updating in
the land use code in recognizing the need for more electronic
communications oriented uses. Due to the wide range of the type
of business that would fall into this category, staff believes this
is should be a conditional use in the NC zone.
21. Bed, bath and linen store (CC, Cl)
Staff believes this would be too specialty oriented and not a use
that would be frequented by the local population on a recurring
basis.
22. Arts and crafts (CC, C1, SCI)
A use such as Aspen Art Supply may be appropriate in this location.
There are other arts and crafts related businesses that staff does
not believe would be appropriate. Depending on the orientation of
the business staff recommends that this use be a conditional use
in the zone.
23. All current conditional uses would be considered
permitted uses.
The current conditional uses of the NC zone district are: service
station, laundromat, garden shop, hardware store, paint and
wallpaper store, carpet, flooring and drapery shop, business and
professional office, free market dwelling units which are accessory
to other permitted uses, home occupation, and satellite dish
antennae.
5
Staff believes that the following existing conditional uses should
be permitted by right: laundromat, garden shop, hardware store, and
paint and wallpaper store. (Satellite dishes have been eliminated
from the code as a conditional use in all zone districts).
The remaining uses should be maintained as conditional uses as they
be have an orientation or impacts that should be reviewed in the
public hearing context of a conditional use review.
Finally, staff believes that a catalog store would be an
appropriate use in the NC zone and recommends that this be added
to the permitted use in the Trueman SPA.
Specially Planned Area Criteria: The following review standards
are set forth in Section 24-7-804(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code:
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with
or enhances the mix of development in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use,
density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping,
and open space.
Response: The proposed SPA amendment will expand the range of
commercial uses permitted in the Trueman SPA. No increase in
square footage is proposed. Staff has made comments on each of the
23 proposed uses in the preceding section.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist
to service the proposed development.
Response: The City Engineer submitted comments on the Pitkin
County Bank satellite branch office conditional use application.
These referral comments identified a need for a sidewalk to be
constructed on the south side of Puppy Smith Street. The Planning
Office and Planning Commission did not believe the construction of
a sidewalk was appropriate for mitigation in the bank's conditional
use application, however staff would like to reconsider this
requirement with this SPA amendment. Although the applicant is not
increasing the square footage of the structure, the proposed
increase in types of commercial uses at the shopping center warrant
the installation of a sidewalk on the parcel. Individual
conditional use reviews may not necessitate a sidewalk but these
code amendments should be viewed as a more significant change to
the SPA.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is
generally suitable for development, considering the
slope, ground instability and the possibility of
mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood
hazards.
C.
Response: This provision does not apply for the proposed use
amendment.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs
land planning techniques to preserve significant
view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts
and provide open space, trails and similar amenities
for the users of the project and the public at
large.
Response: The applicant is only asking for an increase in
commercial uses allowed by right in the SPA. No public amenities
are proposed as no new development is proposed.
S. Whether the proposed development is in compliance
with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Response: One of the goals of the AACP is to revise the permitted
and conditional uses of the NC zone district so that only local
serving uses are permitted. The purpose of the NC zone also
emphasizes providing daily and frequent neighborhood services and
the reduction of traffic. Staff has closely reviewed the proposed
list of uses and has made comments relative to their
appropriateness in the NC zone district, as recommended by the
AACP.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the
expenditure of excessive public funds to provide
public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding
neighborhood-.
Response: The City has been working on improvements to Puppy Smith
Street and has suggested that the applicant provide a sidewalk
along the south side of this street. Therefore, the proposed
amendment will not require the expenditure of public funds to
provide public facilities.
7. Whether the proposed development on slopes in excess of
twenty percent (20%) meet the slope reduction and density
requirements of Section 7-903 (B) (2) (b) .
Response: No new development is proposed, therefore this provision
does not apply.
S. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the
proposed development.
Response: The applicant is not seeking to increase the floor area
of the project. The request to add supplementary uses to those
presently allowed does not trigger the need for GMQS allotments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends partial approval
7
of the applicant's request to expand the permitted uses on Lot 1
of the Trueman SPA. For reasons noted in the memorandum, many of
the uses proposed do not meet the purpose of the underlying NC zone
district. Staff recommends that the following uses be added to the
uses currently permitted by right on Lot 1 of the Trueman SPA:
1.
Second hand store
2.
Office supply
3.
Auto parts store
4.
Florist
5.
Lock shop.
6.
Catalog store
Staff further recommends that the following uses be added as
conditional uses to Lot 1 of the Trueman SPA:
1. Photo/framing shop
2. Furniture shop
3. Children/toy store
4. Bookstore
5. Appliance store
6. Pet store
7. Audio/Video/Computer/Communications store
8. Arts and craft store
The following uses are presently conditional uses in the NC zone
district. Staff recommends that these uses become permitted by
right for Lot 1 of the Trueman SPA:
1. Laundromat
2. Garden shop
3. Hardware store
4. Paint and wallpaper store.
The following conditions are recommended for this SPA Amendment:
1. The applicant shall file a new SPA agreement with the City of
Aspen within 180 days from the date of approval by City
Council. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the
final development plan and SPA agreement within a period'of
180 days following its approval by city council shall render
the plan invalid.
2. The applicant shall construct a new sidewalk on the north
property boundary of the property adjacent to Puppy Smith
Street. The plan for this sidewalk must be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Office and City Engineer. The
sidewalk shall be constructed within 180 days from the date
of approval by City Council.
8
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend to City Council a use
r amendment to the Trueman Lot 1 Final SPA, as recommended in the
Planning Office memorandum dated May 2, 1995."
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Information
"B" - List of Existing NC permitted and conditional uses
Purpose sections of CC, C1, SCI and O zone districts
"C" - Zoning referral comments
9
Exhibit A
Trueman Aspen Company
300 Puppy Smith
Aspen, _.NCO 81611
March 28..1995
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Garden Center conditional use and Trueman'SPA variance
Dear Commission Members:
Trueman Aspen Company is submitting an application package
to the Planning and Zoning office to seek an approval of a
conditional use in the Neighborhood Commercial zone district
(sec. 5-212) as well as a variance to the Trueman SPA.
The conditional use we are seeking is a "Garden Shop".
Trueman Aspen Company is requesting to use this permit for a
garden center located in the courtyard of the shopping
center.
The variance to the Trueman SPA is intended to allow more
locally oriented uses than are currently permitted under the
N/C zone guidelines (see attached). Following are -the
attachments and information needed to begin the permit
process:
1. The street address of the proposed site, located at
lot #11 is:
North Mill Station
300 Puppy Smith
Aspen, CO 81611
Tel. #303-925-8603
2. The applicant is Trueman Aspen Company
3. The authorized representative of the applicant is
Philip Bloemsma, Agent and Property Manager.
4. Attached are the following:
a. A disclosure of ownership by way of 1993
real estate tax notice
b. A vicinity map locating the property
c. A description of the proposed uses with an
explanation of how the uses comply with the
standards of the Planning and Zoning office.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
IS * erely,
Philip Bloemsma, Agent
Trueman Aspen Company__
P.O. Box 5081
Aspen, CO 81611
March 28, 1995
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Trueman Center SPA Variance
Dear Commission Members:
The Trueman Center currently lies in the neighborhood
commercial zone district. With this application, Trueman
Aspen Company is seeking a SPA variance to allow the
following uses as permitted uses:
1. Travel Agency
2. Second Hand Store
3. Kitchen Supply Store
4. Optical Lab
5. Office Supply
6. Lighting Store
7. Photo/Framing Store
8. Furniture Store
9. Auto Parts Shop
10. Children/Toy Store
11. Book Store
12. Gift and Card Shop
13 . iA" - p Lk f OD 5 ` ri
14. Florist
15. Lock Shop
16. Sporting Goods Store
17. Appliance Store
18. Pet Store Store
19. Clothing and Shoe Store
20. Audio/Video/Computer/Communications Store
21. Bed Bath and Linen Store
22. Arts and Crafts
23. We would also ask that all existing conditional uses
be considered permited uses.
Trueman Aspen Company feels that all of the requested uses
conform with the intent of the zone district and the
original intent of the City Council in designating the
parcel Specially Planned Area.
1Tr ours,
ilip Bloemsma, Agent
Trueman Aspen Company
300 Puppy Smith
Aspen, CO 81611
' March 29, 1995
I
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Trueman SPA Variance and Conditional Use response to
review standards.
Dear Commission.Members:
Following is a response to the review standards of the P&Z
per attachment 4 of the conditional use and SPA development
application. Trueman Aspen Company feels that the
Conditional Use and SPA Variance are consistent with the
intent of the commission and council. Also the requests
are consistent and compatible with the character of the'
immediate vicinity and enhances the mixture of the existing
uses.
The impact will be minimal. There will be virtually no
visual impacts and the proposed uses will require no
additional services or public facilities in order to
operate. The Trueman Center has mitigated its employee
housing quota with 17 on site employee housing units. The
shopping center has 110 parking spaces which is more than
adequate to handle any proposed use.
The Conditional Use and SPA Variance proposed by Trueman
Aspen Company are consistent with all standards and
objectives of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). In
particular, the AACP suggests that the NC zones permitted
and conditional uses be revised. The uses will be a
convenience -to the local community. They will enhance the
objectives of the zone district by serving the needs of the
local who requires convenience and ease with daily errands.
With this in mind, Trueman Aspen Company feels that the
proposed uses are appropriate for the Neighborhood Zone
District. Thank you for your consideration.
Si rely,
Phili loemsma, Agent and Property Manager
EXHIBIT B
The following uses of the Neighborhood Commercial. (NC) zone
district are permitted as of right:
1. Drug store
2. Food market
3. Liquor store
4. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up station
5. Barber shop
6. Beauty shop
7. Post office branch
8. Record store
9. T.V. sales and service shop
10. Shoe repair shop
11. Video rental and sale shop
12. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to
affordable housing guidelines
13. Accessory buildings and uses
The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in
the Neighborhood Commercial (NC):
1. Service station
2. Laundromat
3. Garden shop
4. Hardware store
5. Paint and wallpaper store
6. Carpet, flooring and drapery shop
7. Business and professional office
8. Free market dwelling units which are accessory to
other permitted uses
9. Home occupation
10. Satellite dish antennae
The purpose of the CC (Commercial Core) zone district is:
The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) zone district is
to allow the use of land for retail and service
commercial, recreation and institutional purposes with
customary accessory uses to enhance the business and
service character in the central business core of the
city. Hotel and principal long-term residential uses may
be appropriate as conditional uses, while residential
uses are permitted or may be appropriate as conditional
uses.
The purpose of the Commercial (Cl) zone district is:
The purpose of the Commercial (Cl) zone district is to
provide for the establishment of commercial uses which
are not primarily oriented towards serving the tourist
population.
The purpose of the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone
district is:
The purpose of the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I)
zone district is to allow for the use of land for the
preservation or development of limited commercial and
industrial uses which do not require or generate high
customer traffic volumes, and to permit customary
accessory uses, including residential dwellings.
The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is:
The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to provide
for the establishment of offices and associated
commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual
scale and character of former residential areas that now
are adjacent to commercial and business area, and
commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume
thoroughfares.
EXHIBIT B
The following uses of the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone
district are permitted as of right:
1. Drug store
2. Food market
3. Liquor store
4. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up station
5. Barber shop
6. Beauty shop
7. Post office branch
8. Record store
9. T.V. sales and service shop
10. Shoe repair shop
11. Video rental and sale shop
12. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to
affordable housing guidelines
13. Accessory buildings and uses
The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in
the Neighborhood Commercial (NC):
1. Service station
2. Laundromat
3. Garden shop
4. Hardware store
5. Paint and wallpaper store
6. Carpet, flooring and drapery shop
7. Business and professional office
8. Free market dwelling units which are
other permitted uses
9. Home occupation
10. Satellite dish antennae
accessory to
The purpose of the CC (Commercial Core) zone district is:
The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) zone district is
to allow the use of land for retail and service
commercial, recreation and institutional purposes with
customary accessory uses to enhance the business and
service character in the central business core of the
city. Hotel and principal long-term residential uses may
be appropriate as conditional uses, while residential
uses are permitted or may be appropriate as conditional
uses.
The purpose of the Commercial (Cl) zone district is:
The purpose of the Commercial (Cl) zone district is to
provide for the establishment of commercial uses which
are not primarily oriented towards serving the tourist
population.
The purpose of the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone
district is:
The purpose of the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I)
zone district is to allow for the " use of land for the
preservation or development of limited commercial and
industrial uses which do not require or generate high
customer traffic volumes, and to permit customary
accessory uses, including residential dwellings.
The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is:
The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to provide
for the establishment of offices and associated
commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual
scale and character of former residential areas that now
are adjacent to commercial and business area, and
commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume
thoroughfares.
Exhibit C
O
June 1, 1995
TO: MARY LACKNER
FROM: BILL'DRUEDING, ZONING OFFICERIvk/p�)
RE: TRUEMAN LOT 1 SPA AMENDMENT
My comments to your memo are:
Item #12: We need a definition of "gift shop."
Item #13: How much over-the-counter sales of on -site prepared
foods will be permitted in conjunction with
"primary" packaged goods?
Item #22: Do we need to define "arts and crafts?"
Item #23 Are business and professional offices to be
considered as current uses? This appears to
conflict with item # 1. Also, there is a difference
between a "laundromat" and a commercia laundry
(drycleaning) which exist at Clark's and also the
S/C/I zone.
4 HW1414i U1104I
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE: June 6, 1995
RE: Mocklin Property - Rezoning, Subdivision, and Special
Review for Floor Area Ratio, Parking, and Open Space
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant's, Peter and Monica Mocklin, seek subdivide
their property into seven parcels, rezone parcel 7 to AH, and seek
special review for parking, open space, and floor area ratio for
the AH zoned parcel.
Please see application, Exhibit A.
APPLICANT: Peter Mocklin as represented by Sunny Vann
LOCATION: 0202 Lone Pine Road
ZONING: R-15A and R/MFA
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subdivide their property into six free market
parcels, and one AH parcel, and special review for parking, open
space, and floor area ratio for AH zoned parcel.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments, exhibit
B.
PROCESS: Map amendments and subdivision are a two step review
process with the Commission making recommendations to Council.
Special Review is a one step process at the Commission.
GMQS Exemption for replacement housing is a Community Development
Director sign -.off.
Vested Rights Status is approved by the City Council.
STAFF COMMENTS:
I. Site Description - The Mocklins own approximately four
acres of land in the vicinity of Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine road.
One tract of land, .60 acres, is across Gibson Avenue, adjacent to
the Art Museum and is traversed by Spring Street. Spring Street
in this location is not a recorded public right-of-way.
The remaining portion of land is bordered by Lone Pine Road and
Gibson Avenue and is approximately 3.52 acres (153,331 square
feet). This applications refers only to this 3.5 acres.
The property contains one, eight unit apartment building, a paved
parking area, a small pond, and a pedestrian/trail easement that
runs parallel to the west property boundary connecting Lone Pine
Road with Gibson Avenue.
According to the applicant, the property is moderately sloping with
a significant change in elevation at the southeast corner where the
old railroad grade existed.
The site consists of native grasses, small shrubs, some small
aspens and cottonwoods. Interestingly, a significant portion of
the parcel represents one of the last remaining sage dominant areas
in town.
The site is directly adjacent to one of the RFTA
HunterCreek/Centennial free bus route. This route has a 20 minute
headway. A 10 ft. pedestrian trail easement traverses the property
on the west boundary. Mr. Mocklin and the Parks Department have
recently signed an access easement to preserve the trail at this
location and to upgrade the stairs at the Gibson Avenue end of the
trail.
The surrounding neighborhood is primarily high density housing with
a mixture of free market and deed restricted units. Further to the
east is the single family/duplex neighborhood of Spruce/Race/Walnut
Streets. The Smuggler Mobile Home Park is across Park Avenue.
Oklahoma Flats, across Gibson Avenue is primarily single family
homes. The Clark's Market area and the commercial core are easily
accessed just across the Roaring Fork River.
II. Background - When developed, the property was in the
county. In 1980, after a lengthy review the County accepted a case
disposition that acknowledged that the eight units in the building
are legal units. When the property was annexed into the City as
part of the large Hunter Creek/Centennial neighborhood annexation
it was zoned R-15A. At the time the Commission and Council rather
than rezone the property to R/MFA, they elected to keep the R-15
zoning absent a development plan.
Due to the R-15A zone designation, the apartment building was a
non -conforming use. In 1992, Mr. Mocklin requested to rezone the
entire parcel to R/MFA to eliminate the non -conforming status of
the building in order to make repairs and proposed expansion of
the building's square footage but not to increase the density.
City Council granted a partial rezoning of the property. Council
approved the rezoning of up to 50,000 square feet of land area
surrounding the building to be rezoned to R/MFA. Upon final
E
surveying and recordation of a survey describing the rezoning, the
rezoned parcel was 35,870 square feet. The rest of the land area
remained R-15A.
III. Project Description - The applicants propose to
subdivide their property into seven parcels. Six free market
parcels are proposed ranging from 15,830 sq. ft. to 24,540 sq. ft.
The seventh parcel, containing the multi -family building, will be
rezoned to Affordable Housing per staff Is request to better reflect
the land uses. The applicant proposes to deed restrict six of the
units to categories 1 and 2 as mitigation for the newly created
free market parcels.
The Land Use Code enables the demolition and replacement of multi-
family housing as a Community Development Director exemption from
growth management which is not deducted from the allotment pool.
The Code originally contemplated that an applicant, with free
market dwelling units on the site, may wish to upgrade or replace
the units on the site in an alternative configuration. Prior to
Ordinance 1 of 1990, demolition and replacement was not only exempt
from growth management competition but was also exempt from
employee housing. Due to Ordinance 1, the demolition of a multi-
family building requires a replacement of 50% of the bedrooms and
50% of the square footage as on -site affordable housing. Ordinance
1 does not enable an applicant to provide a cash -lieu payment.
Several years ago, as the Mocklins were contemplating this
subdivision, they requested a Director interpretation with regard
to the demolition replacement section of the Code. The Mocklins
have enough land area available to subdivide their property into
several parcel without having to tear down the building. Rather
than tear down their well maintained, structurally sound building
to realize their free market development credits and then build
back affordable housing as Ordinance 1 required
The recent growth management revisions have maintained demolition
and replacement of free market units as a Director exemption that
is not deducted from the allotment pool. However, the revisions
established a definitive pool for affordable dwelling units and the
only exemption available for affordable units is an exemption from
Council that is deducted from the allotment pool. In addition, the
Code does not distinguish between existing units that are bought
down with a deed restriction verses new constructed units.
Therefore, the six new free market parcels are not deducted from
the allotment pool as they are exempt via Director approval but the
replacement units, the six fully deed restricted dwelling units are
deducted
Deducting the deed restricted units from the AH pool has raised
several issues with the Planning and Housing staff. Due to
Ordinance 1 requirements, an applicant must create additional deed
restricted units on the site. The code enables the exemption of
the free market units and the free market residential allotment
pool but penalizes the AH allotment pool.
It is staffs opinion that Ordinance 1 requirements were not fully
considered when drafting the new GMQS language and creating a cap
on the number of AH units available per year. As a result,
employee mitigation units that are developed per a demolition and
replacement development, in compliance with Ordinance 1, will be
deducted from the AH allotment pool.
Staff raises this as an issue for the Commission and Council to
consider and offers several interpretations/solutions to the issue:
* deducting the housing mitigation from the AH allotment pool
may be appropriate and of no concern. The Housing Office has
believes this is a problem especially when actual new units
are not created and just added to the affordable housing
inventory. Please see attached referral comments.
* staff could formulate a text amendment that exempted
mitigation required by the Housing Replacement Program
(Ordinance 1) in the same section as the
replacement/demolition by Director is found, exempt from GMQS
and not deducted from the housing pool.
* currently the exemption section exempts the demolition and
replacement of multi -family housing subject to the
requirements of the Housing Replacement Program, staff with
consent of the Commission and Council may interpret this
section as to exempt all aspects of compliance with the
Housing Replacement program which would include deed
restricted housing.
Staff is seeking direction from the Commission and Council with
regard to this housing mitigation question.
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA
I. Subdivision Review - This review is a two step process,
with the P&Z making a recommendation to Council.
Please refer to the application for specific site plans of this
project, exhibit A.
Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 the following review criteria for
Subdivision review are as follows:
0
A. General Requirements
(a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
RESPONSE: The AACP recommends either a park or affordable housing
for the parcel or a combination of the two. However, the AACP also
recommends that as a policy inf ill development is encouraged within
the existing urban area so as to preserve open space and rural
areas surrounding the City. The applicant has indicated in the
application that negotiations for purchase of open space will be
considered.
The Parks Department has indicated that the original idea of the
need for conversion of the Mocklin property to a park in this
neighborhood has been mitigated with the new park at Williams Ranch
and the proposed park at Snyder pond.
(b) The proposed development shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the area.
RESPONSE: The surrounding land uses are primarily high density
apartment buildings. However, the small neighborhood of the
Williams Addition consists of single family homes and Oklahoma
Flats is primarily single family homes. The applicant proposes a
subdivision of six free market parcels. The lower density on the
edge of the high density HunterCreek development will provide a
transition to lower density.
(c) The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas.
RESPONSE: The surrounding property is significantly developed.
Future development should not be impacted by the proposed six new
parcels.
The applicant has been working with the Parks Department to
permanently dedicate a pedestrian/trail easement on the west side
of the property. A trail easement has been secured.
The applicant also owns another parcel, at the intersection of
Spring and Gibson Avenue, that is bisected by Spring Street and a
small pedestraan trail. Staff would recommend that the new
subdivision and its impacts should be additionally mitigated with
the dedication of public rights of way for the street and trail.
(e) The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with
all applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: Provided the Commission and Council find the development
in compliance with the various review criteria involved with this
5
project, the development proposal is in compliance with Chapter 24
of the Municipal Code.
B. Land Suitability - The proposed subdivision shall not be
located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding,
drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rock slide, avalanche or
snowslide, steep topography or any harmful to the health, safety,
or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
RESPONSE: According to the application, portions of the site are
located within the boundaries of the Smuggler Area Super Fund site.
The proposed development must comply with the institutional
controls that have been adopted by the Cit. The applicant shall
work with the Environmental Health Department to determine specific
mitigation procedures.
A fugitive dust control plan must also be filed with the
environmental Health Dept. prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
C. Efficient Spatial Pattern - 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: All costs associated with the installation of utilities
and improvements for this subdivision shall be borne by the
applicant. Necessary public utilities are within the .immediate
area and are sufficient to serve this proposal. Please see the
referral comments Exhibit B.
D. Utilities -
(a) WATER - Service will be provided from the existing mains
in Lone Pine Road. The Water Department has indicated
sufficient capacity to accommodate the project for both
domestic and fire protection needs.
(b) SEWER - The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
currently has sufficient collection and treatment capacity to
serve the project. Prorated development impact fees will be
assessed to eliminate a minor downstream constraint.
The applicant shall be required to proved a District approved
line extension request and District approved collection system
agreement prior to final approval or issuance of any permit.
If ACSD service lines are being stubbed in, the lines must be
approved by the Board and included as part of the collection
system agreement.
0
(c) ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, NATURAL GAS AND CABLE TV - Given
the infrequent but occasional problem with projects and their
utility needs, the final development plan shall include
letters from all of the utilities that they have inspected and
approved the final development plan.
All utility pedestals and transformers must be provided on
the property. The applicant must provide electric load
information to determine the amount and location of
transformers.
The application states that all existing utilities will be
undergrounded No above grade utility facilities are permitted
to be installed in the public right-of-way.
(d) SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER - The applicant commits to the
installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Lone Pine
road. The applicant will continue to work with the
Engineering and Parks Departments to determine the alignment
and installation technique for the sidewalk. The sidewalk
must meet ADA access requirements (no steps), including the
transition to the street.
Property owners are required to maintain snow clearance on
sidewalks that abut their property.
The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement,
prior to filing the final plat, for the future construction
of the curb, gutter, and sidewalks.
(e) FIRE PROTECTION - The project shall meet all codes and
requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. The
emergency access lane on Lot 3 must be kept clear of parked
cars, a note shall be put on the final plat. Parking on the
private road shall also be prohibited.
( f ) DRAINAGE - The on -site storm drainage system will maintain
historic flow rates with respect to surface water runoff and
groundwater recharge. A detailed storm drainage system will
be submitted prior to filing the final plat.
(g) STREET LIGHTS - Both the Electric and Engineering
Departments recommend the installation of several street
lights on Lone Pine road and Gibson Avenue. The applicant
shall work with the City to identify the location and type of
street lights to be installed. Lights shall be installed
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
(h) STREETS - All work in the alley and public right-of-way
shall require a permit from the streets department.
7
(i) FINAL PLAT - A subdivision plat, drafted in accordance
with Section 24-7-1004.0 and D of the municipal code and a
subdivision agreement must be recorded within 180 days of
final approval or the subdivision approval is void.
(j) STREET TREES AND LANDSCAPING - A detailed landscape plan
for the entire project shall be approved by the Parks
Department. The Code is very specific with regard to the
number and placement of street trees, the applicant's
landscape plan shall comply with the subdivision requirements.
(k) OTHER
Roads - The applicants proposes to provide access to the six
parcels from a seperate, 20 foot wide paved road off of Lone
Pine Road. Rather than dedicate the drive as a public right-
of-way, the applicant proposes to keep the drive private.
The Engineering Department would prefer a public right-of-
way dedication for future benefit of the community and future
home owners. Of concern is the minimum width of the private
drive, lack of pedestrian way, and the potential of the
creation of a gated community.
The drive only accesses six parcels. A public trail extends
the entire length of the west boundary of the subdivision.
Although the Planning Office does not believe that the drive
is a crucial roadway that should be public, staff does agree
with the Engineer that a gate community is inappropriate.
The subdivision design standards for streets and related
improvements require new streets to bear a logical
relationship to the topography and to the location of existing
or planned streets on adjacent properties. The emphasis of
the AACP was, review and approval of growth that is consistent
with the character of the community. No trespassing signs and
private property/do not enter signs at the entrance of a
roadway are incompatible with an existing neighborhood.
Therefore, staff would recommend a condition that prevents
the posting of signs at the entrance of the new subdivision.
In addition, the applicant is revising the site plan to create
a pedestraan way for subdivision residents along the private
drive.
Building Envelopes - The applicant has staked the proposed
building envelopes. Because of the significant natural sage
landscape, staff and the Parks Departments recommends that no
further development activity be allowed outside of the
approved building envelopes. This will include fencing and
contrived landscaping. In addition, there are several
topographic features that staff recommends should be kept
outside of the building envelopes. For example on Lots 6 and
5, a ridge and small knoll punctuate the area. The
applicant's representative has stated that those features are
remanent of the old mine railroad that once traversed the
site. No matter the origin, staff believes they are important
landscape features that should be preserved. Other features
on the site also need to be reconsidered in their relationship
to the building envelopes. The applicant and staff will
continue to refine the building envelopes and a new site plan
shall be prepared prior to Council's review of the subdivision
at first reading.
II. Map Amendment - In order to reflect the new deed
restrictions being proposed for the existing multi -family building,
staff has requested that the applicant rezone the property to
Affordable Housing. Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 the following
standards of review for an amendment to the Official Zone
District Map are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The application for rezoning is in compliance with the
standards of Section 24-7-1104 and other applicable portions of
Chapter 24, the Land Use Code for the City of Aspen.
However, the applicant has requested that the units are not
actually deed restricted until the sale of any of the free market
parcels being created through this subdivision. The applicant does
not intend to develop the parcels himself and plans to either sell
the parcels on an as needed basis or when he ultimately moves from
the area. In addition, some existing tenants would not qualify for
housing under the Housing Guidelines. The idea being that as one
free market parcel sells a unit in the multi -family building will
be deed restricted.
The AH zone district requires a 70%/30% split of deed restricted
homes to free market homes. Without deed restricting the dwelling
units the building would be a non -conforming use in the AH zone
district. Staff recommends that the applicant file/record the deed
restrictions and link the activation of the restrictions to the
sale of any of the parcels, change -over in tenants, or a specified
time -period. This language would have to be developed further with
the City Attorney, applicant, and Housing Office.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) has identified this
parcel as appropriate for a semi -active park similar to Herron
Park. The Housing section of the AACP also recommended that
9
affordable housing similar to Lone Pine density be developed if the
property is not purchased as a park.
The applicant has indicated in his application that he would
welcome negotiations from the City or open space boards regarding
the preservation of the property as a park or a combination of
housing and a park. Since the completion of the AACP, the Williams
Ranch park proposal has been accepted and the Snyder property on
Midland Avenue has been purchased with Park and Housing funds. The
1995 Parks Master Plan identified the Mocklin property as a low
priority for an active park. However, the parcel would be an
excellent purchase for passive open space. The Pitkin County Open
Space Board would be interested in working with another entity to
explore a purchase but is not interested as the sole purchaser.
Please see their referral comment, Exhibit B.
Rezoning parcel 7 to affordable housing solidifies the intended use
of the parcel as affordable housing. In addition to the rezoning,
deed restriction of an existing building is consistent with the
AACP which recommends restricting existing buildings.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: Properties immediately surrounding this proposal are
zoned R/MFA and R-6. The neighborhood has a large mix of free
market units and affordable units. This rezone and the
preservation of the multi -family building as affordable housing is
compatible with the neighborhood.
d . The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: The rezoning affects an existing building and would not
created any negative impacts on traffic generation and road safety.
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: Again, the rezoning will not enable an increase in
density or other changes to occur on the property that would affect
public facilities and the demand for service. The property is in
very good condition and is adequately served by utility/services.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
10
RESPONSE: The rezoning only affects the existing building on
proposed Parcel 7. Although the ability to deed restrict the
existing units enables the applicant to proceed with subdivision
of the remaining vacant property, the rezoning is not necessary to
deed restrict the building.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: The AACP proposes the revitalization of the permanent
community and the encouragement of development that is pedestrian -
oriented as an auto disincentive. Staff requested the rezoning to
more effectively preserve the deed restricted units.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: The tremendous development of multi -family buildings and
affordable housing parcels in the area make this rezoning
compatible with the neighborhood. The more recent additions are
the co -housing proposal and the Williams Ranch subdivision both of
which are zoned AH.
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 rezoning of this property would further the public
interest and enable a conforming use to remain on the property.
III. Special Review - Pursuant to section 24-5-206.2.D.10, the
maximum floor area of an AH parcel may be increased from .36:1 to
1:1 by special review. This applies to parcels that are between
27,000 sq. ft. and one acre. Proposed Lot 7 will be approximately
32,470 sq. ft.
During the rezoning of the multi -family building to R/MFA, the
floor area of the existing building was capped at approximately
12,910 sq. ft. To accommodate this existing floor area with the
proposed AH zone, a required floor area ratio is .40:1. This
exceeds the base floor area ratio by .04 for parcels greater than
27,000 sq. ft. Special review can establish a greater floor area
up to 1:1.
Open space and parking are also established by special review. The
number of parking spaces is 15, one space for each bedroom.
The amount of open space for parcel 7 is approximately 19,850 sq.
ft. or 60% of the lot's gross area.
11
IV. Issues - The primary issues for discussion and continued work
are:
1. Currently, AH mitigation will be deducted from the AH
allotment pool. Six units will be deducted.
2. Building envelopes will continue to be refined to protect
significant vegetation and topographic features.
3. The private roadway shall no be signed as such. A revised site
plan shall indicate a pedestrian way for residents of the six
parcels.
4. The six units that are to be dedicated do not meet the Housing
Guidelines with respect to size. Therefore the Housing Office has
requested that a seventh unit be deed restricted. In addition, the
applicant proposed to file deed restrictions for the units when a
building permit is actually issued for the free market units.
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Staff recommends the rezoning of the property from R/MFA to
Affordable Housing.
B. Staff recommends special review for the establishment of the
allowable FAR for Lot 7 at a ratio of .40:1, 15 parking spaces, and
approximately 600 open space.
C. Staff recommends approval of the Subdivision review with the
following conditions:
1. Any costs for new public services that must be installed or
upgraded shall be borne by the applicant.
2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall submit a subdivision plat and Subdivision Improvement
Agreement in accordance with Section 24-7-1004.0 and D of the
municipal code for review by the Engineering and Planning
Departments and the City Attorney.
The final Subdivision plat and agreement must be filed within
180 days of final approval or subdivision approval is void.
3. The Subdivision agreement shall include the following:
a. letters from all of the utilities that they have
inspected and approved the final development plan;
b. restrictions against future installation of fireplaces
and woodstoves;
12
C. language restricting parking from the private drive
and emergency access drive on Lot 3;
d. language preventing the installation of signage
indicating private property, no trespassing etc. at the
entrance of the subdivision; and
e. financial assurances that are approved by appropriate
City and utility staff prior to recordation of agreement.
4. The final Subdivision plat and plan shall include the
following:
a. all transformer and utility easements;
b. identification of new street lights;
c. future sidewalk, curb, and gutter. The sidewalk must
meet ADA access requirements (no steps), including the
transition to the street;
d. a detailed landscape plan approved by the Parks
Department;
e. revised building envelopes;
f. a note prohibiting parking in the emergency access
drive on Lot 3;
g. notes preventing future development, landscaping,
fencing, patios, decks, hot tubs, etc. outside of the
building envelopes to protect the natural landscape; and
h. dedication of the Spring Street right -of way and the
pedestrian trail extension to the Art Museum.
5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits:
a. tree removal permits from the Parks Department shall
be required for the removal of any trees 6" in caliper
or greater and any trees proposed to be saved shall be
protected during construction, including no digging in
the drip line;
b. the applicant shall document for the Environmental
Health Department mitigation measure to offset the
increase in PM10 caused by the project.
C. the applicant shall file, with the Environmental
Health Department, a fugitive dust control plan and
construction and soil moving plan that adheres to the
Institutional Controls.
13
d. a deed restriction for an employee dwelling unit
shall be filed with the Housing Office. The deed
restriction shall adhere to the Housing standards and
guidelines in effect at the time of recordation.
6. Prior to recording the final plat:
a. the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
Engineering Department to construct curb and gutter in
the future; and
b. a storm drainage plan and landscape plan shall be
review and approved by appropriate City Departments.
7. Any irrigation system that is installed shall be incompliance
with the Water Conservation Code.
8. The applicant shall maintain the historic runoff patterns that
are found on the site and shall correct any runoff or erosion
problems that currently exists on the site.
9. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvements
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
10. At the completion of each phase of the work, the applicant
shall submit a statement by a registered professional land
surveyor that all required survey and property monuments
remain in place or have been re-established as required by
Colorado Revised Statutes.
11. 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, and
all other work located within the public rights -of -way,
showing horizontal and vertical locations within 1 foot
accuracy of all utilities, including their size and
identification, together with any other features encountered
during excavation within the rights -of -way. 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 disk in a dfx file compatible with the City GIS Arclnfo
software system.
12. All lighting fixtures will face downward and be shielded to
eliminate the potential for glare or nuisance to neighboring
properties. Lighting along the walkways will be low to the
ground (approximately 3' in height) and shielded.
13. All work in the public right-of-way shall require a permit
from the streets department.
14
14. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible
sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except
between the hours of 7 am. and 10 p.m.
15. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
16. Prior to Subdivision review by Council the following issues
shall be resolved:
a. a revised site plan shall be submitted indicating the
internal pedestrian way, identification of trees greater than
six inches in caliper, and the revised building envelopes; and
b. language for AH deed restriction, specifically the tracking
mechanism of the deed restriction with issuance of building
permits.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I mover to approve the special review for floor area ratio,
parking and open space for Lot 7 of the Mocklin Subdivision."
"I move to recommend to Council Subdivision approval of the Mocklin
property into seven parcels with the conditions outlined in
Planning Office memo dated June 6, 1995."
"I move to recommend to Council the rezoning of the Mocklin
property, Lot 7, to the Affordable Housing zone district."
EXHIBITS:
A. Application
B. Referral Comments
15
--
TO: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Planning Dkaor
THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
DATE: May 8, 1995
RE: Mocklin GMQS Exemption, Subdivision, Rezoning and Special Review
We have reviewed the application submitted by Peter and Monica Mocklin and have the following
comments. Although, 'Tract C is not part of this application, we would like to request a trail
easement across this parcel to connect to the Art Museum property. A de facto dirt path already
exists here and we would like to establish a formal easement along this alignment.
The trail easement on 'Tract A' along the south west side of the property we would like to expand
slightly at the base of the slope where is meets the Gibson Ave. sidewalk. The impact to Lot 3
would be very minimal because the flare of the easement by 5-7 feet would be on the slope and not
the flat area of the lot. The 'flare' of this easement at the base is to better accommodate replacing
the stairs. We will work with the applicant to establish the actual easement variance in this
location.
The final comment is regarding landscaping for the individual lot. We would like to see some
landscape plans prior to issuance of the final plat. We would like to see some of the natural sage
brush maintained in the landscape plans due to this is one of the last sage infested areas left in
town.
Memo 95.Mocklin Devl
m,v 0 71995
. Yf. SN (?��'�
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Dave Tolen, Housing Office
Re: Mochlin GMQS Exemption and Rezoning
Date: 1 June, 1995
The applicant is requesting GMQS exemption for six free market
lots, and rezoning of a seventh lot to AH. Lot seven contains an
existing eight units structure, six units of which would be deed
restricted to satisfy the requirements of the exemption.
The deed restricted units are proposed to be as follows:
Unit #
BR's
Category
Size
3
1
2
630
4
2
1
690
5
2
1
760
6
2
1
760
7
1
1
470
8
1
1
370
(* Units
are less
than minimum
size required)
The number and size of the units proposed by the applicant are
similar to what would be required under Ordinance One, Multifamily
Replacement Program. The proposed unit categories are better than
would be required under that program. Five of the size units do
not meet the minimum size requirement for such units under the
housing Guidelines.
The Housing Office would recommend approval of this proposal,
subject to deed restriclyone
additional unit in order to make up for the sit
ze deficiency of the
other units. The Housing Office would propose that the units be
inspected by the Housing Office and Building Department, prior to
final approval, and that the units meet the Building Departments
requirements for existing units under the UBC, and that the
interior finishes, appliances and fixtures be provided in good
condition.
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Dave Tolen, Housing Office
Re: Mochlin GMQS Exemption and Rezoning
Date: 1 June, 1995
Related to the Mochlin application, I am concerned with how the
proposed units will be counted under the new GMQS system. The size
free market lots are proposed to be exempt from GMQS, and not
deducted from the annual allotment. Does this mean that the newly
deed restricted units will be deducted from the allotment of AH
units? There does not appear to be any provision in the new code
that allows these units to be retained without being subtracted
from the AH allotment.
As we discussed, a conservative interpretation would say that units
exempt from GMQS by virtue of replacing existing units must include
replacement units as well as free market units. This would mean
that the Mochlin property could provide only four free market
units, and would have to provide four deed restricted units, for a
total of eight exempt units.
Another possibility would be to consider the replacement units as
exempt by virtue of the general exemption for replacement and the
requirement under the Multifamily Replacement Program. Would this
require a code amendment?
From: Chris Chiola, Environmental Health Department
Through: Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Officer
Date: April 25, 1995
Re: Mocklin GMQS Exemption, Subdivision, Rezoning & Special
Review Parcel ID# 2737-073-00-016
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
Mocklin 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 should be determined by the ACSD.
The applicant has provided documentation that the applicant and the
service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the
service agency is capable of serving the development.
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 drinking water. The City of Aspen Water Department shall
determine 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.
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. This
application is not expected to impact down stream water quality.
1
4
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..."
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 our department is the impact of increasing
traffic in a non -attainment area designated by the EPA. 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 ordinarily would occur as a result of
development must be mitigated, or else the gains brought about by
community control measures will be lost. In addition, in order to
comply with the municipal code requirement to achieve the maximum
practical degree of air purity by using all available practical
methods to reduce pollution, traffic increases of development must
be offset. In order to do this, the applicant will need to
determine the traffic increases generated by the project, commit
to a set of control measures, and show that the traffic decreased
by the control measures is at least as great as the traffic
increases of the project without mitigation.
This department recommends that a condition of approval
be that the applicant provide information to the
Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department which
documents that proposed mitigation measures are
sufficient to offset any increases in PM10 caused by the
project.
FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file a
fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department
before the building permit will be issued. In metropolitan areas
of Pitkin County which includes this site, buildings may have two
gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and
unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per
building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may
any heating device use coal as fuel. Barns and agricultural
buildings may not install any type of fireplace device.
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.
A condition of approval should be that the applicant submit
a fugitive dust control plan which is approved by this
department.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
2
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.
SMUGGLER SUPERFUND AREA: This project is located within the
boundaries of the EPA designate Smuggler Superfund area. Any
construction and soil moving must adhere to the standards and
conditions set forth by the institutional controls. All
appropriate measures must be taken to properly excavate and store
the soils moved.
...:LAND USE:273707300016.mocklin
3
s
,pen Consofida'led6amialion �lsfrlcf
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.
Pri i 19. i99S
Leslie Lamont
Planninz Office
1:30 S . Galena
Aspen. CO 81611
P.e; Mocl�l in GNQ.S. Subdivision. Spec iai Review
Dear Leslie:
The ,aspen <<onso1idated Sanitation District currently has
sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this project.
Service is contingent upon compiiance with the District's Rules
and Requiations which are or, file at the District office. There
is a minor downstream constraint that will be eliminated through
a system of prorated deveiopment impact fees.
.pie would request, ii approval of the project is, recomme;,ded-, than
he applicant be required to provide a District approved line
t
extension request and District approved col Iecti.�n system
agreement prior to final approval or issuance of an excavation
permit. Both items will be required for this project as both
allow us an opportunity co ensure that the on -site system is
constructed according to District specifications for future
dedication to the -District. Each of the above items will, require
separate action by our Board of Directors.
it stubbed our service lines are being su gest.ed by the
applicant, then they must be approved by our Board or Directors
as part of the collection system agreement. The District rewires
that 40 o of the estimated maximum total connection char,zes be
paid for each stub out prior to construction. if the stubbed out
service is not used. then the 40°!o payment is forfeited and the
service stub is removed at the applicant's expense.
Please call if you have any questions.
should contact our office to begin the
Sincerely,
Bruce Mather l�v
District Manager
EPA Awards of Excellence
1976 • 1986 • 1990
Regional and National
The applicant's engineer
line extension request.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
FROM: Michelle Carline
Open Space and Trails
DATE: May 1, 1995
RE: Mocklin GMQS Exemption, Subdivision, Rezoning and Special
Review
I have reviewed the information submitted for this land use
application and would like to provide the following comments:
The primary concerns of the Open Space and Trails Board with this
application is public trail access through the property, which the
applicant has addressed by recently conveying to the City of Aspen
the Gibson/Lone Pine trail easement, and some provision for public
open space.
This property has been identified in the Aspen Area Community Plan
as an appropriate location for a public park and the Open Space and
Trails Board encourages any effort made towards that end,
especially given the surrounding density. The current firm mission
of the Open Space and Trails Board.., however, is to focus only on
acquisition of large tracts of open space, so the Board would be
unwilling to pursue sole acquisition of this particular property,
although the concept of some type of partnership may be
entertained.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
To: Leslie Lamont, Planner
CKOF
From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal
Date: April 3, 1995
Subject: Mocklin Parcel ID#2737-073-00-016
Leslie,
This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen
Fire Protection District.
If you have any question please contact me.
Wl
To: Leslie Lamont
From: Bill Earley
Date: 3/29/95
Subject: Mocklin GMQS Exemption
I have reviewed the submitted. information and have the following
comments;
1. This is in the Holy Cross Electric Association service area so
it will have no effect on our electric system.
2. I have had a number of complaints from residents in this area
of the poor streetlighting on Lone Pine Road. Is appropriate to
address this issue on this application? Is it possible to get the
streetlighting in this area -improved as a condition of the
approval? -�
MAR 2 9 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department
Date: June 2, 1995
Re: Mocklin Subdivision - Supplemental Comments
1. Site Design - These comments are prepared as a retrospective on Williams Ranch approvals and
as an opportunity to apply the retrospectives to current and future development.
The Williams Ranch Subdivision contained some thirteen acres of land. The approvals have
allowed for the nearly complete removal of existing vegetation and other natural surface features.
There is a large, about 15' high by 20' in diameter, unusual mountain maple that will be lost. There
is a small stand of healthy, mature cottonwood trees that will largely be lost. And there is one
excellent boulder, and perhaps two, that could have remained "as is" in their current locations. The
project could have been designed to retain "significant" natural features. The Land Use Code,
and/or the review process, could specify for large developments that 10% of natural conditions be
maintained, including but not limited to significant stands of native vegetation or other features
such as boulders.
Another approach to preserving existing vegetation is to provide for reduced building
envelopes. This provision would not result in decreased FAR's or living spaces to future owners.
During the review process for the Mocklin Subdivision, it is recommended that the above
comments be incorporated.
cc: Stan Clauson, Cris Caruso, Mary Lackner
M95.115
1
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department a5k-
Date: May 9, 1995
Re: Mocklin Subdivision - Supplemental Comments
1. Existing Conditions Map - The application did not include an existing conditions map which
makes review difficult. As you have indicated, an existing conditions map should be provided
before further review is provided. The map should show at least vegetation, structures,
improvements, existing utility features, and street lights on both sides of adjacent streets.
2. Aerial Utilities - The parcel currently is served by overhead utilities. It should be a condition of
approval that all utilities be brought in underground to the property.
3. Private Road - If a private road is approved, the roadway should be a separate roadway parcel,
not an easement across proposed parcels. The minimum width should be 48' for two 12 foot travel
lanes, two 7 foot windrows of snow, and two 5 foot wide pedestrian spaces. Changes in direction
of the private road parcel should be curves that reflect the turning radius of a motor vehicle.
4. Spring Street R.O.W. - The right-of-way width of Spring Street in the Original Aspen
Townsite is 75' . The right-of-way width of Spring Street in Oklahoma Flats is 25' . In at least one
other land use approval (Volk Lot Split), the public has obtained right-of-way dedication to widen
substandard widths in Oklahoma Flats. The Engineering Department recommends that a condition
of approval be to dedicate at least a 50' right-of-way width for Spring Street extended, on Tract C.
This would allow for 2-12' travel lanes, 2-7' snow storage spaces, and 2-5' pedestrian spaces. The
Land Use Code requires a 60' dedication.
5. Street Lights - I discussed street light locations with the electric superintendent. We agreed on
single globe antique street lights spaced 125' apart on Lone Pine Road. This should apply to
Gibson Avenue also. Given the high traffic volumes on Gibson, another street light should be
provided at the corner of Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine Road. On Main Street there are twin globe
lights at two corners of each intersection. In the commercial core there is a single globe light at all
four corners of an intersection
cc: Cris Caruso, Sunny Vann, Peter Mocklin M95.109
C
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department
Date: April 21, 1995
Re: Mocklin GMQS Exemption, Subdivision, Rezoning & Special Review
(0202 Lone Pine Road)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. Site Drainage - Application meets criteria.
2. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - The Land Use Code at Section 7-1004.C.4.a(18) requires
sidewalk, curb and gutter. The City has already constructed sidewalk, curb and gutter along the
Gibson Avenue frontages of proposed Lots 3-6. If the application is approved, the applicant should
assume full responsibility for maintenance, cleaning and snow removal of the sidewalk at the time
of recording the final plat. Articles IV and VIII of the Municipal Code discuss property owners'
sidewalk responsibilities.
As proposed in the application, construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter along Lone Pine
Road should be required prior to issuance of any building permits for the subdivision.
It is recommended that the homeowners association be responsible for snow removal rather
than individual lot owners for the perimeter sidewalks. The lots "back" onto Lone Pine and
Gibson, and future lot owners might be less inclined to perform snow removal at the backs of their
lots than at the front. Also, there are two interior lots without reasonable shares of adjacent
sidewalks. If the homeowners association is responsible for snow removal, a higher service level
should be possible. For sidewalks in the interior of the parcel, individual property owners may be
responsible for snow removal.
3. Proposed Lots - The "plat" does not indicate that "all easements of record as indicated on Title
Policy No. , dated , have been shown hereon." Therefor staff cannot
comment on lot configurations in the context of existing easements.
Lot 1 does not front on a street as required by the Land Use Code, Sec. 7-1004.C.4.c(4)..
Note - The application does not respond to requirements of the Land Use Code for provision of
public rights -of -way in the process of the subdivision of land. The typical City of Aspen West End
0
block consists of 47% public right-of-way. Including a typical West End block's half of adjacent
rights -of -way and the alley, the area of one block is 2.3 acres. Tract C is undevelopable land.
Tracts A and B total 3.516 acres. The parcel then could contain about one and a half "West End"
blocks, complete with historical rights -of -way and alley.
If the West End right-of-way percentage were applied to Tracts A and B, then approximately
72,000 square feet should be dedicated for public right-of-way. Note that the "current" Land Use
Code subdivision design standards do not match the platting of the original townsite in which 75
foot wide rights -of -way were platted. If current codes are followed, a 60 foot wide right-of-way
with a 100 foot turn around would result in about 15% of the subdivision land area being dedicated
to public right-of-way. By West End lot size standards, a lot would generally be 6,000-9,000
square feet. The proposed lots are much larger.
The problem is the balance between marketable lots and unmarketable right-of-way.
4. Public Rights -of -way - As stated above, the subdivision of land in the West End is 47% public
right-of-way. Perhaps the parcel should be subdivided in the West End theme, complete with
alleys. — — The Engineering Department recommends that the minimum right-of-way dedication for this
subdivision include dedicating at least a 60 foot right-of-way for Spring Street extended, a 60 foot
right-of-way to access the lots and a 100 foot turnaround diameter cul-de-sac plus sidewalk and
snow storage area.
Other possibilities are to meet the Code required 80 foot wide right-of-way width for
collector streets. Gibson Avenue is a collector with only a 60 foot right-of-way width.
There has been staff discussion about private streets versus public rights -of -way in the City.
The Engineering Department continues to recommend for public rights -of -way as a matter of
benefit for future property owners and the remainder of the community and public, as well as a
matter of private or gated communities within the City.
5. Public Park - Is this area identified as a possible park location? If public right-of-way
percentages lower than standard are contemplated for this subdivision, a possible quid pro quo
would be dedication of a lot as a City park.
6. Trail Easement - The newly granted trail easement is not shown and may affect lot or building
envelope configurations.
7. Mass Transit - Is an easement needed for a bus shelter?
8. Driveways - Due to staffs experience of the general lack of knowledge of driveway design, the
final plat should state that driveway design must meet the requirements of Section 19-101 of the
Municipal Code.
9. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for transformers, pedestals or other equipment must be
installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. The
2
applicant must consult with Holy Cross Electric Association prior to final plating and provide
electric load information in order to determine transformer easement locations and sizes.
10. Trash & Utility Area - The final plat should contain a note that trash storage areas may not be
in the public right-of-way. The subdivision declarations should include a provision that all trash
storage areas should be indicated as trash and recycle areas and that any trash and recycle areas that
include utility meters or other utility equipment provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by
trash and recycle containers.
11. Parkin - Per Code, plus the subdivision declarations should state that there is no overnight
parking on streets located within the subdivision. This greatly assists the Street Department during
winter snow removal operations.
12. Street Lights - Required in Land Use Code, at subdivision design standards. City street light
project placed lights at standard city corners, about 300' corner to corner, one in between, and one
at alleys.
13. Other Subdivision Improvements - All other subdivision improvements required by the Land
Use Code must be constructed prior to issuance of the first building permit.
14. Financial Assurances - All cost estimates for the purpose of financial assurances should be
approved by appropriate City and utility staff prior to acceptance by the City.
15. Other Conditions of Approval - a. Declarations: No tracking of mud onto City streets shall
be permitted during construction. b. The applicant shall agree to join any improvement districts
formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -way.
16. Final Plat - A final plat must be provided which meets the requirements of Section 24-7-
1004.D, including utility approval certificates.
17. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of
development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and
shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -
way from city streets department (920-5130).
cc: Cris Caruso, City Engineer
Sunny Vann
Peter Mocklin
9
M95.102
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Timroth 8040 Greenline Review for a Driveway
DATE: June 6, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Timroth
8040 Greenline review for a driveway to be constructed adjacent to
Spruce Street for approximately 380 feet, subject to conditions.
APPLICANT: Jerry and Donna Timroth, represented by Lenny Oates.
LOCATION: Immediately east of upper Spruce Street within the
Williams Ranch development.
ZONING: AH - Affordable Housing zone district.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests 8040 Greenline Review
for an approximately 380 foot access road to be constructed
parallel to Spruce Street. The applicant has been unable to obtain
an access easement from Mr. Eugene Witz to use Spruce Street in
this area and is therefore seeking 8040 Greenline approval to
construct a portion of the access easement that was granted by
Smuggler Mountain Base Properties in 1989. The proposed access
drive is planned to bypass the Witz parcel and would serve the
Albert G. and Donna M. Timroth parcel, the Grant C. Timroth' parcel,
and Lot 5 of the Silverlode Subdivision. The Grant C. Timroth
parcel still needs full land use approvals from Pitkin County prior
to development, however the Albert G. and Donna M. Timroth parcel
and Lot 5 Silverlode have received their appropriate approvals.
A copy of the application information and maps are included in
Exhibit "A".
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following referral comments are attached
to this memorandum:
Engineering Department - Exhibit "B"
STAFF COMMENTS: The Commission has the final authority to review
and approve development applications for 8040 Greenline review
pursuant to the standards of Section 24-7-503 of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations.
8040 Greenline Review
This project is being reviewed by the City because the applicant's
access easement is located on the northern edge of the Williams
Ranch development (specifically the Silverlode Subdivision), which
was recently annexed into the City of Aspen.
The applicant received 1041 Hazard Review approval in 1993 for the
construction of a single family residence and caretaker unit on his
property by the Board of County Commissioners. The applicant has
proven legal access to the site with the 1989 access easement.
Unfortunately the applicant has been unable to obtain an easement
with Mr. Witz to utilize Spruce Street where it crosses Mr. Witz
property. Since an agreement cannot be reached, the applicant is
pursuing development approvals for the construction of an access
drive immediately adjacent to Spruce Street. The applicant's
access easement is 660 feet long as it crosses the Silverlode
Subdivision, however the applicant only needs to construct 380 feet
as it bypasses Mr. Witz parcel. This access easement is identified
on the Williams Ranch plats.
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: All road construction will take place on slopes less
than 30% with the majority of the road to be placed on slopes less
than 20%. The applicant has submitted a report from Banner
Engineers which indicates that there are no issues associated with
ground stability, mine substance, mud flow, rock fall, or avalanche
hazards associated with the construction of the new access drive.
The parcel is specifically excluded from the Smuggler Superfund
Site and has been determined to contain no hazardous or toxic waste
materials.
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: The applicant will need to submit a drainage plan
prepared by a licensed engineer to be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer prior to the issuance of any permits.
Staff does not believe their will be any significant affect on the
natural watershed, drainage, soil erosion or water pollution as
part of this proposed access road.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant
adverse affect on the air quality in the city.
2
Response: The addition of a 380 foot unpaved access drive may have
a negative impact on air quality. The applicant will need to
submit a dust control plan which explains the methods to control
dust on an annual basis. This plan shall be submitted prior to the
issuance of any permits.
4. The design and location of any proposed development,
road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the
parcel on which the proposed development is to be
located.
Response: The access road is immediately adjacent to Spruce
Street. Parallel roads are not compatible with the natural terrain
as such a proposal is destructive to the natural environment and
character of the area. One access road in this location is
compatible with the terrain.
There will be a seven foot snow storage area between the proposed
access drive and Spruce Street as this was a requirement of the
Williams Ranch development and is identified on the plat. This
separation of roads will soften the appearance of a forty foot
access road in this location.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent
practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation
and natural land features.
Response: The best option would have been for the applicant to
secure an access easement across Spruce Street on Mr. Witz property
in order to minimize grading as much as possible. This has not
been possible. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to construct
a 20 foot wide access road (the minimum required by the City
Engineer) to access the parcel. Since the access road is proposed
to access two county residences and one city residence, staff
recommends that the access road be designed to the minimum County
driveway standard of 12 feet and recommends the city residence to
take their alternative access from within the subdivision. This
would the most practicable method possible to minimize grading,
disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features.
Staff recommends that the seven foot snow storage buffer be
relandscaped with the same number of trees that must be removed for
the construction of the access road.
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: This 8040 Greenline does not review any structures as
all residences served by this access road will be located within
Pitkin County. Recommendations to minimize road construction have
3
been made in other sections of this review.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the
structure will be designed to blend into the open
character of the mountain.
Response: Building height and bulk are not an issue with this
application.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are
available to service the proposed development.
Response: All utilities to the Timroth parcel have been approved
in the 1041 and General Submission process in the County. No
utilities are necessary for the driveway access.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly
maintained.
Response: This 8040 review assesses this criteria.
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: Should parallel roads be approved, the Timroth access
road does not need to meet the 2 0 ' minimum width requirement of the
Fire Department, because the Fire Department can use the existing
Spruce Street in the event of an emergency.
Since the applicant's proposal is a private access road (same as
Spruce Street in this area) the applicant will be responsible for
snow removal. There is a seven foot snow storage easement on the
east side of Spruce Street which will need to be maintained as part
of this development.
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: Trails and open space were discussed with the Williams
Ranch development. This proposed access road will not impact any
lands dedicated for public use.
SUMMARY: If the applicant were to obtain an access easement across
Spruce Street as it exists, no impacts to the natural environment
would be required. Since the applicant has not been able to obtain
an easement agreement, he is pursuing the construction of 380 feet
of a 660 foot access road along the adjacent parcel.
Staff would prefer for the applicant to use Spruce Street, but this
4
is not presently an available option. Secondly, staff would prefer
to condition this request to require that Spruce Street would be
revegetated and cease use and the new access road would be used.
Unfortunately, such a condition would not be viable because the
applicant has no ability to change, use, or alter Spruce Street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the
applicant's request subject to the following conditions. Staff
believes that if these conditions are followed, development will
be limited to the maximum extent possible.
1. The applicant shall submit a drainage plan prepared by a
licensed engineer, prior to the issuance of any permits. This
plan shall include information about the proposed
stabilization of cut and fill slopes to prevent erosion.
2. The applicant shall submit a dust control plan describing the
methods and timing for dust control on the new road on an
annual basis. This plan shall be submitted prior to the
issuance of any permits and approved by the Environmental
Health Department.
3. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan to be reviewed
and approved by the Parks Department, prior to the issuance
of any permits. This plan shall indicate the number of trees
that will be removed with the new road construction and
identify the location and number of replacement trees within
the buffer and east of the new access road.
4. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall
install construction fencing along the entire length of the
proposed work at the limits of construction. No sidecasting
of excavated materials and no stockpiling of boulders is
permitted outside of the approved limits of construction.
5. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall
submit a 24" x 36" site plan of the driveway which identifies
the location of the snow storage easement, Spruce Street, the
new access drive, and the limits of construction for the new
access drive. This map shall be approved by the Planning and
Engineering Department.
6. The applicant shall provide "as-builts" signed off by a
licenced engineer that the project was constructed and built
as designed and approved.
7. The Timroth access drive is approved for use by the Albert and
Donna parcel and the Grant Timroth parcel. Silverlode
Subdivision Lot 5 shall take access from the internal
Silverlode Subdivision road system.
8. All material representations made by the applicant in the
5
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the 8040 Greenline review
for an approximately 380 foot access drive to be used by the Albert
and Donna Timroth parcel and the Grant Timroth parcel, with the
conditions noted in the Planning Office memorandum dated June 6,
1995."
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Information with plans and elevations
"B" - Engineering Department
6
Exhibit A
�► �, ��
Vr
E
I
I
ICU 11
Ou 6
_ �J� a
un
�� o a
11.116- PSIA0,011,
WHU UL "I,
C1CJ a�� .. '
................
1�
Do� r � _ ,,^ .t
..... ........
oD�� .� ,
o aD a a ��
��- r,, D D�aD �� aD aLJI.._.,��L
J
Liu
oD oa as oD oo
23jc� 14MADo oD�Do�D
.,-�, a aD a
DD DD oD4 a ao a � - r _
LIP!
ytr D DDo aD Dozaa o
o D o
o D�DoJDo DD DoDD a
F, . DohDa a� - _
., aD o ao a�
as b _
oDD..aDD a o aD . _
DaDo�= . �D --
l2aaj.3 b.1-!l]
r I
�A L I L H I\ / -A I I-' K U L L 5 I H L L
ACCESS ROAD PL/\N---
ET 60
GR HIC SCALE
I c h = 0 ,f-1
T E R-V-AL
T
x
B I NF C
ACC S ROA 7980 _
PR
O /
x �\
�E- ASEMENT ARE
CA LATED PRIG
UT
� s
American consulting
Engineerso
Member
400unr\�
BANNER
*t ir�iiri/rr;
ASSOCIATES,` CONSULTING
2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD W GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 0 (303) 243-22ZI
605x SUITE 6 m ASPEN, CO 81611•
ATTACHMENT 3
E
Q
O
0
W
(jr)
O
In
W
O
U
U
�
Q
In
�
W
0111
W
�
W
�
W
W
O
W
—
U
WJ
n
7
C1-)
W
n,-
W
W
Q
o
o
o���U
�wq�o
W
� �
Q
97909
ti
w
zl '9zo8
0,9009
w
q
r8 '0zo8
6 '8I08
w
0
09 9I08
rob
o
�
Oz 'OI08
0 'OI08
q
60'f'008
w
a
85 '666�
9 666Z
9 £'Ift
-SJA9
00'P661,
W
6 '66,
8/, Z 861,
S 986�
•S0AS
rn
`�cz� N o 0
W
0
0
0
0
ti
0
5'f�
8 '086Z o
American Consulting
Engineers Council rd
Member
, BANNIL".�.R
i !/ r� 16131 � 151=1 . ry
�l: rr ii /rl,'r!!/!trrriiisiir
• V• • 1 ly
PJ-6 - Ze r• aov,.V
1) project Name TIMROTH ACCESS
2)
3)
5)
project Iocation Northwesterly Boundary of SilverLode Subdivision (Spruce
Street Extended -Shown on SilverLode Subdivision Plat /No Legal Description
(indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where
appropriate) Size of Easements approx.
700 sq. feet. Roadway
Present Zoning AH 4) Int Size surface is 5, 320 sq .feet
Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # ALBERT G. TIMROTH AND DONNA M. TIMROTH and
F
GRANT C. TIMROTH, P.O. Box 89, Aspen, CO 81612 (970) 925-1065
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # LEONARD M. OATES
Oates, Hughes & Knezevich, P.C., 533 E. Hopkins, Aspen, CO 81611 (970)920-1700
7) Type of Application (please cl-ieck all that apply) :
Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev.
Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev.
X 8040 Clwnline ' C riceptual. PUD Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition
Mountain View Plane Subdivisicn . Historic Designation.
C rx1cmi iu i nation Zlext/Map. Amendment GMQS Allotment
Lot Split/TDt Line CMQS Famption
Adjustment
8) Description of Exi -ti ng Uses (number and type of exi ssti g* . ;
approximate sq. ft. ; number of ; any previous approvals granted to the
property) .
Easement is described in that certain Mutual Road and Utility Easement and Right of
made in 1989
Way Agreement from*Spruce Street to Smuggler Mountain Base Properties/recorded
in Book 593 at Page 352 and rerecorded inBook 593 at Page 429--of the records of
Pitkin County, Colorado, a copyof which,is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
9) Description of Development Application (14 foot driveway surface)
Application is for a driveway access 20 feet in width/to service Parcel "E" and
the Southerly portion of the Pride of Aspen, U.S.M.S. 7883 (continued on
attached page)
10) Have you attached the following?
XResponse to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission, scion Contents
X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission ssion Contents
Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
9) . Cont.
owned by Albert G. Timroth and Donna M. Timroth, and the Northerly portion of the Pride of
Aspen, U.S.M.S. 7883AM for a distance of approximately feet, paralleling and lying with the
northwesterly boundary of the SilverLode Subdivision as shown on the Subdivision Plat thereof. The
Albert G. and Donna M. Timroth Parcel is described on Exhibit "B". The Grant C. Timroth Parcel
is described in Exhibit "C". Both are situated in unincorporated Pitkin County. The area of the
easement was annexed into the City of Aspen in 1995. The Albert G. and Donna M. Timroth Parcel
has been granted 1041 Hazard Review, General Submission and Caretaker Dwelling Unit Approval
pursuant to Resolution 93-141 of the Board of Pitkin County Commissioners attached as Exhibit "D",
recorded in Book 722 at Page 457 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado, the Plat of which is
filed for record in Plat Book 33 at Page 32 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado. The
Approval is for one (1) single family residence plus a caretaker dwelling unit. No land use approvals
have been sought for the Grant C. Timroth Parcel. Any land use application for the Grant C.
Timroth Parcel would be for a single family residence plus perhaps a caretaker dwelling unit. There
currently exists on the property owned by one Eugene Witz adjoining the easement along the
common boundary with the northwesterly boundary of SilverLode Subdivision a road in place which
in some places encroaches on the area for which the subject access easement is located. To the
extent possible, that existing road will be used. Requests have been made of Mr. Witz to use the
existing road on his property which services a number of properties in the area. He has refused to
voluntarily permit its use by the applicant, thereby necessitating this application.
timral\no.9
MATERIALS SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH
ATTACHMENT 2
1. The Applicant's name, address and telephone number is:
Albert G. Timroth and Donna M. Timroth, and Grant C. Timroth
P.O. Box 89
Aspen, CO 81612
Telephone: (970) 925-1065
Attached is the appointment of authorized representative letter.
2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which the development is proposed
to occur is the parcel being only an access easement 20 feet in width for driveway access has
no legal description. It is described in the attached mutual easement and shown on the plat
of SilverLode Subdivision.
3. Attached is a title insurance commitment showing ownership of the SilverLode Subdivision
in Williams Ranch Joint Venture, which is the successor in title to Smuggler -Durant Mining
Corporation, the party which granted the easement in the first instance pursuant to the mutual
easement attached hereto. The 1989 Mutual Easement gives to the Applicant, the right to
apply for the development application.
4. Attached hereto is a vicinity map showing the subject parcel within the City of Aspen.
5. Supplementing the application, the Applicant proposes to construct a 20-foot-wide driveway
easement, a distance of approximately 380 feet along the rear 20 feet of Lots 1 through 4,
exclusive of SilverLode Subdivision to provide access to two (2) parcels of property, the
ownership of which is disclosed in the application. The Applicants' rights with respect to
the Mutual Easement derive from a written easement attached hereto as Exhibit A. The site
currently is sparse brush covered together with rocks and boulders. The existing grade will
not be altered greatly. The profile is shown on the attached submission of Banner
Associates. Removal of certain boulders will be required as well some minimal amount of
grading and filling. A number of small caliper diseased or dead aspen trees will need to be
removed at the easterly terminus of the easement.
timraRmaterials. sub
ATTACHMENT 4
The following is submitted as Attachment 4 to address the review standards:
Development subject to 8040 Greenline Review
1. No structures are to be constructed on the driveway access. It is to be used only for
driveway access. The slope is a maximum of 14.69 degrees. There are no issues with
ground stability, mine subsidence or the possibility of mud flow, rock fall or avalanche
dangers associated with the driveway access. The parcel is specifically excluded for
Operation of Unit 2 of the Smuggler Superfund Site, having been determined to contain no
hazardous or toxic waste materials.
2. The proposed development will not have a significant adverse effect on the natural water
shed, run off drainage, will cause no soil erosion or have consequent effects on water
pollution. All existing drainage patterns will be retained.
3. Inasmuch as no structure is proposed on the development, it is not anticipated to have any
adverse effect on air quality in the City of Aspen.
4. The application itself addresses the design and location of an access (driveway easement) and
is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development (the access
itself) is to be located.
5. Minimal grading will be required as a part of this proposal. Rocks will be removed, the
property will be graded level without significant change to the existing grade. All vegetation
not a part of the road surface will be restored.
6. This section should be not applicable because the development proposal itself does not
propose a structure.
7. Building height and bulk are not an issue inasmuch as no structure is proposed as a part of
the application.
8. All utilities to the development parcel which the driveway accesses have been adequately
addressed as a part of the 1041 and general submission process. No utilities are necessary
for the driveway access.
9. The development proposal itself is for a driveway access. After installation of the access,
it is anticipated that the driveway will be maintained by the Applicant and by the owner of
Lot 5, SilverLode Subdivision, who may share in the use of the road for access to Lot 5.
It is the Applicants' understanding that an access along Spruce Street extended is
contemplated by the approval for SilverLode Subdivision.
1
10. The proposal itself is a request for a access permit. The access begins at the westerly
terminus of the driveway access approval requested by this application at the intersection with
public Spruce Street at its easterly terminus, Applicant accesses a 30 foot roadway
constructed and in place to the parcels of the Applicant for which easements exist. The
Albert G. and Donna M. Timroth parcel has addressed issues relating to access for fire
equipment and snow removal equipment as a part of their 1041/General Submission
Application and approval.
11. No trail on the driveway access easement is proposed, therefore this provision is not
applicable.
By way of additional background information, the existing road commonly known as Spruce
Street extended which services numerous properties in the area of the parcels owned by the
Applicants, crosses the property of one Eugene Witz, who abuts the public portion of Spruce Street
and whose southwesterly boundary the common boundary with the northwesterly boundary of
SilverLode Subdivision. The Applicants have negotiated in good faith with Mr. Witz to obtain an
access easement through his property over and along the private road on Mr. Witz's property. Mr.
Witz has been unwilling to grant a right to the Applicants for use of the portion of the road on his
property. The proposed road will roughly parallel that existing road which, in fact, in certain areas
presently exists on the easement area of the proposed driveway easement. See the overlay contained
as a part of Attachment 3.
timral\attach.4
2
EXHIBIT A
Recorded ai.�Z.:�......
'Race0on No
S1LViA DAVIS�`ITKiN COU RECORDS -{',•t
593 m429
MUTUAL ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT
'AND RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT FROM SPRUCE STREET
TO SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN BASE PRCPERTIES
WITNESSETH, that
WHEREAS, the parties hereto are the owners of title to lands _.
E located.at the base of Smuggler Mountain, Aspen, Pitkin County,
between the Northerly terminus of Spruce Street
lying
- Colorado,
and the Glendale patented load mining claim,- M S 6859; and
I .
WHEREAS, each of the parties hereto desires to provide for .�
mutual, non-exclusive road and utility easements for each other
cr- across their individually owned lands. .
I t
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of such mutual considerations
and
' - benefits, the parties hereto grant and convey to each other a -i
r y.
30-foot wide roadway and utility easement
mutual, non-exclusive l;
lying 15 feet on either side of the center line of a road i.
r l 1
.,alignment as more particularly shown on the attached Exhibit "A" ,�..
and which easement is generally
Map, as access easement "B, "-:
1 d describeas follows: qr �
Commencing at tihe 1`:ortherly end of Spruce Set,at its :
f intersection with the East 1/16 line of Sectionthence
m Range 84 West, 6th P.M.?township 10 South, =
Easterly on the road and utility easement described in J
C� Book 578 at ;age 774-785, which is on the South side of
the Ella Sherwood patented load mining claim, MS5304
A.M. and which encroaches across the North line of the
' v J.R. Williams Cash entry #21 and continues East on the
,yr
load mining clai
Cora Lee patented m, M S 5304 A.M. to
the acute angle turn to the North. Including an access :. r
easement across the J.R. Williams Cash Entry #21 }
`-� situated in the SE 1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, .�
Range 84 West of the 6th P.M.,. Pitkin County,
v.3 Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
ce -The North 30.00 feet of the J.R. Williams. Cash Entry #21 and
the northeasterly 6 feet of the J.R. Williams Cash Entry.#21
n
as shown hereon, containing 0.364 acres more or less. Said
and apFu;-tenant to the
easement being for the benefit of,
M following lots: -
�, Ella Sherwood m.S. A304 AM
?, Cora Lee.- M.S. 53
04 _ 3. Ballarat M.S. 4438
-
x
4. Pride of Aspen M.S. 7883 AM
5 General Jackson-- M.S. 3921
6. Parcel °'E' as described in Book 131, Page 425-
s, _
7. J. R. Williams Cash Entry #21 as described in Book
r
97, Page 80 and Book 131, Page 425
J� - 6859 - :�-� ` � •
8. Glendale M.S.
'
9. True Worth,! - 3740 AM
�., M.S.
Recorded at 2 1 '
Ra,ception No
S1? VIA DAVIS PITKiN rOUNTY RECORDER
`Y q
EXHIBIT �,
y,
593
1. For purposes of this Agreement, the word "utility" shall
mean electric, telephone and cable T.V' service, either
underground or on poles, which shall be installed can the right
Ride of the road, as well as natural gas on the other side of the
road, and.shall include, as well, water and sewer service. The
easement shall include the right to install, construct, maintain
and repair such utilities and utility lines.
2... Any party performing road improvements,-mair;tenance or
utility installation or repair shall conduct such work in a
manner so as.not to impede the access to any connecting roads,
trails or work areas and shall regrade, if necessary, the
premises to maintain the unimpeded, adequate vehicular access to
the same
3. Further, -each party shall indemnify and save harmless
the other from any damages, suits, claims and judgments arising
out of such .improvement, installation, repair and maintenance
operations it may conduct on the common easement and right of
way.
4. 'those portions of the subject easement and right of way
which conflict with the -previous easement and ri�iht of way
agreements recorded in -Book 578 at Page 774 and in Book.578 at
Page 453 shall be subject thereto insofar as there is any
conflict between this Agreement and those prior agreements.
5. The following rights are also granted: to allow any
other person or company to attach wires or lay cable or conduit
within the right of way nor communications or electric power
transmission or distrii)ution, to allow any assignee or grantee of
the parties hereto, even on lands not owned by the parties, to -
obtain the use of the easement; to trim and cut and keep trimmed
d t 11 dead weak leaninc or dangerous trees or limbs
an cu a
outside of the easement area which might interfere with or fall
upon the lines or systems of communication or power transmission
or distribution.
6. A survey of the subject easement and right of way is
being completed by Banner Associates, Inc., as Job #81�u-U7 and
r.:
when such survey is filed of record -with Pitkin County,.Colorado,
it shall then be used for reference for all purposes to describe
the subject right of way and easement.
_.
T. In the event that any party hereto or any third party ,
f way and easement wish to hook
grantees -in the subject right o
- onto or use the easement after-utlines and services ha,Qe
ility
been installed by any party or parties, shall first be required
to pay a pro rata share for the construction, installation, `.
YC,M;it
maintenance, repair and use of. such utilities, including road
2, 1
to
l
. � BDiJit ,,��
BOOK 593
JJ PAGE 431
construction costs, with the L:rFose that cost be assessed on a•
per unit user basis.
8. Any after -acquired title in the easement ato the
of
way acquired by either -of the parties shall accrue
benefit of the other party o.- parties.'
This Agreement shall .inure to the benPffand
resentatives of
the heirs, successors, I�ssigns and personal reP
the parties hereto.
Dated this '" �t- day of May, 1989
—
FIDELITY TRUST BUILDING, INC.
By
G. M. Wilkinson, President
(Seal)
G. M. Wi?l:inson, Individually
I,/ (! 1I /.,, 0 el
.J
G
IL
El
STATtt COLORADO
COUNTY OF PI'iKIN
SMUGGLER DURANT MINING CORP.
, By —
Phyllis Kotenn, President
(Seal)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ss
e foregoing instrument was acknowledged before.me on this
T
day of May, 1989 by G. M. Wilkinson both individually
esid.ent of Fidelity
Trust Building, Inc.,.an Idaho
, Carol Jane Stain
•: :�: t40r fires CO81612
eexpires
•
)'mission
;pub 1•ic _
0
� .. ••gym.. . � .•_» .... . _ .._. ... . _- - - - .._ _ ..- . �� " ti'.-r.• s/�+ •{
♦ l•N
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATE OF COLORADO ).
ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
• - The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on n -
t lis Kot.een as President of the
5,ryt day of May, 1989 by Phi 1
Smuggler Durant Mining Corp. 1.
w y commis ion exp es '•:. 0100
-I Elo
r'
�- Public
is_ .:_ ..� . •A•y �
Notary = t 141
Exhibit B
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department 0-<
Date: May 16, 1995
Re: Timroth Access 8040 Greenline Review
(Parcel in County; NW of Silverlode Subdivision, Spruce Street)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Construction Fencing - Prior to construction, the applicant should be required to obtain a
building permit from the City. There is no work proposed in a City public right-of-way, which
work would be covered by an excavation permit. The proposed work is on an easement on private
property.
Prior to submitting the building permit application, the applicant should be required to install
construction fencing along the entire length of the proposed work and at the limits of construction
for the proposed work. No disturbance of vegetation should be permitted outside of the proposed
limits of work and outside of the proposed easement limits. No sidecasting of excavated materials
and no stockpiling of boulders should be permitted outside of the approved limits of construction.
The building permit should not be issued by the City until the fencing has been inspected and
approved. The project should be inspected during construction to confirm compliance.
If the length is deemed too great for fencing at one time, the requirement could be modified
to fencing on a phased basis, one hundred feet at a time, or one or two days' work at a time.
2. Vegetation - Regarding the removal of existing aspen trees, as an 8040 issue, the Commission
may want to consider requiring the applicant to replace all removed aspen trees with new aspen
trees on a caliper inch for inch basis.
3. Drainage - The applicant must provide for no drainage to enter the City street system both
during and after construction. A drainage plan must be provided to City Engineering together with
the building permit application.
4. Emergency Access - The City Code requires twenty foot access width. This has been
interpreted to mean twenty foot usable access on a year round basis. City Code also limits access
grade to 10% whereas the application indicates a proposed access grade of 15%. The Fire Marshal
should be required to comment on these aspects of the application.
5. Roadside Stabilization Plan - The drainage plan should include information about the
proposed stabilization of cut and fill slopes to prevent erosion.
6. Avalanche and Rockfall Hazard - The Silverlode Subdivision and Williams Ranch
Subdivision Plat indicates that the future Timroth residence will provide avalanche protection, but
the limits of avalanche and rockfall exposure are not clearly defined. The final portion of the
proposed Timroth driveway may be within avalanche and/or rockfall hazard areas.
7. Application Validation - The application makes statements about drainage, erosion, mine
subsidence, grades, and hazards with no documentation as to the validation of the statements. That
is, only a registered professional engineer is qualified to verify the statements in the application.
The application should be revised to include a letter by a registered engineer that addresses these
aspects of the 8040 review.
The Engineering Department has confirmed that the proposed development is outside the
Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site.
8. Dust Mitigation - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must provide a dust
mitigation plan that meets the requirements of the Environmental Health Department.
9. Tracking - No tracking of mud onto City streets is permitted. The applicant must employ inch
and a half washed rock, equipment rated blankets, or other techniques as appropriate to prevent
trucks and other equipment from tracking mud onto City streets.
10. "As-builts" - The Commission and the City may want to consider requiring a sign -off from an
engineer that the project was constructed and built as designed and approved.
cc: Cris Caruso
Albert Donna Timroth and Grant Timroth
Leonard Oates
M95.112
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Reconsideration of Farish Hallam Lake ESA Review (844
Roaring Fork Road)
DATE: June 6, 1995
Summary: The P&Z reviewed and approved this project on March 7,
1995 with conditions. At that time, staff and the P&Z interpreted
the application to read that the living room portion of the house
would remain as is, encroaching into the "no development" setback
area required in the regulations. There was considerable
discussion about the exterior patio, lighting, and protection of
trees along the Hallam Lake side of the residence. Attached for
your reference is information from the application and staff memo
for the March 7 meeting, Exhibit "A".
On April 5, 1995, this item was introduced to the FAR Overlay
Committee as the remodeled and expanded home exceeded 85% of
allowable floor area. During the FAR review, Committee members
from the P&Z became aware of the 100% demolition of the project,
and felt this was an issue relating to the previous P&Z hearing.
The FAR Committee decided to table this item to April 25.
On April 25, the FAR Committee was not able to complete the review
because of time constraints of P&Z members and staff who had to
proceed to a P&Z meeting. The FAR review was tabled to May 3,
1995. Also on April 25, staff presented to the P&Z the
determination of the City Attorney that the P&Z could move to
rehear the Hallam Lake ESA review. The P&Z did so move by a vote
of 4-0 (2 abstentions) to place the item on its June 6 agenda.
On May 3, the FAR review was approved by the Special Review
Committee. At that meeting, Gideon Kaufman stated that the
original application did not intend to mislead anyone about the
intent to demolish the portion of the building in question. He
stated that if the Commission would not allow complete demolition
and replacement of the living room wing, the project would be able
to keep the existing wall of the living room in place, making
structural additions to hold up a new roof. If this method was
used, the existing structure would be 61% demolished according to
Mr. Kaufman and Mr. Fallin.
Staff Discussion: Dick Fallin submitted a letter to update staff
and the Commission, Exhibit "B". Regarding the fireplace
relocation, the Environmental Health Department must approve any
1
new or relocated fireplaces.
The Hallam Lake ESA allows for Special Review approval to allow a
building to encroach into the 15' "no development" setback. The
Commission would have to find that:
1. A unique condition exists on the site where strict adherence
to the top of slope setback will create an unworkable design
problem.
2. Any intrusion into the top of slope setback or height limit
is minimized to the greatest extent possible.
3. Other parts of the structure or development on the site are
located outside the top of slope setback line or height limit
to the greatest extent possible.
4. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or
development in the setback from all adjoining properties.
There are several mature spruce trees on the north side (front) of
the home which substantially limit the ability to move the entire
structure northward on the site. This difficulty could satisfy the
first requirement. Items 3 and 4 are not issues. However, the
second requirement might require alteration of the roofline to be
satisfactory. Technically, the added hip roof over a portion of
the living room could be construed as an expansion of the building
within the 15' setback area whether or not the existing wall
remained or was reconstructed. Keeping a flat roof on the portion
of the building in the 15' setback would not violate this
criterion. However, a 4' roof overhang which currently exists
along the south edge of the living room (Hallam Lake side) is being
removed. This could be considered as an "exchange" of bulk and
lessening of an encroachment when reviewing the proposed hip roof
over the living room.
If the Commission and applicant determine the existing walls will
remain rather than be demolished, staff wants the applicant to
explain specifically what materials will be removed/replaced and
what will be left standing to "remodel". If all that remains is
a few vertical studs, the structure should be considered
functionally "demolished". Staff wants to avoid any confusion in
the future as to the level of deconstruction which was approved by
the Commission. If demolition is approved and replacement in the
setback is granted, the Commission must make it clear that there
are specific Special Review findings which support the approval.
Staff's position in general is that such a substantial demolition
of a structure would provide an excellent opportunity to eliminate
any encroachment problems. Site specific hardship must be made
clear by the P&Z.
N
To summarize, there are several options for the Commission:
1) Require redesign of the demolished structure (if 100%) so that
there is no encroachment into the 15' setback.
2 ) Require redesign of the roof in the 15' setback area if the
living room wing remains (exact determination of amount of
structure to remain).
3) Approve Special Review for the proposed hip roof expansion
into the 15' setback with clear findings on the review
criteria, including the removal of the 4' overhang on the
south side of the living room.
4) Approve Special Review for encroachment into the 15' setback
with clear findings on the review criteria.
Exhibt "A" Excerpts from Application and March 7, 1995 Staff
Memo
"B" June 1, 1995 Letter from Dick Fallin
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Farrish Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review
DATE: March 7, 1995
Summary: The Planning Office recommends approval of this request
with conditions. The applicant seeks to add onto an existing 1,880
single family residence for a total of 5,424 s.f. FAR.
Applicant: Mrs. Steven Farrish, represented by Dick Fallin
Location: (Lots 5-9 and parts of Lots 10 and 11, Aspen Company
Subdivision)
Zoning: R-15, with Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive
Area (ESA) overlay. The parcel is 30,400 s.f. Please see Exhibit
"A" for vicinity map, proposed site plan and site sections.
Referral Comments: See Exhibit "B" for complete memos.
Parks Department: Rebecca Baker stated that more trees may be
impacted by construction that is shown on the plan. Any trees
slated for relocation must receive tree removal/relocation permits
from the Parks Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
Prior to issuance of any building permits, tree protection
barricades must be erected at the drip lines of at -risk trees. The
barricades shall be constructed to prevent soil compaction,
material storage, and spillage of deleterious substances under the
trees.
A 12" PVC culvert must be installed under the new driveway. At
least one week prior to the ditch work, the applicant must contact
Tom Rubel of the Parks Department so he can monitor the ditch work.
A.C.E.S. - In a phone conversation with staff, Tom Cardamone
expressed that plantings of native shrubbery on the hillside would
reduce the grassy tamed look and restore the natural appearance of
the slope under the cottonwood trees. Tom also expressed concern
about the recessed lighting which is proposed on the structure.
There are currently floodlights attached to the building which
brightly light up the nature preserve below. Low level, low
voltage lighting is acceptable, but wall mounted lights are not
acceptable.
Engineering: Chuck Roth submits the following comments:
1) Any increase in historic storm run-off must be maintained on
site. A drainage plan must be included in the building permit
application.
2) A sidewalk, curb, and gutter agreement must be signed and
recorded at owner's expense prior to the issuance of any building
permits. Forms for the agreement are available in the Engineering
Office.
3) The site plan in the building permit application must clearly
label and dimension all on -site parking spaces.
4) The applicant shall consult the City Engineer and Parks
Department and shall obtain permits from the Streets Department for
any work or development including landscaping within the public
right-of-way.
Staff Comments:
Hallam Lake Bluff E.S.A. Review: The intent of the Hallam Lake
overlay area is to provide a minimal level of protection from
development impacts on the A.C.E.S. nature preserve below this
hillside. Various human impacts to the nature preserve that
concern A.C.E.S. include visual, noise, and light intrusion as well
as damage to the slope and vegetation which may increase runoff and
erosion.
The review standards contained in the ordinance are as follows:
1. No development, excavation or fill, other than native
vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of slope.
Response: The application shows a new planter which will jut below
the top of slope at the southeast corner of the house. This
planter is not in compliance with this criteria and number 2 which
follows.
2. All development within.the 15' setback from the top of slope
shall be at grade. Any proposed development not at grade
within the 15' setback must be approved by special review
pursuant to Section 7-404 D of this Article 7.
Response: The grade in the 15' setback area was manipulated during
original 1960's construction of the flagstone patio and retaining
wall running west from the patio. The patio is raised
approximately 4 feet off of the existing slope. As mentioned
above, the proposed planter on the south edge of the building and
patio further intrudes into the setback area. The application also
calls for expansion of the patio to the west, including stairs
which go down to meet the slope. The applicant states that the
planter, new deck, and steps meets the special review criteria as
specified in Section 7-404 D, but does not elaborate. Staff does
not agree. This section reads:
D. Whenever a special review is for development above or below
2
grade within the fifteen foot setback from top of slope as
identified on a site specific section drawing or above the
height limit established by the ESA, the development
application shall be approved only if the following conditions
have been met:
1. A unique condition exists on the site where strict
adherence to the top of slope setback will create an
unworkable design problem.
2. Any intrusion into the top of slope setback or height
limit is minimized to the greatest extent possible.
3. Other parts of the structure or development on the site
are located outside the top of slope setback line or
height limit to the greatest extent possible.
4. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure
or development in the setback from all. adjoining
properties.
The existing filled -in patio and retaining walls areas behind the
house are non -conforming per the review criteria. If the patio,
walkways and rock retaining wall are unchanged, they may remain.
However, there is not a unique condition which calls for the
extensive work shown on the plan. It is an effort on the
applicant's part to expand the outdoor living space overlooking the
nature preserve, including stairs which will encourage further
activity down on the slope. This type of development is the reason
why limits are placed through the ESA review process. If a railing
is needed for safety purposes, a railing should be proposed for the
Commission's review under this special review section. -During a
staff inspection, it also became apparent that the applicant has
cleared underbrush from the slope to enhance views downward. This
makes any changes to the decks or structure more visible from
below.
3. All development outside the 15' setback from the top of slope
shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a 45
degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height
shall be measured and determined by the Zoning Officer
utilizing that definition set forth at Section 3-101 of this
Chapter 24.
Response: The section drawings taken from the 3/22/94 survey show
that the proposed structure complies with this height limit.
4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development
applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative
screening of no less than 50 percent of the development as
viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative
screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be
3
9
replaced with the same or comparable material should it die.
Response: The landscaping shown on the survey indicates many large
cottonwood trees which provide a fair amount of screening of the
structure from the rear. As noted above, it appears that clearing
of the native hillside shrubbery has occurred in the past. Staff
recommends that additional plantings of native shrub type plants
be added along the slope to restore its wild character, and below
the foundation walls of the house and patio retaining walls in
order to reduce their visibility. Prior to the issuance of any
building permits, a final landscape plan shall be reviewed by
Planning and ACES staff. Any tree relocations must receive City's
tree removal permits.
5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no
light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down
the slope.
Response: The application states that recessed downlights will
.be placed in the roof overhangs. This does not meet the intent of
the criteria to reduce the night time visual impact of structures
toward the nature preserve. Planning and ACES Staff recommends
only bollard or pathway style lighting for the rear of the building
and patio area which does not illuminate the building itself. A
final lighting scheme shall be included in the building permit set
for Planning's approval. Staff is currently researching the
minimum exit lighting requirements of the building codes and will
report the findings to the Commission.
6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the
slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be
maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the
slope.
Response: The application states that this requirement will be met.
No hot tub is indicated on the plans. A drainage plan is being
required prior to issuance of a building permit. To prevent debris
from falling down the hill, a strong construction barricade fence
must be erected on the "bench" of the site and inspected by
Planning prior to the issuance of any demolition or building
permits for the parcel. The barricades must remain in place until
all construction is complete or the certificate of occupancy is
issued, whichever occurs last.
7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape
architect, or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing
and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and pertinent
elevations above sea level.
Response: The application contains site sections which meet the
requirements of this criteria.
4
0
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Farrish Hallam
Lake Bluff ESA Review with the following conditions: �1ivsP
1. The new stone planter, stairs, andAnew pa i as shown on the ro
application drawing sheet #3 are not approved for construction
per this review.
2. Any trees slated for removal or relocation must receive tree
removal/relocation permits from the Parks Department prior to
issuance of a building permit.r4i
3. Prior to issuance of any building
permits, sturdy tree
protection barricades must be erected the drip lines of at -
risk trees as directed by Parks staff. The barricades shall
be constructed to prevent soil compaction, material storage,
and spillage of deleterious substances under the trees. They
shall remain in place throughout exterior construction and
grading.
4. A 12" PVC culvert must be installed under the new driveway.
At least one week prior to the ditch work, the applicant must
contact Tom Rubel of the Parks Department so he can monitor
the ditch work.
5. A final landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by ACES
and Planning staff prior to issuance of any building permit.
Additional plantings of native shrub type plants be added
along the slope to restore its wild character, and below the
foundation walls of the house and patio retaining walls in
order to reduce their visibility.
6. Any future landscape development (including but not limited
to decks, spa, terrace, fencing) must be submitted for review
as an amendment to this E.S.A. review.
7. A sidewalk, curb, and gutter agreement must be signed and
recorded at owner's expense prior to the issuance of any
building permits. Forms for the agreement are available in
the Engineering Office.
8. The site plan in the building permit application must clearly
label and dimension all on -site parking spaces.
9. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer and Parks
Department and shall obtain permits from the Streets
Department for any work or development including landscaping
within the public right-of-way.
10. , -_-pathway type -it =i:-ng shall be -u-sa 1 on-q-
rear of the building and patio! A final lighting scheme shall
be included in the building permit set for Planning's
approval. The existing floodlights must be removed as part
5
of the reconstruction.
11. To prevent debris from falling down the hill, a strong
construction barricade fence must be erected on the "bench"
of the site and inspected by Planning prior to the issuance
of any demolition or building permits for the parcel. The
barricades must remain in place until all construction is
complete or the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever
occurs last.
12. The applicant shall record in the County Clerk and Recorder's
Office a copy of the approved site specific development plan,
landscape plan, and approval resolution. Proof of recordation
must be forwarded to the Planning Office prior the issuance
of any building permits for this site.
13. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
Exhibits: "A" -
Application information,
landscape plan
Referral Memos
site plan, sections, and
CN
tO
10
,•ask"',,
-
I IEI� ••
I
(11 +
IIL► 1►;'
Sold
L• 1. l �`" - -
. 9 R;
•�7Y, �.i� 1., .+ t �I( + ,ij j({fii{ �
. - "•. :: i-; �, .;:. �.� ,;., :'`,i'� , ;�,.... it 1 ; + , • . +
`.. Two
t • ••F' �';hEl".'�Y'�''• 'fCl�;' � `{ i III
icy
Vol
J
]VITAC1 e rr 1
x-M (ZE APIYUCAITa1 FCUII
1) Project: uamc Farish Hallam Lake ESA
y
2) Rroject irxation 8-44 Roaring Fork Road, Aspen, Co
Lots 5-9 & parts of Lots 10 & 11, Aspen Company Subd; City of Aspen, C:
(indicate sheet address, lot & block rimber, JLegal -
appropriate)
3) P'esent Z«zisyj R -15 .4) Lot size 30,400 so. ft.
.Mrs. Steven P. Farish
5) AMlicarrt's Name, Address & Phone # 2200 W i l L o w i c k Ant- 1 6 F
Houston, TX 77027
' 71 3-A71 -8760 '
6) Representative's Names, Address & Phone I LLi r k F A 1 1 ; n i.d A.r�.n S.au f Ma n -
1280 Ute Ave # 10 •315 E•. Hyman Ave
A GnPn r r'n A161 1 Itspori* r. o 81611
925-4252 925-8166
7) 7ype of Application (please djeck all that apply)
,—_Conditional Conditional Use SPA 1 Historic Dev_
_ Speci,al Review Final SPA -
8040 GmerLtine Conceptual POD
Stream Margiri Final PUD
Yjd�ntain View Plane Subdivision '
nQii n i tm; i ��ti on' t
rot split/iot Tine
Adjustment
Firsal_ Historic Dev_
Minor Historic Dev_
Hi _s tori c Demolition
Historic Designation
CZIQS Allotment -
GZ�Qs motion. - -
Existing single family, one story 2-bedroom 2-bath residence
of approximately 1880 sq. ft. with a.one car carport.'
Description of Development Application
4A e
Alter and add onto existing structure to create a new 4-bedroom
5-bath house of approximately 5424 sq. ft.
partial basement & 2-car garage. i
10) Have you attached the follow it ?
_IeZ_ ReSponse to Attachment 2, Mi n i rr= an & ib�io[I Contents
N/R. Response to Attachment 3, Speeific Sl lon Contents
N / R R�rtse to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application w.
FARISH RESIDENCE
HALLAM LAKE ESA
Project Description
January 25, 1995
The applicant, Anne Farish, proposes to significantly alter and make
additions to her existing single family residence located at 844 Roaring Fork
Drive on Lots 5 - 9, Parts of 10 & 11, and adjacent parcel as shown on the
attached drawings, consisting of:
Site Plan
Site Sections
Landscape Plan
Existing Floor Plan
Existing Exterior Elevations
New Basement Plan
New First Floor Plan
New Second Floor Plan
New Roof Plan
New Exterior Elevations
The lot area is 30,400 square feet and is in City of Aspen Zone District R-
15 which allows an F.A.R. of 5424 square feet. The existing structure is a small
one story frame two -bedroom, two bath house with an attached one -car carport
which was constructed approximately thirty years ago. Mrs. Farish, a long-time
Aspen resident, has owned the house since 1977. The program for the new
project was conditional upon the owner's desire to keep as much of the layout of
the existing house as possible, while creating a new master bedroom, master
bath, three guest bedrooms, two -car garage and other improvements necessary
for her family's needs.
The property currently has approximately seventy mature trees
surrounding the house, as can be seen on the survey drawings, and
approximately forty of these are located on the Hallam Lake side of the lot (see
attached winter and summer photos).
The trees that are located on the street side of the property, in
combination with the setbacks, severely restrict areas available for future
development. The design solution was in part determined by this situation as
well as the owner's request that, hopefully, no trees would have to be removed.
As can be seen on the site plan, the options for expansion were located in the
front yard/driveway area, an extension of the original house to the west, and a
second floor, all of which created a rather linear plan, parallel with the street and
slope, but not dissimilar to the original house orientation. Most of the houses SV6
along Roaring Fork Drive have the same orientation characteristics.
The existing living room wing footprint is to remain unchanged and lies
within the 15-foot top -of -slope zone; the new master addition at the west end will
have no encroachment into the top -of -slope zone, and the new second floor has
no encroachments into the top -of -slope zone; the remaining structure meets the
Hallam Lake ESA requirements.
The massing of the house was intended to minimize the two-story element
and to utilize a hipped roof design, with as many one-story elements as possible,
in order to reduce the mass to the greatest extent while still maintaining the
proportions necessary for the design. Dark colors are proposed in order to
blend with the color character of the site as viewed from Hallam Lake.
Window areas were kept in balance with the mass, with no two story glass
elements, and was a conscious effort to keep the house at a scale appropriate to
it's location.
All parking and service areas are located on the north and east sides of
the house and will not be visible from Hallam Lake.
Ordinance One requirements will be met through the cash -in -lieu option.
FARISH HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW
Response to Review Standards
1. "No development, excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting,
shall take place below the top of slope."
The applicant does not intend to do anything below the top of slope
except planting which would be in accordance with this standard.
2. "All development within the fifteen -foot setback from the top of slope shall
be at grade. Any proposed development not at grade within the fifteen -
foot setback must be approved by special review pursuant to Section 7-
404D of this Article 7."
There are two areas in this application that will require development
within the top of slope setback areas:
1. Existing living room wing at the south easterly corner.
As shown on the survey drawing, part of the existing structure lies within
the top of slope setback area. With an existing roof overhang that
extends past the top of slope line. The applicant intends to re -use the
existing foundation for the new development and will reconstruct the walls
and roof so that the roof will not extend past the top of slope line.
2. An existing patio lies within the top of slope set back area.
The landscape plan shows how the applicant intends to develop the on -
grade elements within the top of slope setback area. Approximately half
of the existing flagstone patio lies within the setback area. A new
extension to the patio is shown approximately 16-feet to the west,
encompassing an existing cottonwood tree, and new flagstone steps
down to grade. The southerly edge of the patio area is proposed to have
a new stone faced planter that would also extend across the south end of
the living room structure. The intent is to avoid having a railing by
stepping the 'finish grade" down in 30-inch steps, as allowed by the
building code. The existing patio has no railing, and the applicant has
proposed this "stepping" to maintain this condition in a safe manner.
The applicant believes that the conditions of Section 7-404D of Article 7
have been met by this design.
\1
3. "All development outside the fifteen -foot setback from top of slope shall
not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five degree
angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured
and determined by the zoning officer utilizing that definition set forth at
Section 3-101 of this Chapter 24."
All areas of the proposed development comply with the height limitations
as described in the Hallam Lake Bluff Review Section 7-506 and as
defined in Section 3-101 of Chapter 24 with the exception of the south-
easterly portion of the existing living room. The living room area flat roof
height is to be raised approximately 1-foot at the alcove area; the main
room will have a new hipped roof that rises from the flat away from the
slope to the north, thus minimizing the massing as much as possible. As
can be seen by the photos, the existing vegetation effectively screens the
house from Hallam Lake.
4. "A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications.
Such plan shall include native vegetation of no less than fifty percent of
the development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All
vegetative screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be
replaced with the same or comparable material should it die."
The applicant submitted a landscape plan, sheet no. 3, as part of the
development application. The applicant believes the existing vegetation
exceeds the fifty -percent coverage requirement. The applicant agrees to
maintain vegetation.
5. "All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no lights directed
toward the nature preserve or located down the slope.
The applicant proposes to use recessed downlights in the roof overhang
along the patio areas. The fixtures will have a black baffle typical of this
type of fixture that prevents glare. There will be no lighting directed
toward the preserve or located down the slope."
6. "No fill material or debris shall be places on the face of the slope. Historic
drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs
cannot be drained down the slope."
No fill material or debris will be placed on the face of the slope. Historic
drainage patterns and rates will be maintained through the use of drywells
and french drains where required. No pools or hot tubs are proposed.
JUN-01-i995 14:35 FROM BAKER FALL IN ASSOC. TO 9205439 P.01
1995 june 1 1.
PUm Johnson "9=0 09 1 NCOUMMD
Akciffr=Rr, AND PLkmimc;
Aspen Community Pevelopment
C4 of. A, spen
. 1 1.
Galena
Aspen., co 81611
Farish Hallam Lake ESA
844 Roaring ForkRoad, Aspen, Colorado
Dear lKim,
'At your reqLOW, this leftr is our reply to questions, that!! have surfaced regarding
Ilhe ap I granted to Mrs. Farish's Hallam Lake ESA special revieiv on March 7,
Prove
As you know, our position described in the written appOcation was that Mrs.,
Farish wished to retain the bask layout of the existing house rbgarding room locations
and ft, t the footprint area presently encroaching into the top Of slopO sethick area was
to remain, i,e., the foundation Yjas to remain and the existing W* ails and roof were to be
removed and rebuilt Due to the age and deterioration cyf the eAsting house, this
seemed to make the most sens6.
We undersWnd some P & Z commission members feel that thpy i have
may
approved keeping the existing walls. While that was not what' our apolicat.iv
represeinted, if that: isIhe P & Z' desire we would leave the exisling roof and columns at
the southem-most p:ortion, remove the existing roof from the remaining ".5ting Living
room area, and build a new pitched roof supported by new columns withinIhe eAsting
To make sur:e there are no other misunderstandings the drawings that were
subrAttod showed'thia fireplaa6 location moving from the,west wall t6 thebast wall.
We want to confirm this is included in the approval.
P, lease do not hesitate to call if you need any further 'Information.
Sinoor,Oly,
Richard A. Fallin
JoHN R. &m, AIA, Pnsi4nt Rj�7mmm A. FAT i iN Vice Pmi-Atmt a DVw ],K, PANICO Asaociau
a�EN, CoLomo 81611 - 30-11C4,5-Q6 6 F.,XX 30-11 2 39
1280 UT2 AwNufl - A�. 2 6
fly OwNN0ENVOOD SPONGS, CoLom81601 - 303/928-9704 ® PAX 010,968
TOTAL P.O.
�► r M • r
PUBLIC NOTICE •.•
> fi
r"!�
DATE._
TIME
PLACE
PURPOSE
i
{ t
ttt{1r
+tit+ t }
+ +♦ {
,
t
R-.-�
T I
....• �
4
■F
> , .'r �♦
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations)
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says
as follows:
I, SUNNY VANN, being or representing an Applicant before
the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of the
application for subdivision, rezoning and special review approval
for the Mocklin property was given by 1) posting of notice contain-
ing the information required in Section 6-205.E.2., which posting
occurred on May 2, 1995, in a conspicuous place on the subject
property and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously
from that date, and 2) mailing Notice of said development applica-
tion to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property, which mailing occurred on May 5, 1995.
Applicant:
PETER AND MQNJ_A_ MOCKLIN
No
The foregoing Aff ' dNvit of Public Notice was acknowledged
and signed before me this L day of June, 1995, by Sunny Vann
on behalf of PETER AND MONICA MOCKLIN.
,`k144114001J,
WITNESS my hand and of f iial seal. //�j �,�'-161,'No 0 J0 ,
My commission expires: y '00Y, `
I
0C
r.
tt a ry Publi oc
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MOCKLIN GMQS EXEMPTION, SUBDIVISION, SPECIAL REVIEW AND AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, May 16, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4 : 3 0 p.m. before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City
Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application
submitted by Peter and Monica Mocklin, requesting an exemption from
the City's Growth Management Quota System to develop six
residential free market lots and one affordable housing lot. The
applicants are also requesting the following approvals:
subdivision; rezoning of the portion of the property which is
currently zoned R/MF, Residential/Multi-Family, to AH, Affordable
Housing; and Special Review to vary the FAR, parking and open space
requirements. The property.is located adjacent to the intersection
of Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine Road; SW 4 of Section 7, Township
10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. For further information,
contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5101
s/Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on April 29, 1995
City of Aspen Account
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR
i.cent J. Higens ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Christina Davis
-!sident
303-925-1766 303-925-6527 FAX Vice President
3001 OWNER'S LIST
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list
of property owner's within three hundred feet of PROPERTY OWNED BY PETER
AND MONICA M. MOCKLIN LOCATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84
WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., as obtained from the most current Pitkin County
Assessors Tax Rolls.
FRATED: MAY 4, 1995
NAMES AND ADDRESSES TAX SCHEDULE NUMBER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
'ADRIAN JOHN BURNS
1129,
HUNTER CREEK
t
P.O. BOX 12264
ASPEN CO
81612
ADRIAN N. PATRASCIOIU
231,
HUNTER CREEK
EMILIE J. PATRASCIOIU
2901 EAST 1ST STREET
TUCSON AZ
85714
AIR WISCONSIN
422,
HUNTER CREEK
C/O MS. ROSE LUSSIER, CONTROLLER
203 CHALLENGER DR.
APPLETON WI
54915
I
AIRHOST, INC.
i
1005,
HUNTER CREEK
SUITE 205
1355 LYNNFIELD ROAD
MEMPHIS TN
38119
ALAN GREENWALD
949,
HUNTER CREEK
C/O PINEBROOK TIRE CO.
295 CHANGEBRIDGE ROAD
PINEBROOD NJ
07058
ALAN R. BEYER
535,
HUNTER CREEK
RAYMOND & ALVINA L. BEYER
P.O. BOX 9665
ASPEN CO
81612
ALBERT G. & PATRICIA BYRUM
1011,
HUNTER CREEK
WILLIAM B. & INEZ BEAMS
1004 LEATHERWOOD CIRCLE
MARTINSVILLE VA
24112
ALBERT MYERS
713 &
814, HUNTER CREEK
SHIRLEE KAY MYERS
P.O. BOX 3095
ASPEN CO
81612
ALBERT TROOST
531, HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 4894
ASPEN CO
81612
ALOIS WALTER GETTINGER
1118,
HUNTER CREEK
CHRISTINE M. GETTINGER
385 CUMELBACK ROAD #22
PLEASANT HILL CA
94523
p ANGELINE M. GRIFFITH
WILLIAMS ADDITION
k 530 WALNUT ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
i
ANITA MCCLURE
311,
HUNTER
CREEK
0143 LONE PINE RD.
#311
ASPEN
i
CO
81611
E
ANN MARIE QUIGLEY
315,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 8194
ASPEN
i
I
CO
81611
ANTHONY F. GREENE
334,
HUNTER
CREEK
522 COWENHOVEN CT.
ASPEN
CO
81611
ASPEN SQUARE CONDO.
ASSOC.
611,
HUNTER
CREEK
C/O DAVID E. CHASE
617 E. COOPER
ASPEN
CO
81611
BARBARA BARTLETT
522,
HUNTER
CREEK
0143 LONE PINE RD.
#522
ASPEN
CO
81611
BARNEY OLDFIELD
A-1,
LONE PINE
0155 LONE PINE RD.
#A-1
ASPEN
CO
81611
BEN ENG WONG
716,
HUNTER
CREEK
PAUL PIEW-LOON POH
P.O. BOX 10106
ASPEN
CO
81612
BERNARD MIRIN
904,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 7681
ASPEN
CO
81612
BILL PRYMAK
1031,
HUNTER
CREEK
1530 W. 10TH AVE.
BROOMFIELD
CO
80020
BLAIR S. ELLIOT
A-11,
LONE PINE
0155 LONE PINE RD. #A-11
ASPEN CO
81611
BRENT R. COHEN
1134,
HUNTER CREEK
1200 17TH ST. STE. 3000
DENVER CO
80202
BRIAN WEINER
METES & BOUNDS
C/O PMG
1011 NORTH FRIO
SAN ANTONIO TX
78207
BRUCE MUHLFELD
A-131
LONE PINE
JOAN M. TIEGE
500 E. COOPER
ASPEN CO
81611
CARALYN L..DANIEL
621,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 9095
ASPEN CO
81612
CARDER FAMILY INSURANCE
PARTNERSHIP
909,
HUNTER CREEK
C/O AMY CARDER WALTERS
40 MULE DEER TRAIL
LITTLETON CO
80127
CARL RAUCHENBERGER
1023,
HUNTER CREEK
MERILYN RAUCHENBERGER
1480 LAKE SHORE DR.
BARRINTON IL
60010
CAROLINE CHRISTENSEN
1012,
HUNTER CREEK
720 E. DURANT AVE.
ASPEN CO
81611
CATALINA CRUZ
325,
HUNTER CREEK
LAURA 0. CRUZ
P.O. BOX 2661
ASPEN CO
81612
CATHERINE E. MARKLE
636,
HUNTER CREEK
FRANK H. SPOFFORD, JR.
P.O. BOX 9348
ASPEN CO
81612
CATHLEEN M. KRAHE TRUST
723,
HUNTER CREEK
j P.O. BOX 11426
ASPEN CO
81612
j CATHY O'SHANA
725,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 15101
ASPEN CO
81612
CHARLES A. MUER
11241
HUNTER CREEK
MARIETTA CATHERINE
207 ROYAL POINCIANA WAY
PALM BEACH FL
33480
CHARLES C. DALE
A-12,
LONE PINE
SANDRA G. PENA
155 LONE PINE RD. #A-12
ASPEN CO
81611
CHARLES COLLINS
724,
HUNTER CREEK
JANICE COLLINS
531 W. GILLESPIE AVE.
ASPEN CO
81611
CHARLES LAWSON WILLARD
1131,
HUNTER CREEK
1131 VINE ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
CHARLOTTE KEMP
908,
HUNTER CREEK
MARY LETTA BOYD
P.O. BOX 7128
ASPEN CO
81612
CHRISTING SPEER
926,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 2894
ASPEN CO
81612
CITY OF ASPEN
METES
& BOUNDS
130 SO. GALENA ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
CLIFFORD W. LITTLE
812,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 9703
ASPEN CO
81612
;CLIFFORD WEISS
1135,
HUNTER CREEK
STACEY L. WEISS
1135 VINE ST.
is ASPEN
CO
81611
i
CLURIE W. BENNIS
WILLIAMS ADDITION
P.O. BOX 4618
ASPEN
CO
81612
COLLETTE PENNE CRANSTON
B-8,
LONE PINE
P.O. BOX 2505
ASPEN
3
CO
81612
DAVID LAUGHREN
832,
HUNTER CREEK
4 DANA DEVINE-LAUGHREN
r
I P.O. BOX 1265
ASPEN
CO
81612
DAVID N. DANFORTH
712,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX DD
ASPEN
CO
81612
DAVID SHOSTAC
1117,
HUNTER CREEK
ALEXES DAVID
2509 AIKEN AVE.
LOS ANGELES
CA
90052
DEBORAH TULLMAN
623,
HUNTER CREEK
623 VINE ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
DELLA J. PEGOLOTTI
A-16,
LONE PINE
JACK H. VICKERY
P.O. BOX 10623
ASPEN
CO
81612
DENISE E. LOCK
125,
HUNTER CREEK
0143 LONE PINE RD.
#125
ASPE
CO
81611
DENNIS YOUNG
OKLAHOMA
FLATS
ANDREA YOUNG
P.O. BOX 133
ASPEN
CO
81612
k k
p DONA J., KATHLEEN A., GLENN
E.
924,
HUNTER CREEK
& VERNA C. DIXON
1043 LONE PINE RD. #924
ASPEN CO
81611
f
DONNA ANN BROOKES
1123,
HUNTER CREEK
4977 BATTERY LANE, APT. 510
BETHESDA MD
20814
DOROTHY ANN SHARP
A-9,
LONE PINE
NEIL ALAN LEIBOWITZ
0155 LONE PINE RD. #A-9
ASPEN CO
i
81611
i
DOROTHY DANIELI
B-8,
LONE PINE
0155 LONE PINE RD. #B-8
ASPEN CO
81611
DOUGLAS HOUSTON
1042,
HUNTER CREEK
1683 DOLTON
WALLED LAKE MI
48088
DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
METES
& BOUNDS
225 NO. MILL ST. STE. 210
ASPEN CO
81611
DOUGLAS SHEFFER
METES
& BOUNDS
BARBARA SHEFFER
P.O. BOX 250
ASPEN CO
81612
EARL SLEDGE, INC.
614, HUNTER CREEK
465 N. MILL #4
ASPEN CO
81611
EDWARD M. PEARL, TRUSTEE
326, HUNTER CREEK
222 EAST PEARSON ST. #101
CHICAGO IL
60607
EDWARD T. PURCELL
234, HUNTER CREEK
ANNE CELESTE PURCELL
P.O. BOX 10791
ASPEN CO
81612
ra s
EDWARD W. PETROSIUS
II
P.O. BOX 4199
ASPEN
CO
81612
ELIZABETH A. NOONAN
TRUST
i
1450 SILVER KING DR.
ASPEN
CO
81611
[k
t
ELIZABETH L. BARBATELLI
P.O. BOX 3245
ASPEN
CO
81612
ELIZABETH L. FARSON
P.O. BOX 10602
ASPEN
CO
81612
ERNA D. JACKSON
727-17 TRAMWAY LANE N.E.
ALBUQUERQUE NM 87122
ESTATE OF JOE MUHICH
C/O ANGELINE GRIFFITH
530 WALNUT STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
EVAN GRIFFITHS
135 VINE ST.
ASPEN CO 81611
FELIX POGLIANO, JR.
LENORE L. P IGLIANO
1110 BLACK BIRCH DR.
ASPEN CO 81611
FLORENCE M. UHLHORN
P.O. BOX 10832
ASPEN CO 81612
FLOYD C. MANN
CATHERINE A. MANN
420-E AABC
ASPEN CO 81611
833, HUNTER CREEK
1136, HUNTER CREEK
121, HUNTER CREEK
B-6, LONE PINE
111, HUNTER CREEK
METES & BOUNDS
135, HUNTER CREEK
322, HUNTER CREEK
A, HILL HOUSE
736, HUNTER CREEK
FRANK & MARY WENZEL
1125, HUNTER CREEK
C/O WILLIAM PEPPLINGER
1125 VINE ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
FRANKLIN P. ADRIANCE
E:
A-4,
LONE PINE
155 LONE PINE RD . #A- 4
ASPEN CO
81611
E
FREDERICK K. MARTINSON
k
711,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 3186
ASPEN CO
{
81612
I FREDERICK MEYER
625,
HUNTER CREEK
PAMELA H. MEYER
P.O. BOX 2104
ASPEN CO
81612
i
GEORGE W. BURTCH
735,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 8345
ASPEN CO
81612
GEORGE W. BURTCH
735,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 8345
ASPEN CO
81612
GERRY BOHN
537,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 3564
ASPEN CO
81612
GLENRAY CR.AMER
1114,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 931
ASPEN CO
81612
GORDON A. GUNDAKER R.E.
1025,
HUNTER CREEK
2458 OLD DORSETT RD . ## 3 0 0
ST. LOUIS MO
63043
GREGORY L. HANLE
A-7,
LONE PINE
CYNDY A. REID
P.O. BOX 4221
ASPEN CO
81612
H. DON CHUMLEY
216,
HUNTER CREEK
ANNELIESE CHUMLEY
1970 N. BROADWAY
OKLAHOMA CITY
I
OK
73103
i
HANS E. BRUCKER
528,
HUNTER CREEK
CORIN HIGGINS
I
P.O. BOX 3304
j ASPEN
i
i
CO
81612
HARRIS A. CAHN
2, HILL HOUSE
ELAINE M. CAHN
7 NORTHGATE RD.
MENDHAM
NJ
07945
HARVEY CHAPMAN
1028,
HUNTER CREEK
RUTH CHAPMAN
5415 ENCINO AVE.
ENCINO
CA
91316
HENRY W. THURSTON
IV.
A-19,
LONE PINE
P.O. BOX 1221
ASPEN
CO
81612
HERMAN ANDERSON
613,
HUNTER CREEK
990 KING ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
HILL HOUSE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOC.
COMMON
AREA
NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE
HIROATSU NISHIKAWA 624, HUNTER CREEK
624 VINE ST. #624
ASPEN CO 81611
HOLLY A. REED B-1, LONE PINE
0155 LONE PINE RD. #B-1
ASPEN CO 81611
HOWARD B. WALLACH 226, HUNTER CREEK
BETTY S. WALLACH
2229 TROY AVE.
BROOKLYN NY 11234
HOWARD LEE SHAPIRO
836,
HUNTER CREEK
JOYCE E. SHAPIRO
0143 LONE PINE RD .
## 8 3 6
' ASPEN
h
CO
81611
HOWARD MAYER
OKLAHOMA FLATS
JULIE MAYER
P.O. BOX 333
ASPEN
E
CO
81612
HUNTER CREEK 1045
N
PTN.
1045, HUNTER CREEK
4428 YORK AVE. SO.
MINNEAPOLIS
f
MN
55410
E
i HUNTER CREEK CONDOMINIUM
ASSOC.
COMMON AREA
1400 VINE ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
IAN MALCOLM
215,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 4671
ASPEN
CO
81612
ILENE H. RICHMOND
238,
HUNTER CREEK
143 LONE PINE RD .
## 2 3 8
ASPEN
CO
81611
J. SCOTT EDMUNDSON
1115,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 4486
ASPEN
CO
81612
JACK A. BETTIO
1029,
HUNTER CREEK
3875 RIDGEWAY RD.
LAKEHURST
NJ
08733
JACK N. HAYDEN
324,
HUNTER CREEK
3541 RUNNING TIDE
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CA
92649
JAMES C. BLANCHARD
211,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 8454
ASPEN
CO
81612
b JAMES F. SMITH
1111,
HUNTER CREEK
LINDSAY N. SMITH
6542 WESTCHESTER
HOUSTON
TX
77005
JAMES F. SMITH
1132,
HUNTER CREEK
LINDSAY SMITH
6542 WESTCHESTER
HOUSTON
TX
77005
JAMES R. TOWNSEND
t
1112,
HUNTER CREEK
325 FREE SILVER CT.
ASPEN
CO
81611
JANE STRAUS HANSON
538,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 3705
ASPEN
CO
81612
JANE STRAUS HANSON
538,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 3705
ASPEN
CO
81612
JANICE DECKER
951,
HUNTER CREEK
THOMAS RESTAINO
72 ALDER AVE.
SAN ANSELMO
CA
94960
JAY M. MAGIDSON
1049,
HUNTER CREEK
C/O MAGIDSON FINE ART
520 E. COOPER
ASPEN
CO
81611
JEROME HOTEL CO.
612,
HUNTER CREEK
3829 DUCHESS S.E.
GRAND RAPIDS
MI
49506
JERRY B. RIDLING
922,
HUNTER CREEK
MIRIAM RIDLING
1110 STONYBROOK DR.
NAPA
CA
94558
JERRY CANTER
943,
HUNTER CREEK
MARC E. CANTER
P.O. BOX 11201
ASPEN
CO
81612
Yk_ t
JESSE B. HEATH, JR.
B, HILL HOUSE
HETTA S. HEATH
606 N. SPRING ST.
ASPEN
i
CO
81611
JILL SHORE
815,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 8673
F
ASPEN
i
CO
81612
I
JILLIAN G. WERNICK
423,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 9176
ASPEN
CO
81612
JOAN TIDWELL
734,
HUNTER
CREEK
0143 LONE PINE RD.
#734
ASPEN
CO
81611
JOANNA S. SCHAFFNER
722,
HUNTER
CREEK
722 VINE ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
JOANNE WALPOLE.
631,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 3759
ASPEN
CO
81612
JOEL D . KENWOOD
1041,
HUNTER CREEK
2531 NW 59TH ST
BOCA RATON
FL
33496
JOHN A. FABER
1138,
HUNTER CREEK
255 CANYON BLVD. #300
BOULDER
CO
80302
JOHN C. COLVER
523,
HUNTER
CREEK
855 MOUNTAIN LAUREL
DR.
ASPEN
CO
81611
JOHN E. BARNES, III
225,
HUNTER
CREEK
SHARON M. BARNES
225 VINE ST. #225
ASPEN
CO
81611
JOHN H. PARIS
3200 SANTA MONICA BLVD. #204
SANTA MONICA CA
90404
JOHN J. COATES, JR.
I MARY ANN COATES
P.O. BOX 25277
OKLAHOMA CITY OK
E
F
i
73125
I
i
JOHN J. SARNO, JR.
MARY ANN MCQUADE
49 APACHE WAY
TEWKSBURY MA
01876
JOHN J. SHEEHAN
5 CROWN WAY
MARBLEHEAD MA
01945
JOHN K. HOLSONBACK
HILDA G. HOLSONBACK
431 VINE ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
JOHN T. LAUCKS
C/O SAM THIESEN, SEA FIRST
TRUST DEPT.
P.O. BOX 3586
SEATTLE WA
98124
JOHN W., PATRICIA W., JACQUELINE R.
JAMES C. & JOHN W. RUGER,
II
P.O. BOX 12124
ASPEN CO
81612
JOHNIE C. MICKLES
PERRI A. MADISON
155 LONE PINE RD. #A-17
ASPEN CO
81611
JONATHAN L. STOCKER
P.O. BOX 4326
ASPEN CO
81612
JOSEPH ALBERT KOWAR
P.O. BOX 12324
ASPEN CO
81612
826, HUNTER CREEK
903, HUNTER CREEK
950, HUNTER CREEK
235, HUNTER CREEK
536, HUNTER CREEK
942, HUNTER CREEK
435, HUNTER CREEK
A-17, LONE PINE
632, HUNTER CREEK
133, HUNTER CREEK
E
®JOSEPH B. LEE, III
331,
HUNTER
CREEK
BRENDA R. LEE
131 HOLLY LANE
GRENANDA MS
38901
E JOSEPH B. THOMAS
811,
HUNTER
CREEK
MARGARETH G. VICKERS
P.O. BOX 3372
ASPEN CO
81612
E
E JOSEPH K. SCHUPBACH
316,
HUNTER
CREEK
520 E. DURANT, STE. 210
ASPEN CO
i
81611
i
JUDITH ZEE STEINBERG
336,
HUNTER
CREEK
C/O MOBILE OIL CORP.
4045 NW 64TH ST. STE 400
OKLAHOMA CITH OK
73116
JULIE K. MANDT
525,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 11813
ASPEN CO
81612
KALA M. RACHILLA
714,
HUNTER
CREEK
KATHERINE L. TYLER
P.O. BOX 3184
ASPEN CO
81612
KAREN ADAMS
524,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 4332
ASPEN CO
81612
KARIN C. SPECK
221,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 9912
ASPEN CO
81612
KARLA S. BACSANYI
715,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 9226
ASPEN CO
81612
KATHERINE FARISH RIVERS
B-2,
LONE PINE
0155 LONE PINE RD #B-2
ASPEN CO
81611
k k
KEATING COFFEY
124,
HUNTER
CREEK
SHIVA COFFEY
124 VINE ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
KENNETH CANFIELD STRAUSS
425,
HUNTER
CREEK
CARLEEN CANFIELD STRAUSS
205 TAPPAN LN
ORINDA CA
94563
KENNETH CANFIELD STRAUSS
425,
HUNTER
CREEK
CARLEEN CANFIELD STRAUSS,
TRUSTEES
9TH FLOOR, 650 CALIFORNIA
ST.
SAN FRANCISCO CA
94108
i
KEVIN MCCARTHY
1022,
HUNTER CREEK
330 E. 38TH ST. APT. 16J
NEW YORK NY
10016
KRISTEN CHRIST
134,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 2943
ASPEN CO
81612
LAURIE ANN BEEMAN
228,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 418
ASPEN CO
81612
LAWRENCE LADIN
910,
HUNTER
CREEK
3005 WOODLAND AVE. APT. 22
DES MOINES IA
50312
LAWRENCE SLATER
A-11,
LONE PINE
P.O. BOX 2334
ASPEN CO
81612
LEILANI KAE DAMKE
232,
HUNTER
CREEK
5371 EAST CALEY AVE.
LITTLETON CO
80121
LEONARD A. ALLEN
822,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 8316
ASPEN CO
81612
LINDA K. ABERNATHY
333,
HUNTER CREEK
� 872 SUNSET
EVANSVILLE IN
47713
i
I
LINDA L. ZAREK
115,
HUNTER CREEK
JOHN G. HAMWI
724 W. BUTTERMILK RD.
ASPEN CO
81611
f
E
LINDA LEONARD, KEITH ELTON
1047,
HUNTER CREEK
KAREN & KATHY CHAPMAN
8435 S. "A" STREET
TACOMA WA
98444
LISA L. MAY
1136,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 10186
ASPEN CO
81612
LOMA L. LAIRD
1010,
HUNTER CREEK
4800 N.E. SLALINGES DR.
NACOGDOCHES TX
75961
LONE PINE CONDO. ASSOC.
COMMON AREA
710 E. DURANT
ASPEN CO
81611
LOUISE WISSERT
A-14,
LONE PINE
0155 LONE PINE RD. #A-14
ASPEN CO
81611
MARGARET A. STURGIS
731,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 10574
ASPEN CO
81612
MARGARET S-K WONG
835,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 8018
ASPEN CO
81612
MARILYN FOSS
A-10,
LONE PINE
P.O. BOX 10149
ASPEN CO
81612
{ttr 4
P
MARK KWIESCIENSKI
730 E. DURANT
ASPEN
CO
81611
MARK LOUIS COURTNEY
BARBARA E. COURTNEY
627 VINE ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
i
MARTHA A. NICHOLS
a
P.O. BOX 3744
ASPEN
CO
81612
MARTHA MEACHER HOROWITZ
P.O. BOX 1525
ASPEN
CO
81612
MARTIN FRIEDLANDER
VIVIAN FRIEDLANDER
143 LONE PINE RD. #527
ASPEN
CO
81611
MARTIN GARFINKEL
P.O. BOX 2596
ASPEN
CO
81612
MARVIN L. RAUPP
1142 MANHATTAN AVE.
#105
MANHATTAN BEACH
CA
90266
MARVIN L. RAUPP
1142 MANHATTAN AVE.
#105
MANHATTAN BEACH
CA
90266
MARY ANN ERB
8401 GREENWOOD DR.
LONGMONT
CO
80403
MARY C. BUNCE
90 MT. HARMONY ROAD
BERNARDSVILLE
NJ
079254
1122, HUNTER CREEK
627, HUNTER CREEK
1027, HUNTER CREEK
947, HUNTER CREEK
527, HUNTER CREEK
1002, HUNTER CREEK
233, HUNTER CREEK
433, HUNTER CREEK
431, HUNTER CREEK
321, HUNTER CREEK
r
MARY JEAN JACOBS
628,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 3532
ASPEN
CO
81612
I f MATS EKEHOLM
511,
HUNTER CREEK
KELLY M. EKEHOLM
P.O. 11176
E-
ASPEN
CO
81612
MATTHEW CARLSON
1003, HUNTER CREEK
' 1003 VINE ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
MATTHEW MARC COOPER
313,
HUNTER CREEK
NINA IRENE COOPER
60 HAVEN AVE. APT.
i
#20-B
NEW YORK
f
NY
10032
MDK ASPEN ASSOC.
1048,
HUNTER CREEK
C/O WALKER MERANZE
6234 PIDCOCK CREEK
RD.
MEW HOPE
PA
18938
MEL I. MENDELSON
1021,
HUNTER CREEK
ROBERTA L. MENDELSON
22262 HOLLYHOCK TRAIL
BOCA RATON
FL
33433
MELVYN WOLOSHIN
1050,
HUNTER CREEK
ROBERT WOLOSHIN
P.O. BOX 7107
WILMINGTON
DE
19803
MICHAEL C. IRELAND,
MOLLY
M. IRELAND
516,
HUNTER CREEK
DONALD L. BIRD
P.O. BOX 11686
ASPEN
CO
81612
MICHAEL D. ARMSTRONG
726,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 9092
ASPEN
CO
81612
MICHAEL K. KERR
928,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 87
ASPEN
CO
81612
d MICHAEL L. TANGUAY
3
0155 LONE PINE RD .
$#B - 5
I ASPEN
CO
81611
MICHAEL ORTIZ
GRETCHEN GREENWOOD
520 WALNUT ST.
ASPEN
I
CO
81611
MICHEEL S. MAROLT
STEVEN M. MAROLT
I P.O. BOX 8705
ASPEN
CO
81612
MICHELE BARTELL
43 CANYON ISLAND DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH
CA
92660
MICHELE MARIE BRUCE
224 VINE ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
MISSEN LYNETTE BRUCKER
P.O. BOX 777
ASPEN
CO
81612
MOLLY O'MEARA
KEVIN M. CONNOLLY
P.O. BOX 9844
ASPEN
CO
81612
MOUNTAIN STATES COMMUNICATION
P.O. BOX E
ASPEN
CO
81612
MRJ PECK CO.
9 OGDEN RD.
SCARSDALE
NY
10583
MURIEL FREI
P.O. BOX 2171
ASPEN
CO
81612
B-51 LONE PINE
WILLIAMS ADDITION
521, HUNTER CREEK
727, HUNTER CREEK
224, HUNTER CREEK
526, HUNTER CREEK
514, HUNTER CREEK
513, HUNTER CREEK
901, HUNTER CREEK
1007, HUNTER CREEK
MYRON & HELENE RAPPARPORT
1114,
HUNTER CREEK
C/O HWR JEWELRY INC.
318 SO. GALENA ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
{ NANCY C. STANLEY
1046
HUNTER CREEK
950 N. KINGS ROAD #120
WEST HOLLYWOOD CA
90069
NANCY J. PEARCE
616,
HUNTER CREEK
ROBERT P. MCDONOUGH
P.O. BOX 1987
ASPEN CO
81612
i
! NANCY ROSS SMITH
E
1032,
HUNTER CREEK
i P.O. BOX 185
FOREST HILL MD
21050
NICHOLAS FAINSOD
424,
HUNTER CREEK
EVA FAINSOD
DANTE 26 BIS
COLONIA ANZURES MEX
D.F. 11590
NICHOLAS M. POTTS
532,
HUNTER CREEK
SUZANNE GIROD-POTTS
P.O. BOX 8962
ASPEN CO
81612
NOAH RAPPAPORT
223,
HUNTER CREEK
223 VINE ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
OLLIE URBACH
A-6,
LONE PINE
0155 LONE PINE RD. #A-6
ASPEN CO
81611
OSKAR GUENTHER
122,
HUNTER CREEK
HILDE GUENTHER
1038 OAK HILLS CIR.
ASHLAND OH
44805
PAMELA J. LYONS
1113,
HUNTER CREEK
7 W. 14TH ST. APT. 18G
NEW YORK NY
10011
PATRICIA CAREY
i
P.O. BOX 1440
ASPEN
i
CO
81612
PAUL FLETCHER
JANET FLETCHE
473 WEST END AVE.
NEW YORK
NY
10024
PAUL GUGLIELMO
P'
93 OUTLOOD AVE.
WEST HARTFORD
CT
06119
i
PAUL HABBERSTAD
P.O. BOX 535
LEADVILLE
CO
80461
PAUL MCDONALD
155 LONE PINE RD.
#A-2
ASPEN
CO
81611
PEGGY JO HELLER
941 VINE ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
PENNY STRAKA
155 LONE PINE RD.
#A-15
ASPEN
CO
81611
PEPPER JAMES GOMES
SUSAN R. GOMES
P.O. BOX 4541
ASPEN
CO
81612
PETER BUNEVICH
BRIGITTE BUNEVICH
5301 CRACKER BARREL
COLO. SPGS.
CO
80917
PETER J. PLATEK
-- 155 LONE PINE RD.
#B-4
ASPEN
CO
81611
728, HUNTER CREEK
332, HUNTER CREEK
A-19, LONE PINE
925, HUNTER CREEK
A-2, LONE PINE
941, HUNTER CREEK
A-15, LONE PINE
732, HUNTER CREEK
921, HUNTER CREEK
B-4, LONE PINE
PETER MAINES
155 LONE PINE RD. #A-18
is ASPEN
€Sf€
CO
81611
i"
PITKIN COUNTY
ATTN: COUNTY ATTORNEY
530 E. MAIN ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
R.S.L. REALTY
i
f
I 1899 N.E. 164TH ST.
NO. MIAMI BEACH
FL
33162
E
RACHEL E. RICHARDS—GRIMM
P.O. BOX 3393
ASPEN
CO
81612
RAIFIEL BASS
P.O. BOX 611
ASPEN
CO
81612
RANDY R. HARMON
P.O. BOX 11753
ASPEN
CO
81612
RAY VINCENT ADAMS
P.O. BOX 4332
ASPEN
CO
81612
RHONDA USHIDA
ROGER M. & JULYA K.
ESTRELLA
2334 JEFFERSON AVE.
BERKERLY
CA
94703
RICHARD ALLEN SANDERS
P.O. BOX 9517
ASPEN
CO
81612
RICHARD D. COTTRELL
SHARON A. FOERTSCH
1400 NORTH WESTERN
CHICAGO
IL
60045
A-18, LONE PINE
METES & BOUNDS
1030,, HUNTER CREEK
816, HUNTER CREEK
1044, HUNTER CREEK
637, HUNTER CREEK
638, HUNTER CREEK
222, HUNTER CREEK
923, HUNTER CREEK
323, HUNTER CREEK
RICHARD JENNINGS
1004 VINE ST.
ASPEN
F
i-
CO
81611
RICHARD JOSEPH COTE
P.O. BOX 8356
ASPEN
r
CO
81612
I
I
RICHARD M. LAPIN
P.O. BOX 8313
ASPEN
i
CO
81612
RICHARD SHERMAN
155 LONE PINE RD.
#B-3
ASPEN
CO
81612
RICHARD TSENG-YU
LAI
BARBARA ELLEN LAI
5731 E. VOLTAIRE
SCOTTSDALE
AZ
85254
ROBERT A. EMIGH
PATRICIA EMIGH
7877 ANDREWS WAY
BOULDER
CO
80303
ROBERT BRUTSCH
KELLY BRUTSCH
RR#10, BOX 28
OSWEGO
NY
13126
ROBERT E. CADGER,
JR.
P.O. BOX 4712
ASPEN
CO
81612
ROBERT ETS-HOKIN
434 VINE ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
ROBERT H. NAGY, TRUSTEE
N 57 W 30540 STEVENS RD.
HARTLAND
WI
53029
1004, HUNTER CREEK
721, HUNTER CREEK
931, HUNTER CREEK
B-3, LONE PINE
1002, HUNTER CREEK
•
1127, HUNTER CREEK
312, HUNTER CREEK
1137, HUNTER CREEK
335, HUNTER CREEK
b
ROBERT J. MORSE
132,
HUNTER
CREEK
132 VINE ST.
i ASPEN CO
81611
ROBERT JOHN SAWCHYN
426,
HUNTER
CREEK
TINA MARIA SAWCHYN
1418 LAKE SHORE DR. STE. 17
CHICAGO IL
60610
ROBERT KERSHAW, JOHN THOMAS
WARD
131,
HUNTER
CREEK
KEIRON F. QUINN, DARRELL R
& SUSAN C. CAMMACK
113 WEST MONUMENT ST.
BALTIMORE MD
I
21201
r
F
r
ROBERT L. HARRIS, II
314,
HUNTER
CREEK
C/O CARLTON BROWN & CO.
1601 DOVE ST. STE. 155
NEWPORT BEACH CA
92660
ROBERT L. JOHNSON
237,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 1477
ASPEN CO
81612
ROBERT L. ZUPANCIS
WILLIAMS ADDITION
511 RACE ST.
ASPEN CO
81611
ROBERT M. ROSS
213,
HUNTER
CREEK
17030 NANES DR. STE. 214
HOUSTON TX
77090
RONALD K. WEISS
813,
HUNTER
CREEK
300 TOWN CENTER STE. 540
SOUTHFIELD MI
48075
RONALD R. DOWELL
1133,
HUNTER
CREEK
MARSHA S. DOWELL
2 APPLEWOOD COURT EAST
PERRYSBURG OH
43551
ROSE ROSENFIELD HECKER
1119,
HUNTER
CREEK
ANITA ROSENFIELD
3952 BEARD AVE. S.
MINNEAPOLIS MN
55410
RUEL 0. MARCELO
E
300 PUPPY SMITH STE.
#205-204
ASPEN
F
CO
81611
E
RUTH E. MCINTYRE
' P.O. BOX 12175
i
ASPEN
E
CO
81612
G
k
RUTH HAMILTON BROWN
r
i
420 NORTH SPRING
ASPEN
CO
81611
SALLY A. SHIEKMAN
626 VINE ST. #626
ASPEN
CO
81611
SALLY R. PILATI
3704 MACKEY COVE
PENSACOLA
FL
32514
SANDRA ANN NEVOLS
0155 LONE PINE RD .
##A - 4
ASPEN
CO
81611
SANDRA GOLDMAN
P.O. BOX 11526
ASPEN
CO
81612
SHARON HEEDUM
P.O. BOX 3086
ASPEN
CO
81612
SHELDON BUTLIEN
RHONDALEER BUTLIEN
2221 MOUNTAIN VIEW
DR.
MAHWAH
NJ
07430
SHIRLEY BITTNER, A
COLO.
CORP.
945 VINE ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
911, HUNTER CREEK
214, HUNTER CREEK
OKLAHOMA FLATS
626, HUNTER CREEK
930, HUNTER CREEK
A-4, LONE PINE
622, HUNTER CREEK
212, HUNTER CREEK
1128, HUNTER CREEK
945, HUNTER CREEK
Ir SHIRLEY MARIE BITTNER
123,
HUNTER CREEK
945 VINE ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
STAN SNYDER
B-7,
LONE PINE
F
F` 0155 LONE PINE RD.
#B-7
ASPEN
CO
81611
STANLEY E. LAURISKI
METES & BOUNDS
ROSE M. LAURISKI
P.O. BOX 803
ASPEN
i
I
CO
81612
i
STANLEY HUNTTING
906,
HUNTER CREEK
MARGARET A. HUNTTING
4655 PLEASANT RIDGE
BOUDLER
CO
80301
STEPHEN H., CLAUDE H. AND
1139,
HUNTER CREEK
BARBARA SMART
1139 VINE ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
SUNG Y00 PARK
825,
HUNTER CREEK
JANG LEE PARK
320 W 76TH ST. APT.
1D
NEW YORK
NY
10023
SUSAN BABBITT
834,
HUNTER CREEK
834 VINE ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
SUSAN BERNARD
1009,
HUNTER CREEK
563 BETHANY CURVE
SANTA CRUZ
CA
95060
SUSAN C. WOOLLEY
824,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 755
ASPEN
CO
81612
SUSAN GOLDSTEIN
1009,
HUNTER CREEK
P.O. BOX 8908
ASPEN
CO
81612
THOMAS F. MINES
THOMAS F. MINES, JR.
0143 LONE PINE RD. #634
E
ASPEN CO 81611
THOMAS FENTON WIMBERLY
u
1043 LONE PINE RD. #1051
ASPEN CO 81611
THOMAS MCDONAGH
z JUEL M. GENDELS
I 340 W. 57TH ST. STE 10P
i NEW YORK NY 10019
THOMAS MOONEY
143 LONE PINE RD.
#635
ASPEN
CO
81611
THOMAS P. & TERRY
L. MOORE
MARTIN W. BELL
102 RAMA RD
BEAVER FALLS
PA
15010
TOM VOORHIES
P.O. BOX 619
ASPEN
CO
81612
TOM WOLTERS
DAFNA WOLTERS
P.O. BOX 12233
ASPEN
CO
81612
TRACY KIMBALL
MARGET KIMBALL
P.O. BOX 4295
ASPEN
CO
81612
VALLEY ORTHOPAEDIC
ASSOC.
100 E. MAIN ST.
ASPEN
CO
81611
VIRGIL G. ALLEN
P.O. BOX 3765
ASPEN
CO
81612
634, HUNTER CREEK
1051, HUNTER CREEK
1024, HUNTER CREEK
635, HUNTER CREEK
929, HUNTER CREEK
A-20, LONE PINE
626, HUNTER CREEK
113, HUNTER CREEK
617, HUNTER CREEK
821, HUNTER CREEK
P
WILLIAM B. WIENER
944,
HUNTER
CREEK
401 MARKET ST. STE.
1110
SHREVEPORT
I
LA
71101
WILLIAM B. WIENER,
i
JR.
942,
HUNTER
CREEK
i
333 TEXAS STE. 2375
SHREVEPORT
LA
71101
4
WILLIAM BARNARD
1052,
HUNTER CREEK
i
899 S. PLYMOUTH CT.
CHICAGO
IL
60605
WILLIAM H. VENNER
737,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 1708
ASPEN
CO
81612
WILLIAM J. PAULSON
1043,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 7693
ASPEN
CO
81612
WILLIAM J. STUHR
533,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 3808
ASPEN
CO
81612
WILLIAM M. DEMAYO
228,
HUNTER
CREEK
LAURIE A. BEEMAN DEMAYO
18 HUNTERS TRAIL
BETHANY
CT
06524
YONEKO SUZUKI SHERMAN
1001,
HUNTER
CREEK
P.O. BOX 7928
ASPEN
CO
81612
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Kerr at 4:30 P.M.
and he requested roll call.
Attending were: Roger Hunt, Sara Garton, Tim Mooney, Robert Blaich,
Steve Buettow and Bruce Kerr.. Excused were: Marta Chaikovska and
Jasmine Tygre.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Hunt stated, I guess I have a slight comment. Is there such a
thing as a slight comment? At the last Neighborhood Advisory
Committee Meeting there was considerable talk about people putting
things in the right-of-way, in other words, the street right-of-
ways around their houses, like rocks and berms and things like
that. I think I can saf ely say, that the opinion of the group was,
that that sort of thing should be discouraged. As it turns out,
on one side of my house, someone is putting a berm out into the
right-of-way, which is upsetting Engineering, and I can understand
why. Lamont asked, Engineering is aware of it? Hunt answered,
yes, but what they are not aware of, is diagonally across the
street from me, now they are putting great big boulders out into
the right-of-way, and I quickly went out and told them, heh, this
is a City right-of-way, boulders are supposed to be on your
property, and if they wanted to put them in the right-of-way they
had to get a permit to do it, which I don't think will be coming.
So, I just wanted to let you know that that sort of thing is
happening and if my little section of the world is any indication,
it looks like all of a sudden, we are in for a plague.
Lamont responded, we try and put it out there during Building
Permit Review, and anything like that. If people want to put their
lawn in a pedestrian way, which is what we call it in the west end,
because we don't have sidewalks; if they want to do that we don't
have a problem as long as it isn' t a berm or boulders, or something
that obstructs people from walking on there.
Garton asked, does landscaping require a permit? Lamont answered,
no. Kim Johnson of staff said, I wonder if any work in the right-
of-way, including landscaping, does. Garton stated, I wonder if
landscapers should get a memo from the City; all the list of
landscapers that are in the yellow pages? Johnson stated, general
contractors, too. Garton stated, maybe, it would not be a bad idea
just to remind them.
STAFF COMMENTS
Lamont stated, on Stevens Landscaping, part of your Conditional Use
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUKE 6, 1995
Review for the KJAX Dish, was painting the dish, and we wanted them
to landscape around the dish. They came in a couple of months ago
and asked if they could incorporate their landscaping with the
entire landscaping of the Red Brick. When the full plan goes
forward, that's when they would do that. We did not have a problem
with that as long as we were kept informed as to when they would
be doing it.
Well, a problem has risen; this fall they intend to tear up back
behind the alley and along the perimeter of the Red Brick, and
replace a lot of the sewer lines there. So, all the lilac bushes
that were just planted along the bike path behind the Red Brick
will probably be pulled up, so they are requesting, can they hold
off on their landscaping until after this activity. Garton asked,
have they painted, I haven't noticed? Lamont answered, my last
conversation was they needed to wait until the weather cleared, but
there's no problem with them painting it now, it was the
landscaping. I told them to call me on a regular basis and keep
me informed and up-to-date. Kerr asked, who is they? Lamont
answered, Julia Marshall, because she is doing the landscaping for
the Red Brick, and then, Suzannah Reid, if you remember, she was
the architect helping through the process. So, they call me on a
regular basis just to let me know, I always tell them I appreciate
it, and I will bring it to your attention. Kerr asked, you don't
need any action from us, do you? Lamont answered, no, I just
wanted to keep you informed that that is what is going on. Kerr
stated, as far as I'm concerned, staff can use their own judgment
on that.
Lamont stated, next Monday night is the second reading at City
Council; the public hearing for the Residential Design Standards.
It will be the f irst item on the agenda, and we are trying to split
up the meeting because there are so many items on the agenda, but
it probably be the only item on the agenda that night; that, and
a Golf Maintenance Facility Expansion. So, I just wanted to remind
you all that is going, if you are interested in joining in the
discussion. It is the public hearing. Secondly, the by-laws state
that your second regular meeting in June is the meeting where you
elect or re-elect your Chair. So, plan for that June 20th.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Kerr asked, are there members of the public here to comment on
things not on the agenda tonight? Any general comments? There
were none.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Hunt stated, I move to adopt the minutes of 9 May, 1995 and 16 May,
1995. Garton seconded. Kerr stated, I have one comment; I noticed
on the May 9th meeting, when Commissioner Kerr said, "please be
focused and keep your comments short", there were no staff
comments, no public comments. We might want to try that again.
Vote commenced, unanimous in favor, motion carried.
STAUFFER CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN
ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Kim Johnson represented staff and stated, this Conditional Use is
for an attached accessory dwelling unit which is incorporated into
a re -modeling expansion of a home in Sierra Vista. This is
actually a request to legitimize an existing bandit unit. I hope,
that from the sketches I've included in your packet, that you can
see that the unit is a pretty nice unit compared to some that we
may have seen in the past. It is 660 sq. ft., studio style, but
with separate entries in both interior and exterior, and also to
the garage. The parcel did go through Special Overlay Review later
in the fall, last year, and it got approved as it was submitted,
so this is a follow-up to allow the rest of the expansion and re-
modeling to take place. She said, Don Huff is here, representing
Dr. and Mrs. Stauffer, and the Planning Office and the Housing
office recommends approval of the unit as submitted, with standards
conditions regarding deed restriction and kitchen requirements.
Kerr asked, Mr. Huff, do you have any comments you want to make us
aware of, any presentation? Huff answered, not especially. The
only thing is, this was a really good bandit, because it was hidden
quite well behind existing garage doors. The Stauffer's first
option was to tear it out and fit the garage, because they really
needed the garage; so, what we have done is built the garage
through a separate permit and it is up and standing. They are
aware of the employee housing situation in the community and want
to try and legalize this unit rather than destroy it.
Johnson stated, I need to clarify; my entry paragraph says 660 sq.
ft., but the rest of my memorandum throughout says 470 sq. ft. It
is 470 sq. ft., for the record, because that is the way the motion
reads. I want to make sure it's clear.
Garton asked, what is minimum size in a studio? Johnson replied,
they have to be 300 to 700 sq. ft., so this one is about average.
Garton asked, has it been rented all along? Huff answered, no,
mame, the Stauffers have owned it, and this is their second year,
9
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
and they have been doing constant re -modeling on the property, and
as long as I have been involved with the property, it has not been
rented. Garton asked, will it be? Huff answered, yes. Their
intentions are for retirement here, in five years, and they want
somebody on the property. It is very nicely done.
Johnson stated, Chuck walked in and reminded me that he had sent
me a note earlier today, asking for a condition regarding that all
drainage .on -site must be handled on -site. In other words, no
drainage shall be allowed off -site because of drainage constraints
in the neighborhood. So, that is an added condition.
Hunt stated, I have a couple of detailed questions, here. I was
trying to basically find the closet space in this, and it looks
like there is a new closet opposite the kitchen. Huff responded,
there is one right adjacent to the front door. The way this used
to be layed out is there was access into this mechanical room, so
they went to some fairly extensive modifications to make this
comply, from a large safety standpoint. They have created a new
wall to separate the mechanical room and another wall that
separates the new garage facility. We have added an additional
door, number A, which gives direct access, put in new windows, new
operable skylights, new hardwood flooring, it's going to be a very
nice unit.
Hunt said, the closet opposite the kitchen, is that more of a
clothing closet instead of a kitchen closet? Huff answered, yes.
Hunt asked, there is sufficient storage and closet space in the
kitchen area? Huff, yes, and what's not shown on here, is some
built-in wardrobe type units that are on the wall between the
garage and the living unit. I imagine the closet back by the
kitchen might become more of a pantry -type closet and the wardrobe
would probably suffice.
Hunt stated, that is just coming from the viewpoint I would like
to see this be lived in and be liveable. The only other point I
had was on the. entrance, or the one that you show as the entry,
which is on the back side, or is there a garage entry, as well?
I notice that the roof seems to shed towards the doorway and that
is something that needs to be worked as far as snowshedding.
Huff answered, I can't tell exactly, there is a heavy overhang on
this house. Hunt stated, on the front side I noticed, but I didn't
notice it on the back side. ,Huff stated, it's not a four- footer
like on the front, but it is probably a good three-foot. He's made
a flag -stone walkway which really isn't shown on here. Hunt said,
should there be a little hip over that door to divert that? Huff
said, there could be, and he's mentioned that. I can't say
something that can't be had. I'm wondering, given the entry from
the garage, would it suffice? Hunt stated, well, this is sort of
shown as the main exterior entry, so, I think it's important not
to shed down on the main exterior entry. I would like to add a
n
i
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
condition to the affect that you will attack that potential
problem. Just how exactly, if you were willing to commit here,
fine, we can do that, or try to come up with words. Huff stated,
I would be willing to commit appropriate sheltered entry device to
the ADU. Hunt said, sheltered from snowshedding, basically.
Mr)rP T (YWT
Hunt moved to approve a Conditional Use for a 470 sq. ft. first
floor level accessory dwelling unit at 1460 Sierra Vista Drive,
with Conditions 1-6 in Planning Office memorandum dated 6 June,
1995; with addition of Condition 7, while drainage must be retained
on -site; and Condition 8, shall provide a sheltered roof designed
for ADU entry on east side of home. Blaich seconded. Voting
commenced on the motion, vote was unanimous in favor, motion
carried.
Kerr opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Kerr
closed the public hearing.
Discussion of Motion
Garton stated, this isn't the motion, it has nothing to do with
this application now, but, how is the survey going with the Housing
Office? Leslie Lamont, staff, answered, the Housing Office
proposed two bid proposals for their work and they are in the
process of trying to combine their scheduled works. One proposal
that we got was bareboned minimum. The other proposal kind of
considered and addressed the questions that we will probably have
in the survey and proposed to come up with some recommendations for
US. So, the last time I talked with Dave Tolen, which was right
before I went on vacation, was that he was going to talk with both
people who had submitted and see if we could combine those. Garton
asked, so there is no problem with the funding of this survey?
Lamont answered, no, both of the proposals we got were way under.
Funding is not a problem.
NICHOLS CONDITIONAL USE
FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Kerr stated, this is also a public hearing and I open the public
hearing at this time.
Kim Johnson represented staff, and stated, this, also, is an
accessory dwelling unit. This one is going to be incorporated into
the basement of a replacement duplex, at 125 Park Avenue aka 101
Dale Avenue. The unit is proposed to be about 625 sq. ft. and will
be a one bedroom configuration. There is internal and external
5
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
access, and if you turn to Staff Discussion and our Conditions of
Approval, it is evident that we have some concerns, specifically
its egress and access. The entry from the outside enters a fairly
small patio area, which also happens to be the egress window space
or an adjacent bedroom. Staff would wish that the egress window
for the bedroom be changed so the exterior space, which is,
basically, the only usable exterior space for this unit, would not
have to have a window viewed directly into it. That would not
mean, however, that the free market bedroom couldn't have some
upper level window or stained glass or frosted window that would
provide some privacy into that patio area. Also, we would want
consideration of changing the interior doorway for the accessory
dwelling unit so that it enters into the living space of the ADU
rather than the bedroom. That, again, is a consideration of
privacy, if someone would want to go in or out of the ADU, it would
be potentially in a tenant's bedroom area.
Johnson stated, I did get one citizen's input on this, and the
person who came by is a neighbor across the alley, and down a house
or two. I discussed with him the fact that the ADU was going to
be conditioned, at least from staff's perspective, that one of the
on -site parking spaces be dedicated for the accessory unit because
of the restriction on Park Avenue. After hearing that, the
neighbor agreed and said that would be his only real concern that
parking in the general neighborhood is a problem. Assuming that
the duplex would be condominiumized at a certain point, that's a
great tool to mark on a condo plat that this space here is
dedicated for use by the accessory unit if it is rented.
Johnson stated, another item that we've mentioned, and this is both
the Housing Office and Planning staff, is that, we think it would
be helpful for the liveability of the unit, that the kitchen area
be increased by either decreasing the bathroom size or decreasing
the immediate cabinet space. The kitchen that is drawn into the
sketch is minimal, at best, especially in relationship to some of
the other amenities in the unit.
Nichols stated, I think what is sketched out there is just exactly
what you "guys" called for in your requirements. It doesn't show
any scale here, so you don't really know how big it is, but it is
exactly what you require. Johnson replied, right, but looking at
it, there is no counter space. I mean counter as flat surface, not
necessarily cabinets.
Hunt stated, actually, a 6 cubic foot refrigerator is probably not
much higher than the counter. The under-the-counter refrigerator,
it does say with freezer, but that could literally mean someplace
where you can hold some ice cubes. I had some of the same problems
with a kitchen design. Nichols again stated, all our architect did
was take your requirements, and what you "guys" require for a
0
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 6, 1995
kitchenette, and put exactly what you require. Johnson stated,
those are minimum requirements.
Kerr asked, Kim, do you have anything else? Kerr asked (Nichols),
do you have a presentation you want to make? There was none.
Buettow asked, on the main entry here, isn't this an encroachment
into your backyard setback, here? Nichols answered, you have the
new one? That was changed. Buettow stated, this one right here
shows it's clearly in the setback. Nichols stated, there's been
a revised one that should have been passed out to everybody. That
was brought up in the first meeting. Johnson stated, this one is
dated, Amendment #1, April 12th. There has been a revised drawing,
but it's been worked out with the zoning official, that they have
re -configured the stairwells. So, I think that is an O.K. thing.
I included it in this memorandum because it had to precede me in
my discussions with the architect.
Buettow stated, O.K., and secondly, how do you intend to have your
people access into this unit, because it doesn't show any sidewalks
or anything to get to it? Nichols answered, if they are going to
park here (shown on drawing), this is a sidewalk. I guess it
doesn't show it. Johnson stated, it is paved under the upper level
deck. Buettow stated, my impression of these bedroom accesses
here, was that, this was clearly intended to be like a studio ADU,
and these two bedrooms are supposed to access off the main house
as guest bedrooms. That is my impression of the design. Nichols
stated, I don't have a problem switching the entryway from that
bedroom into the livingroom.
Kerr asked, will this end up being a 4-bedroom unit on one side
and a 2-bedroom unit on the other side, plus the ADU, is that what
we have right here? Nichols answered, yes..
Hunt stated, my general comments were, I thought the door should
enter the livingroom, as opposed to a bedroom. Is that the
official backside, or back entrance; I couldn't tell what which was
back or front entrance? And I also wondered if that interior door
was needed to that sort of useless hall between the bedroom and the
bath. That's not a major comment. One of my comments has to do
with storage and livability of these units, storage -wise, and I
had a big question about the kitchen storage. Also, in the
bathroom, which is a nice, large bathroom, but why a double sink
for this type of a unit; wouldn't it have been better to use that
space, for example, for a linen closet instead of a sink. Those
are my general comments, and I don't know how we want to filter
them in. Nichols replied, I agree with you on the doors, and I
will talk to my architect about that; I don't think we need three
doors in that space. I don't think they need two sinks, either.
Buettow stated, this unit would be much nicer if you eliminated
7
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
this door here (showing the drawing), if that's possible. Nichols
stated; I don't have a problem with that. Hunt asked, you are
talking about moving the bedroom door to the livingroom, that is,
the outside bedroom door, to the livingroom? Nichols stated, you
don't want to eliminate it because you want a secondary access to
it.
Hunt stated, you have, through the bedroom, I see, is that an exit
sliding glass door to a patio, or is that at a different level, I
can't tell? Johnson answered, that's emergency egress, so it's not
counted as a normal entryway. Hunt stated, so, then, the other
egress of the bedroom would be through the interior, so you don't
need that bedroom door. I don't know how to relate this, I can't
relate it to north -south or anything, but are we talking about the
back side where there are the two doors to the bedrooms, is that
the backside of this unit? There was discussion at random
regarding the drawings in which Johnson explained some details to
Hunt. Hunt said, O.K., I'm sorry.
Garton asked, where is the entrance at the bottom of the stairs,
into the livingroom? Nichols answered, yes. Johnson stated, it's
a sliding glass door. Garton asked, and that's the only light,
that lightwell? Nichols stated, I would like to put more
lightwells around there, you won't allow it. Garton said, we would
love to have a ground floor ADU.
Kerr asked, Chuck (Roth of Engineering Department), did you have
a comment? Roth stated, I was looking for the seven parking
places, I got the sixth one; I can't seem to find the seventh.
Johnson stated, if they determine that a parking space is necessary
to be dedicated, it would have to be added somewhere.
Garton asked, what are the plans for this ADU? Nichols replied,
I don't know.
Johnson asked Nichols, do you have your public notice?
( Photographs were turned into the clerk, but affidavit is pending) .
Hunt stated, I guess we have resolved that the door will enter from
the other unit to the livingroom. Does that mean that, what is
shown as the bedroom door into the recreation room, does that get
eliminated, or does that stay? Johnson stated, it can be re-
located. Hunt added, in affect, that bedroom door becomes a
livingroom door. Johnson said, right, in fact, it could just turn
90 degrees, or whatever. Hunt stated, O.K. It's not a biggy, but
the unnecessary door in the hallway; does anyone want to address
what I see as very limited storage in this unit. That's. what
worries me, I relate limited storage to not being very livable, as
far as a rental unit. Nichols asked, are you looking at this plan?
Hunt replied, I don't know which one I'm looking at. ( As shown on
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
drawing) , Nichols stated, you walk in, you have a closet here, this
is all immediate cabinet and it can be storage, too. I agree with
the doors and the two sinks, we could take that out, it's possible
to put some more storage. Hunt stated, make a linen cabinet or
closet, or something like that. I would find that more livable.
I assume there is going to be some kitchen storage above here
(showing drawing) . Nichols stated, I talked to the architect about
taking this out, and it was my understanding that we were showing
the square footage, the access, and where it was on the property,
and not really, necessarily, having you dictate the interior
design. But I agree with you, on both of those. Hunt stated, if
you are going to change the extra sink into some sort of storage,
I think that's great.
Garton asked, the stairway is all under the deck overhang? Nichols
answered, .no, none of it is under the deck overhang. Garton
stated, so snow just dumps right into that stairway and lightwell
area? Johnson stated, it actually sheds onto the deck above, and
then it's flat. So, Gary, will have to accommodate snowmelt on
that flat deck if there's not a roof slope.
Garton stated, I'm not a designer student, but how does a sliding
glass door work in the winter as a main entrance? Buettow stated,
.not very well at all. They stick, get a lot of ice in the channel
and freeze up easily. Nichols stated, there again, I don't have
a problem changing it, it gets down to where I didn't think you
"guys" were dictating design, in that you were more just looking
for the requirements. We could put a door in there with a
sidelight.
Kerr stated, our purpose is not to dictate design, our purpose is
to provide that these units are livable, and hopefully, even
occupied by who they are intended for, that is, employees. That's
the reason for the questioning. Nichols replied, I will have my
architect, I guess, make these changes, I guess I didn't understand
that. I have talked to him about the three doors into the
bathroom; I didn't like that idea and I don't like a sliding glass
door there, either. Buettow stated, it is also the only light that
goes into your kitchen, diningroom area. Blaich stated, you could
put a glass door in, full glass; it would serve the purpose and I
have one in my house and it works out very well. Garton added,
these are things that we would recommend, I don't think it is a
requirement, it's not a requirement from the Housing Office or the
City, but we would like to recommend it. Nichols stated, I don't
have any problem with these, I'll probably do all those.
9
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
M(1T T r)WT
Hunt stated, I move to approve the Conditional Use for a 625 sq.
ft. basement level accessory dwelling unit within the proposed
Nichols duplex at 125 Park Avenue/ 101 Dale Avenue with Conditions
1-12 on Planning Office memorandum dated 6 June 1995. I add
Condition $#13, for removal of the extra sink in the bathroom and
it is recommended that that be replaced with storage or some other
use. It is recommended that the sliding door for the accessory
unit entry be replaced with a possible swinging door with as much
glass as possible. Mooney seconded, vote commenced, vote was
unanimous in favor, motion carried.
iscussion of Motion
Johnson stated, if you want to kind of expand Condition ##1; we are
in favor of expanding the kitchen area to include and accommodate
storage and counter space. Hunt asked the Commission, is there a
way you would like to re -word 1? Johnson said, just include the
phrase and I will read the whole sentence. "The kitchen area must
be expanded to accommodate storage and counter space by decreasing
either the media area or the bathroom area." Hunt stated, O.K.,
that will be my Condition 1.
Kerr asked, what about the parking space? Johnson stated, one
parking space shall be added and dedicated for use? Kerr stated,
I'm not suggesting, necessarily, add it. Johnson said, if this
is dedicated solely for the ADU, then it means one of the free
market bedrooms, does not have a full parking space for it. Kerr
stated, that's what I'm getting at. There are six spaces by virtue
of having a single -car garage and a two -car garage; there are
already 6 bedrooms in the free market for ADU, so the question is
whether there is a 7th space, that was Chuck's question. If there
is a.requirement for a designated space, in addition to the other
six, where is it going to be, and must be indicated on the plat.
Johnson stated, it is not a mandatory requirement, however, because
this is a Conditional Use Process, the Planning Commission can
final this certain condition on the site, which would warrant some
form of parking, screening or
landscaping. There are a whole bunch of things they have
conditioned in the past, so this is typically, one of those.
Garton stated, the reason we require it at this site is because you
can't park on Park Avenue, it is so narrow. Nichols said, I know
that. The parking for this ADU unit is down -alley. Buettow
stated, basically, in answer to my question on the access to the
ADU, words that you said, that this ADU would park in that spot and
he would walk down the sidewalk to get to his unit, and that is to
say almost, in your own words, dedicating the parking place for an
ADU. Nichols stated, the access is going to be somewhere over
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
there. I am also in the process of trying to vacate that alley.
There has been a shed sitting in that alley for 60 years, and that
alley doesn't ever get used and hasn't even been opened until the
duplex was put in up there. Garton asked, and they are using it
for an access in light of that duplex? Nichols stated, yes. The
part I want to vacate doesn't change how they want use their alley
access at all.
Hunt stated, one other thing I would like to address, and it's
probably going to be a recommendation, why don't I make it
Condition #13; we believe the extra sink in the bathroom could be
better used for storage. A two -sink bathroom for this size unit
is pretty ridiculous, when you think of it. Blaich stated, it's
also got a separate toilet and shower, too. Hunt stated, that
doesn't bother me so much. Kerr stated, it's more than we've ever
seen in an ADU, I think. Hunt stated, it leaves me to suspect that
it is designed for something other than ADU. I guess it is more
of a recommendation than anything else, from my point of view.
Johnson stated, these are Conditions of Approval, so, if you want
us to look at the building plans when they come through, if it
shows two sinks, and it was a recommendation, then he chose not to
take you up on it. If it is a Condition, then we would reject the
plan. Hunt asked, how does the rest of the Commission feel on this
issue? There was some discussion at random between Commission and
Nichols. Hunt stated, I would like to make it a Condition. Kerr
stated, if you want to make it a condition, Roger, I would be in
favor of that condition. Hunt, well, O.K. Condition #13 for
removal of the extra sink in the bathroom and it is recommended
that that be replaced with storage or some other use.
Hunt stated, now, Condition 14, concerning the door. I'm open to
recommendations for a condition. Johnson added, "sliding door for
the accessory unit entry shall be changed to swinging door with as
much glass as possible." Buettow stated, it would have to meet the
code requirement of 1/10th the square footage of that entire
livingroom in the one door, it has to be that much glass. You are
going to need as much light as you can get in there; that' s a large
space with only one source of light. That's the code requirement.
Johnson asked, add, "with glass to meet UBC code requirements".
Kerr stated, I think we are going beyond what we have to on this,
and I agree with Steve, that sliding glass doors can be
problematical. But, if someone is negligent, in terms of
maintenance, a swinging door is not going to open any better than
a sliding glass door. They have emergency access problems, anyway.
That's one where I would let the building code determine what
happens there. That's one where I think a recommendation where a
sliding glass door could be avoided and some other opening could
be utilized. I could go with a recommendation on that, but as a
Condition of Approval, I'm not prepared to make the decision about
Vol
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
sliding glass door versus swinging doors. The light is the issue
here as far as the Building Department is concerned. Hunt stated,
O.K. then, what about a Condition 14, that swinging door with as
much glass as possible be provided for the main entrance, however,
if UBC prohibits any feasible means of doing that, then the sliding
glass door would have to be it. Garton stated, that's a condition
though, Roger. Kerr added, we're not talking about a condition,
we're recommending. Garton stated, let's not make it a condition.
Hunt stated, there is no Condition 14. Nichols stated, I agree
with you on sliding doors and I will research and see what the best
thing is to put in there.
Kerr asked if there were any comments from the public, there were
none. He closed the public hearing.
TRUEMAN LOT 1 SPA AMENDMENT
Kerr re -opened the public hearing for this item and said, I turn
it over to Mary.
Mary Lackner presented for staff and stated, Philip Bloemsma is
here and is representing the Trueman/Aspen Company. What they are
asking for is to add some uses to the Trueman/Aspen Lot 1, where
Clark's Market and that whole development is, and amending the SPA
agreement to.allow these additional permitted and conditional uses.
As you can tell from the applicant's letter, they have requested
23 additional uses to be permitted as right -on -site. Staff is
going through each one of those.items, and looking at the purpose
of the NC Zone District, in which this is located, and determining
what uses we feel would be appropriate in that location in the NC
Zone District, and then, what uses, perhaps should be conditional,
which should be permitted and which should not be permitted in that
zone. What we did was take the applicant's request and broke it
down into those categories. Our recommendation is in the
Recommendation Section, and I don't know how you want to go through
this; if you want to go through item by item or just start with
what is in the recommendation. We also have two, depending upon
how many changes the Planning and Zoning Commission makes,
recommended conditions to go with this SPA agreement. One has to
do with the sidewalk at Puppy Smith Street that we discussed with
other conditional use reviews in this area, and then, the other one
would be that he would have to file a new SPA agreement showing
changes, if any are done.
Philip Bloemsma stated, I don't have a presentation per se. I
would like to ask that the staff keep in mind the purpose of the
NC zone district when we make these decisions; that they are small,
convenience, retail establishments and they serve a daily or
a
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 6, 1995
frequent trade or service needs of the neighborhood. The sidewalk,
I don't know that that's a related issue.
Kerr stated, you read staff's recommendation as to which uses are
being permitted by right and which ones are going to be
conditional? Bloemsma answered, yes, I have. Kerr asked, what's
your opinion of that? Bloemsma answered, well, those that they
recommended, we accept, but I disagree with a few of them that
haven't been accepted, primarily, a sporting goods store. I feel
that this is a very active community, and the daily needs of skiers
and cyclists is important. I know I go to a sporting goods store
more often than I go to many other retail establishments in town,
and that was not a permitted use. I think, also, that a lot of the
conditional uses; I'm not sure I understand the idea behind the
conditional use. P&Z needs some controls, but from our
perspective, it adds another six weeks to two months to
negotiations with a perspective tenant and that's enough to scare
somebody away; to gamble that on whether or not they are going to
get approved from the P&Z. That's one of the conditional uses I
would like to see as permitted uses. We currently have 12 retail
spaces down at the shopping center and, I believe, there are 12
permitted uses there, two of which are redundant. One's a beauty
parlour and one' s a hair salon, I believe it' s called. We have the
ability to split it up even more than that and have more small,
convenience, retail stores. Right now, what's happening is, the
larger retailers are expanding and we are losing the smaller,
individual retailers; Clark's Market, Alpine Hardware, the liquor
store, they all want more space, whereas, the smaller, convenient.
shops; sporting goods, book stores, this list we have come up with
here, as being squeezed out. They are not interested in the
spaces.
Garton stated, Phil, this is tough for me because we're so
concerned about expanding commercialism within the town anyway;
expanding commercial space. If you add more uses by right, for me,
we are turning it more and more into a commercial zone district;
just commercial core. However, I hear what you say about making
it so onerous for you that you add a lot more time for being able
to negotiate rents and that you are losing your mix. On the other
hand, we are here, as a Planning Commission, wanting the best for
the community. There are only two Neighborhood Commercial Zones,
everything that still goes in there is still reviewed because it
is going to start creeping. We have a very large commercial core,
and I' m sorry for the process time it takes, I don' t know if we can
shorten that in any way to help out; you that are in the
Neighborhood Commercial, but I don't want to add anymore uses by
right to the zone at all. I haven't heard a good enough argument
for it.
Hunt stated, I have to agree with Sara. The thing that worries me
13
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
is the creeping of the C-1 uses taking over the SCI and NC space
down there, and the only way we can keep that creep from happening
is to review most of these things, unfortunately. That's where I'm
coming from. I will indicate that I, basically, agree with the
Planning Office memorandum.
Garton asked, you would add more uses by right though, do you
think? Hunt answered, well, are there really any uses by right
here? Lackner stated, there are six. Hunt said, oh, I do have a
problem with those or, at least, some of those. Mooney stated, it
says that allowed current Conditional Uses would be considered
Permitted Uses. Are those Conditional Uses that exist going to be
added by right, then? Lackner replied, staff's recommending that,
midway down the page, there's four items; the laundromat, garden
shop, hardware store, and paint and wallpaper store, those are
existing conditional uses. We are saying that those four would be
allowed by right. Kerr asked, I thought that you said that all of
your tenants were permitted uses? Bloemsma answered, we have 12
permitted uses in the NC Zone District currently. Lackner stated,
it says that he has the list of NC permitted, and then, conditional
uses, and currently, there is the lock shop down there, which is
not use listed at all in the zone. There is the hardware store and
the paint and wallpaper store, so he does have two for special
review for conditional use. Kerr asked, how many total uses do you
have down there? Bloesma answered, we have 12 retail spaces down
there, currently. Kerr stated, but the lock shop is not a
permitted use. Bloesma stated, it hasn't been for 15 years.
Kerr stated, it's there and I use it once in awhile. Hunt stated,
that is an SCI use though, isn't it? Well, the half of this is
SCI. Way back when, the ground level was supposed to be NC, the
lower level was supposed to be SCI. Now, what has it transitioned
to? Because SCI uses were permitted uses in the basement level of
the Trueman. I ' m going to raise a great big flag here. I remember
Trueman so well, it's not funny.
Lackner stated, from what I know of Trueman is that it is all NC
uses. Hunt asked, how did we lose the SCI in the shuffle? That's
how Roger's Locksmith got in there, because he was an SCI use. So,
philosophically, that was approved, way back when, to start with.
It wasn't a hard and fast rule, we just wanted a balance; sure,
there would some NC uses in the basement, and some SCI uses up
above, but the idea was that you had both those uses in this area.
I'm not even in doubt about that. Garton stated, Roger, you can't
split zone like that; that may be your intent. Hunt stated, this
was an SPA, and yes, you can. I get upset with things lost in the
shuffle, because we are losing, essentially, a lot of uses, if we
have lost the ability to put SCI uses in there. Leslie Lamont of
staff asked, in the basement? Hunt replied, well, it wasn't a
hard -fast rule, in the basement, more or less, square foot area -
wise, when this was first approved, it was philosophically, the
W11
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
square foot area which is in the basement, with the SCI uses.
There could be some SCI uses above, some NC below, but it was,
basically, split SCI and then, NC. Somehow, it seems to have
gotten lost in the shuffle.
Lamont stated, a lot of the old Trueman files; a lot of historical
files that sat out throughout this entire shopping center, have
been lost. In the past, when we were doing the Rio Grande, and
when Kim was researching, it has been very, very difficult to
figure out, historically, what has happened on this property. Hunt
stated, I have, absolutely, no problem with the lock shop with the
permitted use of an SCI use because part of this property was
supposed to be partially SCI. Kerr asked, what do we get if all
permitted uses of either SCI or NC are permitted on this SPA
property and all conditional uses of both SCI and NC are
conditional uses on this SPA property? Where does that get us?
Mary Lackner did some researching and stated, SCI permits limited
commercial and industrial uses including the following: vehicle
sales, appliance and equipment rentals, storage repair, automobile
repair, automobile washing, electrical and plumbing service shops,
commercial bakery, computer product sales and services, limited
industrial uses, including builders' supplies, industrial dry
cleaning plant and laundry, fabrication repair of building
materials and components, lumber yards, manufacturing repair of
electronics or sporting goods, printing and publishing plants,
telecommunication supply, typesetting, warehousing and storage,
shop craft industries and similar uses, artist studios with
optional accessory dwellings, and provided that they do not cause
traffic, noise, dust, fumes, odors, or those types of things.
Hunt stated, ClarkkIs Bakery, the commercial bakery, way back when,
was considered an SCI use. That is why it was there; not an NC
use. Lackner added, as far as conditional uses, also, there is gas
station, dance studio, martial arts studio, catalog sales,
laundromat, photo studio, above ground fuel tanks. She said, what
we can do, is go back and research this "stuff" and bring it back
to you, and, I guess, I would like the rest of the Commission's
feeling; should we then, re -focus or look at doing just NC, SCI may
already exist. Any other feedback?
Mooney stated, I really don't think I like to expand it to the SCI
zone, and I don't think that ...Hunt stated, it is not expanding
it to that, though. Mooney replied, well, I think it did. Non-
conforming SCI uses there should be some kind of conditional uses,
in my mind, because they are existing, but to create more openings
for SCI elements, I don't think that's the neighborhood for that.
As far as what is in front of us, I, basically, think that these
could be conditional uses and by no means would I consider them as
permitted uses, 1 through 23; and by no means would consider any
15
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
of the conditional uses as permitted uses. I think that the
conditions of this application; the two conditions, definitely have
to apply.
Garton asked, Tim, are you agreeing with staff's recommendations
that a couple more be added? Mooney stated, I don' t think anything
be a permitted use, at all. If these, 1-23, are, in my mind,
accepted at all, I would consider them as conditional uses. Garton
stated, but page 8, I guess, is what I am asking. Hunt stated,
there are things that are in 1-23 that I don't think are
appropriate. Garton stated, but page 8 is the staff's
recommendation after reviewing it. Mooney stated, I, basically,
don't feel that the conditional uses that exist there, should be
permitted uses, at all, and I wouldn't change the level of review
to make anything permitted anymore than there is now. And, I
certainly wouldn't expand it into any other zone than the NC zone.
Lackner asked Mooney, would you allow any more of those uses on
that list to be conditional uses? Mooney replied, to me, I think
the list on page 2, 1-23, could all be conditional uses. Hunt
stated, I don't agree. Mooney stated, I will eliminate anything
you want; the smaller the list the better, as far as I'm concerned,
because, I too, feel .... well, you know how I feel.
Kerr stated, one possible solution then, would be taking staff's
list of 6, and then also, staff's list of 8 (assuming everybody
agrees with those), and then, the list of 4, are already
conditional uses. If we took those 14, and made those all
conditional uses, and none of them permitted uses, that, in affect,
is what you are getting at? That, in affect, would be taking 14 out
of the 23, and saying, we will approve those as conditional uses,
but not adding anything to the permitted use list. Mooney stated,
that's the theory of thought I came from. Garton stated, that's
what I was.saying, too, Bruce, that I wouldn't mind expanding the
list, but no more additional uses by right. Kerr stated, I don't
have a particular problem with. proceeding that way, I also,
wouldn't have a particular problem in approving, changing lock
shops, or anything like that, for permitted use. It's been there
for, gosh, about 15 years.
Hunt stated, my point is, that that is an SCI use, and that's the
reason it got in there in the first place; some, not all, SCI uses
were permitted in this area, and were encouraged in this area,
because there was a square footage area so that this much square
feet should be SCI-type uses, not all are permitted in the SCI
zone.
Mooney stated, I think the neighborhood has changed significantly,
and now with the development of the Aspen Airport Business Center,
I think we have an alternative. So, I think that more neighborhood
16
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
commercial, conditional uses, are something that I'm leaning
towards. Kerr stated, Roger, look at the zoning map, it appears
that the NC and SCI are split, but they are not split up and down,
they are split sideways. Garton stated, maybe, that's what he is
indicating, is what Bruce is saying. Kerr, I think staff needs to
research that issue; that may not have anything to do with what we
decide to do about the conditional uses.
Kerr asked, is there anyone from the public that is here to speak
on this item? I did open the public hearing. There were none.
Kerr closed the public hearing.
Bloemsma stated, I like the recommendation that Tim had about the
14 permitted uses, the list of 14 being conditional uses, and I
would propose that we add two more to that; one, a bank, and one,
a sporting goods store. Kerr asked, are those actual perspective
tenants that you've got? Bloemsma answered, yes. Lackner stated,
you reviewed a satellite branch of Pitkin County Bank. As far as
sporting good stores, there is a lot of competition in the CC and
C-1.
Bloemsma stated, I still go back to what the purpose of the NC zone
district is. I don't think the Commission is here to deny
competition, I think we are here to serve this purpose; the purpose
is, to allow small, convenience retail business, that support daily
or frequent trade or services to the community. As I said before,
I think a sporting goods store fits that to the tee. That's my
opinion. Hunt stated, you are talking about a lot of people going
there daily, as opposed to a smaller group having to go daily for
daily -type needs. In other words, a grocery store has almost
daily -type needs for resident population. I'm hard -put to see in
my daily needs, having to go to a sporting goods shop. Bloemsma
said, or a lock shop. Hunt replied, a lock shop is SCI, and that
was allowed in that zone. I ' m going to bounce back to that because
I am adamant about that, and I believe, at this point, we need more
research into this issue to go any further. We had a major fight
to retain that SCI square footage, way back when, and I think it's
appropriate to keep it now, just as that lock shop is appropriate
there. Bloemsma stated, I still believe a sporting goods store is
as of frequent use as any of the other current 12 permitted uses
on the list. Hunt stated, what's not on the list, these are just
to be added on the list, what's not on the list is, drug store, for
example, which I think is a permitted use on the list, isn't it?
Bloemsma said, yes, it is. Hunt stated, in other words, we're not
showing the whole list here. Bloemsma said, Exhibit B. Hunt said,
maybe, I missed it.
17
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Garton asked, how did we approve the bank, if it's not a
conditional use? Lackner replied, it came under business and
professional office. Garton said, O.K.
Hunt stated, I, for one, don't want to go further until the rest
of the Commission has the background on this property, and why it
happened; I just don't want to be the only voice "hollering out of
the wilderness", here. So, it looks like I'm going to be in
disagreement with Tim, because I just know where this came from.
Kerr stated, I don't think you are in disagreement, I think Tim
would be for the shortest list possible. I don't think you are
proposing all 23. Mooney stated, I would like to cut it down as
much as possible. I guarantee you, I'm not going to create any
opportunity for commercial growth, if I don't have to, and I think
that the split uses of the neighborhood commercial attitude, we can
pretty much require that these aren't going to be chain stores,
these are not going to be tourist -oriented stores, this isn't going
to be a traffic pattern that is going to compete with the
commerical core
and the high tech uses that are on Cooper Street and on the malls.
I think that if there are some needs _ in the neighborhood commercial
area, that the Trueman property is the place where we should expand
them. I am, by no means, interested in creating a broader aspect
of commercial development, at all, "Rog", and I want as small a
list, as tight a circle, as possible. I really think that the
neighborhood commercial zone.is my umbrella.
Hunt stated, my only comment about that, basically, is, you are
saying neighborhood commercial, and I understand that, but so many
of the arguments, when this was going through was to retain space
for some, not all, service commercial industrial uses, like T.V.
repair. Mooney answered, I definitely think that Henry's is
abusive, I definitely think that Velo is abusive, they are selling
as many snowboards as Aspen Sports, and I think we ought to go in
there and get them to comply. Hunt stated, the point is, square
footage -wise, philosophically, this was supposed to be SCI uses for
that amount of square footage. Mooney replied, the neighborhood
has changed significantly, I go back to what we have at the Airport
Business Center, I now think that that's the space. Hunt stated,
I don't think that that is necessarily an appropriate space for
Roger's Locksmith, yes it would be, but there's nothing wrong with
Roger's Locksmith there, there is nothing wrong with the T.V.
Repair that used to there, there's nothing wrong with the Clark's
Bakery, which is an SCI use. The point is, the problem is SCI uses
are not the highest and best usage that they can get their money
out of, so, of course, they are always interested in getting that
space to a higher and better usage, but I think there are those
uses that we need to accommodate in this community and that space
was originally designated for it, and I want to retain that
capability.
18
LANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Kerr stated, we've got one of several different ways we can proceed
on this issue. One would be, to table it, asking staff to review
the history of the SCl/NC as it relates to this parcel, so we'll
know what's going on, and then,, what we want to do, with those SCI
uses that were part of the original SPA. Roger's Lockshop is one
specific example where, maybe, that needs to be a conditional or
permitted use within NC, we can kind of forget about the SCI that
was originally done, we have to assume that is not very clear.
Another possible way to proceed is to adopt some additional
permitted and/or conditional uses out of the list of 23 or 14 or
some combination thereof, ranging all the way up to the full list
of 23. I think, if we go through a tabling process, perhaps
something that might be helpful to staff, is to take that list of
23 or 24 or 25, and with each use indicate which of those uses we
would find acceptable as either a permitted or conditional use
within the NC district, so they can have some guidance.
Chuck Roth stated, well, it's kind of sideways for you, but on that
second conditional approval on the sidewalk; 180 days from today
is about the end of the excavation permit, and I wonder if we could
key the sidewalk construction to any certificate of occupancy on
a new use granted by this proposed change?
Bloemsma asked, what has changed since the last meeting we had
regarding the bank, as. far as, how is this appropriate for the
Commission? When we addressed the bank issue, the sidewalk was a
separate issue, and I'm not sure I understand what's changed since
then, and why the City is recommending that this be conditional.
Kerr stated, I don't understand that, either. I don't understand
how the sidewalk is related to text amendments. Lackner answered,
because they are getting liberalized, or more uses allowed on site,
we feel that we want to go back to the original and say, these are
some deficits in the original subdivision that we want to "beef
up"; the sidewalk for the pedestrian circulation in the area.
Roth added, the Neighborhood Advisory Committee met last week and
they are asking us to try to get sidewalk along the Post Office,
so the intensity of interest in sidewalks has increased.
Garton stated, however, Chuck, what I am meaning is,. I don't want
anymore permitted uses, I only want conditional uses. If I only
approve this list for conditional uses, I cannot ask them to put
in a sidewalk. Lackner replied, they would, essentially, expand
the range of commercial uses... What is happening there, since that
project was developed, a lot of the affordable housing is located
on that side of the town and people come through this project;
Trueman, and including the Post Office, and encourages pedestrian
use. So, that's why we see now, there is a need for a sidewalk in
that area. It's shown that both sides of the street need a
sidewalk. Bloemsma stated, Trueman/Aspen Company would like to see
M
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
a sidewalk there. Garton replied, but until, Phil comes in and
says, here is another conditional use I'm asking for, then, I'll
ask for the sidewalk. I don't want to ask it for while he's just
expanding the list. Lackner stated, then, you are tagging it to
one. Then the bank will come in and say, my bank doesn't
necessitate me to put in a sidewalk, but we're saying is, since
this is a liberalization of all uses in that lot, we should put
that condition on, so it's not going to one "guy", asking for one
conditional use.
Mooney stated, I think it's appropriate, myself, because what is
going to happen is, that the number of different kinds of services
is going to increase, if we expand the list. What they will do,
as soon as they move someone out, they'll cut the floor space in
half and have two shops, with two separate entrances, which will
create more traffic patterns, as far as I'm concerned. I. think
that if we don't put ourselves in a position to provide for those
traffic patterns now, we're not going to get it in the future. If
we, basically, put a bunch more opportunities and don't plan for
the traffic patterns now, and take advantage of having this on the
table now, I don't think we're going to get the fundamental
opportunity to put in a sidewalk again. I don't think a sidewalk
is that elaborate; if we were asking for something that was in
excess to handle some kind of traffic pattern, turnarounds, or
road cuts, or something else, then I could see that that was
excessive, but a sidewalk, to me, is the fundamental key to open
these commercial opportunities, and expand the number of people
that are coming there for one time, in -and -out type, "I need a key
made", opportunities.
Garton asked, how do we tie this into Chuck's request? Bloemsma
stated, you don't want to allow us anything, and you want us to
build the sidewalk. I don't understand that. Kerr stated, I think
that's the point in which we tie it in, is the SPA amendment, it's
not the text amendment, itself, it's the SPA. Chuck, is there
anything magic about the 180 days, is there any reason why we
couldn't say 120 days, or 90 days? Roth answered, I was looking
at getting it done this year. Kerr stated, that's what I'm saying,
if we were to end up tabling it to a future meeting. If we're
worried about getting it done this season, there's nothing to
prohibit us from saying 120 days. Roth stated, it would just
depend on when the final day of approval was. I was thinking of
keying it to October 31, which is the end of the excavation permit.
Bloemsma stated, before we close this, I probably think it is a
good idea to table it and find out what the zoning is downstairs,
and I would like to ask the Commission to explain to me the purpose
of the NC zone district, as I read it, I'm not sure, and I'm
getting some conflicting ideas as to what your ideas of the NC zone
district are. Maybe you could tell me what you feel the NC zone
20
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
district 'is. We have 37,000 square feet of retail space down
there, we have 12 permitted uses. We could have one big WalMart
down there, is that what we want? Lackner stated, you can't have
a big WalMart, because we have restrictions. Bloemsma stated, I
understand that. Kerr stated, I think the key words, are one;
small, convenience, part of the neighborhood, reduce traffic
generation, mitigate traffic circulation, and I think that's where
the problem comes in with the sporting goods store, for example.
They say a sporting goods store falls outside that. I think if you
key in on those words, those are the parts of the NC that we are
trying to preserve and keep that integrity. Mooney stated, I'm not
suggesting that you do that with your space, but I think we can
coin that as the "Don Fleischer rule of thumb". Bloemsma stated,
I don't want to be compared to the other buildings in town, I feel
the Trueman/Aspen Company is loyal to the community, and I believe
we've shown that and we want to continue that. Lackner stated, I
think what you need to look at, and staff tried to do this in the
memorandum, is to identify the uses that were proposed by the
applicant, where else these uses are allowed. We don't want to
open up NC to be just to be just an extension of CC or C-1 . That's
where our recommendation has gone down to, what meets the purpose,
and what may not be accommodated elsewhere. Hunt stated, I just
have to put in a word for preserving the SCI space in this area.
If you make just SCI uses, conditional uses, for Neighborhood
Commercial, that basically, gives them the benefit of saying, oh,
I don't have to accommodate any SCI spaces in here, NC spaces are
higher and better usage, so there goes all the SCI, folks. There
goes Roger's Locksmith, there goes the laundry, and things like
that.
MOTION
Hunt.stated, I move to table action pending staff's researching
the SCI issue on the Trueman property until June 20th, 1995, and
continue the public hearing. Garton seconded. Vote commenced,
vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Kerr stated, I would just make a recommendation to all commission
members to give staff the list of what you can live with and what
you cannot live with in so far as the NC zoning, pending what comes
out of the SCI research.
Kerr closed the public portion of the meeting.
21
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 6, 1995
MOCKLIN PROPERTY - REZONING, SUBDIVISION,
AND SPECIAL.REVIEW FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO, PARKING,
AND OPEN SPACE
Kerr opened the public hearing.
Leslie Lamont presented for staff and asked for the applicant's
public notice. (Attached in record). Lamont stated, the
application before you is requesting a Subdivision, Rezoning and
Special Review. What I would like to do first, since there is a
long history to Peter Mocklin's property, is go through with you
that history on what has gone on with his property, in the past,
and most recently. Sunny Vann is representing Peter and Monica
Mocklin in this process.
Peter has an apartment building on this property that currently
exists of 8 units. Those units were found as legal units when the
property was still in the County. The County, by resolution, in
1982, found that the 8 units were, in fact, legal units. The
property was then annexed into the City in approximately 1988/1989
when the Centennial/Hunter Creek neighborhood and area was annexed
into the City. At the time of that annexation; the City had 90
days to re -zone any property that comes into the City, and the
applicant was requesting a multi -family zoning because he had 8
dwelling units on his property. The Commission and the Council
agreed that they would go with a R-15A zoning which was a new zone
district that was, in fact, created for that area. They were zoned
R-15A, and did not want to re -zone it multi -family until such time
as there was a redevelopment plan proposed. So what that did, was
allow Peter his 8 legal units, but it made the building non-
conforming. Our code does not allow you to expand a non -conforming
use in a zone district. So, starting in about 1989, and proceeding
onto 1990, Peter pursued a re -zoning of his property to R/MF,
originally, it was ultimately re -zoned to R/MFA which is consistent
with multi -family re -zoning up in that neighborhood. What
happened, finally, after City Council, was rather than re -zone the
entire, almost, four acres to R/MFA, Peter and Sunny agreed to
carve out a piece of the property surrounding the apartment
building and re -zone that R/MFA. Council's requirement was that
up to 50,000 square feet of land surrounding the apartment building
would be re -zoned R/MFA. It was not subdivided, it was just that
they filed the plat showing that a portion of the property was to
be re -zoned R/MFA.
Lamont continued saying, In 1990 we passed Ordinance 1, which
required that when demolition or .replacement occurred, that the
applicant would have to mitigate the housing that was torn down.
This specifically applied, not only do we have our ADU program, but
M
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
it applied to multi -family dwelling units stating that when you
tear down and replace a multi -family structure, you had to replace,
in site, 50 percent of the existing bedrooms and 50 percent of the
existing square footage, back on site as deed restricted housing.
So, Mr. Mocklin sought a Planning Director interpretation; Diane
Moore was the Planning Director at the time, Jed Caswell was our
City Attorney, and they requested an interpretation of that section
of the code that allowed demolition and replacement. In the code,
at the time, in 1990, and currently in the code, even with our
growth management revisions, if one tears down and replaces, and
complies with Ordinance 1, and our Housing Mitigation Program, that
demolition and replacement is exempt from competition, and the
replacement units are exempt from coming out of our allotment
pools. That is an exemption by the Planning Director. In 1990,
and prior to our recent revisions of the GMQS, we didn't keep track
of the number of additional affordable housing units that we were
adding to our housing enventory in the City. As you know, with our
growth management revisions, we now have a specific allotment pool
for affordable housing and we have an allotment pool for free
market. However, the Planning Director exemption section in the
code, the revised section, still allows demolition and replacement,
and those replacement units are not deducted from the allotment
pool. The section of the code is silent on what we do if someone
is adding back affordable housing that happens to be additional
units than what were originally on the site. We can get into that
later on in our discussion, because that is one of my issues that
I pointed out to you. So, during this Planning Director
interpretation, Sunny was asking the Planning Department and the
City Attorney' s Office whether he had to technically, and actually,
comply with the letter of the code, and actually tear down his
building to realize his replacement credits. Remember, there are
8 legal units on the property. If that building were torn down,
8 free market units could be placed on the property, in any
configuration, exempt from growth management, and exempt from the
allotment pool. Sunny's argument was, why should we be required
to tear down a perfectly good building to realize our replacement
credit when, in fact, to realize. our replacement credit, we are
going to have to build back deed restricted affordable housing on
the property. So, his interpretation request was, can we,
basically, go ahead and deed restrict the existing units and,
therefore, freeing up our free market replacement credit on the
site. I believe, the letter that Sunny addressed to the Planning
Department and the response from Diane Moore, is in the
application. In addition, what else is in the application, which
is a really good history, is Jedd Caswell's letter to the City
Council explaining the history of this project when we were going
through the re -zoning process. So, the Planning Director found,
through the Planning Director interpretation process, that we would
not want to be in the process of encouraging someone to tear down
their building to realize their replacement credits.
a
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
We also recognize that there are very few pieces of property in the
City that have the ability to do that. 204 E. Durant, our last
multi -family replacement program that we saw, could not have
maintained their employee housing on site and built their free
market units on site easily. Peter's property, being so large, it
was an obvious question to have asked us for this Planning Director
interpretation. The Planning Director found that he could, in
fact, deed restrict the existing housing as employee housing and
free up his replacement credits. In fact, what we felt we were
getting, we were getting a more direct, one -for -one, number of
units only. One -for -one replacement, whereas, if the building were
torn down, we would probably realize less units, approximately the
same amount of bedroom and the same amount of square footage, but
they would probably be re -configured in less number of units. So,
that's the history behind this.
Kerr asked, what's the estimated useful life of the existing unit?
That's the only fly that I see. Lamont answered, when we were
doing this Planning Director interpretation, we did a site
inspection and a walk-through of the units to determine what kind
of units we were going to talk about. Now, any acceptance of
existing units as deed restricted units, they have to meet all
Housing Office specifications and guidelines, as far as
habitability and quality of the unit, and UBC. If there are items
that need to be taken care of, it is the applicant's responsibility
to upgrade the units. We walked through the building for several
reasons; we needed to determine tap fees and we needed to determine
whether these units were, in fact, appropriate units. The building
is in very good condition. Some of the units are below -grade, some
of the other unit are partially below grade. There are two units
that are fully above grade, those are the two units the applicant
is not proposing to deed restrict. We are not talking a building
that is 204 E. Durant, that's ready to fall down anyway. So, in
giving you a little bit of history, let me talk about what we have
existing there.
Lamont stated, currently, Mr. Mocklin owns two parcels of land; he
owns a parcel of land that is on the other side of Gibson Avenue,
that basically, Spring Street runs through.
Sunny Vann described the 3-1/2 acre parcel with assistance of a
map, and he stated the parcel is separated by the plat of right-
of-way from a smaller parcel which, basically, encompasses portions
of Spring Street and a steep hillside. Vann said, it shows up on
the survey and it's part of your application package, but it's not
part of the application which Mr. Mocklin has submitted.
Lamont said, right now, there's an 8 unit apartment building on the
piece of property, and when it came time to actually do the mapping
24
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
and surveying for re -zoning that portion of the property to R/MFA
it was reduced to about 34,000 square feet, the property that's
zoned R/MFA. Vann added, it is roughly that portion of the
property containing the existing building that's outlined in pink
(referring to the map). Lamont stated, so, there are 8 units and
the units range from 1,730 sq. ft . down to 370 sq. ft . in size,
they total 15 bedrooms, and in addition, there is a dedicated
pedestrian trail along the western boundary. Other than that, the
property is entirely vacant. What Mr. Mocklin is proposing to do,
is to subdivide his property into 7 parcels. Six free market
parcels, and the seventh would be the parcel that would incorporate
the multi -family apartment building. Then, he would like to re-
zone and, this is actually my request, that he re -zone lot 7 to
AH. I am requesting a re -zoning to AH because I think it will
further reflect the deed restricted units on the parcel and further
institutionalize that we have affordable housing on Parcel 7. And,
he is proposing to deed restrict 6 of those 8 units to affordable
housing on Parcel 7.
Kerr asked, is Lot 7 all of the peak? Vann answered, yes. Kerr
asked, what is that line that comes out midways, comes down
straight and then takes a right angle (referring to the map). Vann
replied, pink is the piece that is presently zoned R/MFA, plus a
little bit around the edges of it. This is the existing building,
this is an irrigation ditch. Kerr asked, what is the line above
the ditch? Vann answered, that is the parking lot for this
building.
Lamont stated, if Parcel 7 were to be successfully re -zoned to AH,
then we would need to establish by special review, parking on the
site, and the open space on the site. The applicant is requesting
to establish the size of the parcel so it fits with the allowable
floor area ratios in AH zone district for multi -family. Right now,
the size of the parcel and the existing floor area doesn't match
what we allow in the AH zone district, so the applicant is actually
asking to reduce the parcel down to possibly 32,000 sq. ft. so it
fits with the existing floor area of the building. So, there are
15 parking spaces on site and there's over 60 percent of the Parcel
7 that is open space. That is also something that you all will
need to do, establish by special review, parking in open space.
Garton stated, he is also requesting that we actually deed restrict
all eight of the units. Vann stated, seven. Garton said, well,
there are 8 units within the building and he was proposing to deed
restrict seven. Vann stated, six, and they've asked for seven.
Lamont stated, one of the issues that was outlined in the
memorandum; the applicant proposes a one -for -one, deed restricting
six units for six free market lots. Several of the units do not
comply with the Housing guidelines and as they are existing units
ME
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
there is not much we can do to expand the units. So, the Housing
Office and staff are requesting that a seventh unit be deed
restrictive to help us out because they do not comply with our
guidelines.
Buettow stated, according to Dave Tolen's evaluation of these
units; of the six, only one meets the minimum size requirements.
Vann answered, they vary in size, some are closer to the
requirements. Buettow stated, only one meet the requirements of
the six. Vann answered, he did point out in his memorandum that
to compensate for that we are deed restricting them below the
guidelines which we would be entitled to if we were to tear them
down and reconstruct. We are deed restricting more square footage,
if we deed restrict 7, than would be required under an Ordinance
1, and if we went out and simply tore it down. So, we are getting
more commercial square footage deed restricted and more residential
square footage deed restricted because you are getting more unit
and you are getting them in a lower income category than would be
required under Ordinance 1; you are having them brought up to code
in those cases where they are required, and they will meet the
Housing Authority's requirements. So, that's why Dave 's supporting
the idea because, all -in -all, it's a good deal.
Lamont continued saying, I just want to reiterate the issues I
pointed out in my memorandum and tell you some of the changes I
would like to make to the memorandum. Then, I will turn it over
the Sunny for questions. So, seven units, not six, that was one
of my issues. As I pointed out earlier, the code is silent on how
we deal with additional AH units. Now, we have affordable housing
allocation for 43 units a year that these six or seven units would
come out of. However, in my discussions with Dave Tolen, we feel
pretty strongly that when the demolition replacement was exempted
by the Planning Director and exempted by the pool, although it had
to comply with our Housing and replacement programs, that we missed
the fact that we may get additional units on site that would have
to come out of our pool. We are recommending one of three ways to
go about this, and I talked this over with John Worcester, also.
One way we can do this is we pull it out of our affordable housing
pool. The Housing Office is reluctant to support that
recommendation because they are very protective of their pool and
they feel that if these units were torn down and replaced, we
probably wouldn't get as many units, but we would probably get
bigger units, above grade units, and they would meet our guidelines
more readily than these units do. So, they are reluctant to just
say, take it out of the Housing pool.
The other approach we could take is that we could draft a code
amendment that, basically, says, if one is complying with Ordinance
1 or the Housing Replacement Program, all those units that are
26
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
replaced and go back, including your mitigation units, are exempt,
not only by the Director, but are exempt from the Housing pool.
Third, and I talked this over with the City Attorney because in
that section of the code, it says, you are exempt from multi-
family housing if you comply with the Housing Replacement Program,
and that is found in that exemption section by the Planning
Director, where it says, are not deducted from the pool. So, I
asked our City Attorney if that was kind of a defacto
acknowledgement of what is exempt and what is not. He felt that
that could be appropriate, but he wanted our review bodies to also
lend us some guidance on this. So, this is why this is in your
memorandum and it is an issue.
Lamont stated, with Mr. Mocklin's proposal, we have ways with
working with that. The last two issues I pointed out in my
memorandum, I am very concerned about the significant natural
vegetation on this property and some of the terrain features that
are found. I am continuing to work with the applicant to better
define the building envelopes, with the condition that nothing
happens outside the building envelopes; no draining, no excavation,
except for utilities that need to cut through the property. As far
as building the homes, I would like to further define those
building envelopes before we ultimately sign off on all of this.
The property has been staked with those building envelopes as are
shown and are submitted in your application. We blocked the site
once, we've identified some features that we want to preserve;
there's more features that I want to preserve than the applicant
wants to preserve. Kerr asked, are you talking about sagebrush,
or what? Lamont answered, I'm talking about both things; the
requirement that no further development or construction or fences
or hottubs or anything like that, happen outside the building
envelopes. We would, then, be preserving a significant buffer of
natural vegetation between these building envelopes. In this area
here (referring to map), there is a large grove of cottonwoods,
some are dead, some are not 6 inches in caliper; we are looking for
a better site plan that can identify the trees that are important,
there's aspen right in here. So, that is why the building envelope
is an issue, because Sunny and I, the landscape architect, and the
engineer, need to go back out on -site and talk about what is a
realistic building envelope and how we can push and pull some of
these envelopes to preserve some of these features. For example,
we have talked about Lot 5, move it closer and make it a little
bit more narrow, so we could preserve, at least, the front half of
this knolle. The majority of building envelope 6 is not in the
ridge, it's back behind the ridge, and then, there's some nice
little features over here that we've talked about pulling the
buildings down lower so they aren't up on top of the hill which
would make for more massive building feel on that. Kerr asked,
these envelopes are to be accessed from the north, I guess, or most
27
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUKE 6, 1995
of them? Lamont answered, right. There is one private drive that
is being proposed that will access all the lots with a fire access
easement which serves as a drive to all three, but will be the area
where any emergency vehicles will turn around in. So, we need a
note on the plat indicating no parking along the access. Kerr
asked, and the garages would not be in the rear? Lamont stated,
the garages would probably be in the rear, off of here (referring
to map) .
Vann stated, it might be helpful, in a second, if, when she
(Lamont) brings up this last point, to let me take you through the
site plan very quickly and how we laid it out, and then we can get
into specifics. I think it will help you to understand why we did
it the way we did.
Lamont stated, speaking of the neighborhood character guidelines
and subdivision, Chuck and I have been going back and forth on
whether this should be a private drive or a public street. If it
is a public street we have some pretty strict standards on what the
public street needs to be, etc. Chuck can make that argument,
whether it needs to be a public street or not, and why we need to
spend the City money. However, I do agree with Chuck, that the
plans that were submitted; a. do not indicate any sort of
pedestrian way off of this private drive, whether it is a
meandering trail, not a five foot concrete sidewalk, but something
that clearly indicates that this is for pedestrians, even though
this is a private road. Secondly, I've been thinking further about
what Chuck was talking about; one thing that we lose when we don't
require the streets to be public is we lose perception of the
access to these streets. This is a subdivision within an existing
neighborhood and our subdivision criteria talks about streets and
pedestrian ways being compatiable and an efficient landuse pattern
with the existing neighborhood. So, my last issue is, that I would
like a condition of approval on this proposal, that there is no
signage on here, such as delineating private drive, keep out, no
trespassing, and things like that. I think it also goes along with
ASCP being a character based plan and it talks about new
development that is consistent and compatible with our
neighborhoods, and character of our community, and also, our
neighborhood character guidelines, it talks about fitting in with
your surrounding neighborhood.
Sunny Vann made a map presentation explaining the zoning,
landscaping, parking. Vann said, as you drop down Gibson these
envelopes become, essentially invisible, although you may see
portions or depending on the house that is ultimately built there.
The idea, here, was to designate a site specific building envelope
as Leslie pointed out, preserve the existing vegetation located
outside of the envelope. That is not objectionable to the
applicant, we are willing add that as a condition of approval and
:
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
include it in our subdivision development agreement.
Vann stated, the most significant issue that Leslie raised; we have
not considered this a gated subdivision, and I don't believe Mr.
Mocklin plans on developing this immediately, the intent was to
secure approvals for the property. I haven't envisioned putting
a stone wall around this thing, and I share Leslie' s concerns about
the concept of a gated-, private community. I'm a little concerned
about making it a condition of approval, there's nothing in our
subdivision regulations which pertain to that, but I think what
I'll do tonight, since Mr. Mocklin is out of the country, is simply
note our concern about it becoming a condition of approval, and
we'll deal with it in subsequent stages of review. I think, if
that is a concern of the City, that we should simply specify, as
part of our regulations, that we will not allow, not private roads,
but private non -accessible subdivisions within the City limits, but
that's a separate issue and I don't know how Mr. Mocklin feels
about it, and I think we should wait, for the record.
Vann said, these building envelopes, because Leslie is requiring
that development be precluded outside the envelope, are slightly
over -sized because we don't want to have to come in and modify the
envelope everytime someone wants to put a swing set or sandbox or
landscaping, or anything else that goes along with the development
of a single-family home. Vann showed on the map how the single-
family homes were set back so as not to block each other's view;
he showed.access points, parking, and grade. Vann said, Leslie has
asked that we provide her with a tree survey, there are some small
strands of trees here, most of them are not over 6 inches, a few
aspen over 6 inches, there are some cottonwoods in the public
right-of-way here that are over 6 inches, and there are a couple
back in this corner here (referring to map). There are,
essentially, no mature trees that will be lost in the development
of the individual homes. There is some strands of trees that would
be affected by the access road and we will outline where those are
and it is our intent to provide landscaping to offset any loss of
those trees.
Garton asked, will you show us the locations of the Pine Creek Bus
Stop and the Hunter Creek driveway cuts? Vann showed on the map
where the locations above were. (Referring to the map), Vann
stated, we didn't perceive this as a street, we did not propose a
sidewalk, per se, along this, but Leslie's point is well -taken and
I don't see any reason why we couldn't incorporate in this area
here, some type of surface that we could maintain and plow for
people here to move through the project. Kerr asked, an internal
pedestrian way, is that what you are talking about? Vann answered,
yes, I hate to use sidewalk, that envisions curb, flat sidewalk,
concrete.
29
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Kerr said, Sunny, explain why there's no further development
potential on Lot 7. Vann answered, when we re -zoned the property,
this was the only parcel in the whole annexation that was not zoned
a use. The record ref lects , Tom Baker' s minutes ref lect , they were
concerned about re -zoning it RMF, and they would prefer re -zoning
it until such time as an application was submitted. When we went
to request to re -zone this, the compromise that we ended up with,
is just the portion of the existing building to be re -zoned and
that it would be sized to accommodate the existing FAR of the
building, plus 5-10 percent expansion to take care of minor changes
in the building from time to time. If this is RMF, that's one-
to-one; AH, it's a smaller parcel, so this is sized to fit the
existing FAR, plus 5 or 10 percent, I can't remember which it is,
so there's no ability to add FAR to this building, given the size
of this, unless someone was to come in and ask to change the
allowable FAR under the special review process. Kerr stated,
that's what I'm getting at. Five or ten years from now, if
somebody wants to tear down that building, albeit, it's a good
building now, if somebody else wants to come in and they've got
32,000 sq. ft. of land that's zoned AH. Well, within the AH zone
you're permitted a certain kind of mix, and what I am thinking of
is, what might happen. Vann responded saying, there's one other
thing that controls it, and in this case, the way the AH zoning is
set up for parcels of 27,000 or slightly larger, the minimum area
requirements for the bedroom mix are substantially greater than
smaller age parcels. Kerr stated, what I am getting at is, are you
willing to -deed restrict Lot 7 in such a way as to say there will
never be more than seven affordable units, for example, and the one
free market. Vann answered, frankly, I've never really thought
about it, I could certainly ask Mr. Mocklin. I don't think the
City would be better served, since you have absolute control over
AH, that if, for some reason, somebody wanted to redevelop it that
you might come up with a different plan. Kerr stated, what I don't
want is more than one free market unit on Lot 7. Vann said, oh,
I see what you are saying, so you could do 70-30; technically,
someone could come in, if they could buy all the units, and if they
increase the number of employee housing units, they could increase
the number of free market, but there's no FAR available. Kerr
stated, just so you know where I'm coming from.
Lamont stated, those seven units are mitigation for the free market
units. If someone was proposing additional free market units on
Parcel 7, they would have to, then, build additional housing to get
that; but, I agree with what you are saying, and I think we need
to address that in subdivision agreement, subdivision plat, and
everything. Vann stated, we never envisioned creating
substantial.. Kerr stated, yes, but I envisioned it. You'll think
of it later. Vann said, it is certainly something we can talk
about with Mr. Mocklin, I would like to look at my numbers too, I
think Leslie is correct, that based on the current density
11
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
provisions, there is no way of expansion capability in this. Kerr
stated, just so we address it. My second question, you talked
about the views for Lots 1 through 6, but you really didn't talk
about the views for those people in the apartment buildings. Vann
replied, it's, actually, quite good. I'm not going to sit here and
tell you that they will not see development in front of them, but
the lots are extremely large, the setbacks of open space were
generous; when you enter this building your perception of this
space is all of this (referring to map). The view is probably
better than any other affordable housing in town, in terms of what
you can see.
Kerr asked, what kind of heights do you envision on Lots 1 through
6? Vann answered, there is no proposal at the moment, for the bulk
of the lots, there are no site specific plans. They would comply
with the height limits imposed under the existing R15 zoning, which
I think, is, 25 feet, plus 5 feet to the peak of a pitched roof,
(Kerr stated, that's been changed), they would comply with the FAR
regulations that are in affect at time of issuance . of a building
permit, they will be smaller than originally estimated because
Leslie informs me that this easement will have to be subtracted
from lot area for FAR purposes, and I also believe that the new FAR
regulation contemplates requiring steep slopes, or slopes over 30
percent, to be subtracted, as well. So, there are portions of this
property where the slopes are such that they would further reduce
the FAR. If I had to guess, then, after you take this out, that
we're probably in the 3,500 to 4,000 range, just guessing, and
depending upon how the FAR regulations work out, but this is a
25,000 sq. ft. lot.
Garton stated, like Bruce, it doesn't make sense for this to have
a street presence, but what do we do about the community plan?
There is no pedestrian presence with these houses. Vann answered,
even if you pushed them all the way to the front, you wouldn't have
a pedestrian presence. Garton said, I know, and it is a very
unique site, and I actually don't mind them, Leslie, being back on
the slope because it is going to reduce the house. Lamont stated,
that's why I'm working with Sunny on defining where his front yard
was. You can pick, you have a public road and a private road, you
can pick whichever is your front yard, and we agreed with Sunny in
picking along Gibson Avenue to being the front yard because that
gives you a greater setback. Vann stated, the other thing, I think
that one could argue, is that this is an area that is perceived to
be very dense, but obviously, this is a developable parcel, it is
3-1/2 acres with just some units on it. By pulling it back, and
reducing the visability of the structures, I think it goes a long
way to reducing the perception of additional development in this
neighborhood. I think there's a very good argument that this could
be re -zoned to RMF, everything around it RMF, and it could be
developed for multi -family purposes.
31
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 6, 1995
Garton stated, somehow, in the approval of this, I want to
acknowledge to the Council and to the community, that we realize
that this does not fit the guidelines of what we are trying to do
with the neighborhood guidelines. Kerr stated, I would say this
is one of the arguments against universal application. Lamont
stated, when the individual homes come in and pull their building
permit they need to follow our Residential Design Standards and our
checklist and everything else. Garton stated, what is this street,
pedestrian presence, if we have a pedestrian way in there, we're
going to face garage doors. Lamont said, I understand what you are
saying but, actually, I'm perceiving that the public pedestrian way
is up three sides and not the backside of the private drive. I
perceived it from the public trail where the fronts of the homes
will be facing our public trail.. When a project comes in for our
Residential Design Standards, and filing our checklist, that's what
we would be concerned about. For example, Lot 6, we would probably
want to see the garage access off of the private drive on Lot 6,
versus off of Lone Pine. Blaich stated, you just have to classify
that private drive as an alley, and then, you've got it solved.
Vann said, the other thing I didn't say, Leslie and I are very
close in terms of the recommended conditions of approval. We laid
these out in plan, and now that it's spring and we can walk around
on the site, we've staked the building envelopes and we have agreed
to go back on site, between now and final Council, to clean up some
of these corners on the site to help address some of the issues.
Vann showed on the map some of the changes that would be done, and
stated, we are going to make some little adjustments to actually
accommodate some of these topographic features that are on the
site. Vann stated, we are really pleased with the Planning
Office's review of the project.
Kerr asked if there were any members of the public who wished to
speak in regard to the application. Bernard Myron stated, I live
directly across the street from the parking lot in Building 9 of
Hunter Creek. I'm talking about views. When I bought the
condominium 6-1/2 years ago, I looked directly out at Tiehack, and
if I looked to the left of my livingroom window, I saw Aspen
Mountain. It concerns me greatly that my view not be impeded
because it is the basic reason that I bought this particular
condominium. If Lot 7 remains as it is, and nothing else is put
up on it, I think I should be alright, but I don't know about the
view toward Aspen Mountain with those other buildings, I can't
visualize that. But it concerns me greatly that nothing else be
put up on Lot 7, and your point, Mr. Kerr, was well taken; as far
as I'm concerned I want something put in there to prevent future
building.
32
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
I have a couple of other concerns; one is, has the soil been tested
for lead poisoning in that area? If this is approved and they
start digging the foundations, I just want to make sure that it is
free from any contamination. Vann answered stating, portions of
this site are in the so-called super front site, and testings
conducted by the EPA indicate, to varying degrees, some of the
soils on this property have the same problem as the Aspen Tennis
Club and, therefore, condition of approval is this, that any
excavation, grading, and all, comply with the institutional
controls that have been adopted by the EPA, which specify what you
can do with the soil, how it can moved, what precautions have to
be taken, and so forth. One of the reasons we designed it the way
we did, instead of doing a multi -family project, is that this
allows us to maintain much, if not a substantial portion, of the
site in its present condition. We don't have to grade it out, we
don't have to grade out the existing scrub which exasperates the
problem, from our point of view, from a cost perspective. This is
the easiest way for us to do it and deal with the EPA controls
which have been imposed on the property.
Lamont added stating, in addition, we have a condition of approval
that they also must file with the State of Colorado, a Fugitive
Dust Plan that talks about when they are hauling dirt on or off
site, and how they will keep the dust down. Myron stated, that
concerns me. Lamont added, that's on top of the institutional
controls.
Myron stated, the other concern I have is the over saturation of
the area, I hate to get that "closed -in" feeling. One of the
beauties of Aspen, and why we are all here, is the open spaces, and
here goes another open space that's going to be closed, and on and
on it goes. So, it's a concern of mine.
Myron added, the other thing is, I use the bus a lot, I either
walk, bike, or use the bus, and I try not to use my car. During
the on -season, whether it be winter or summer, those buses are
beginning to get very crowded and I feel that I'm back in New York
City. Bringing more people into the area is making it a little too
saturated for me.
Kerr stated, my guess is that the 6th Lot owners are not going to
be bus riders. All of us are concerned about losing what's
perceived to be open space; one of the ways, unfortunately, to look
at that is, is to compare what this application is versus what
potentially could be there. Myron said, I understand that. Kerr
continued saying, what could be there could'be much more dense.
Lenny Oates said, just a comment, for what it Is worth. I represent
the Hunter Creek Commons Corporation, which is the owner of all the
common area within Hunter Creek Condominiums. What has been
33
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
pointed out as the triangle parcel which is sort of the open model
for the top of the project, has recently been acquired by the
Comdominium Assocation. (The Clerk apologizes,.but at this point
the tape ran out and had to be changed, so portions of Mr. Oates'
comments was not recorded.) Oates continued, if somehow, that
could be fit in to some formulation, I understand Mr. Mocklin would
not be obligated to do so, but I would like you to bear in mind,
that you will be seeing something on that, we don't know what, so,
just to let you know.
Vann responded saying, those of you that are familar with the
Mocklin building; it sits up on a hill above that parcel, so that
parcel is not at the same grade. Oates stated, we are not here to
object to the application.
Kerr asked, other public comment? There was none, and he closed
the public hearing.
Hunt stated, I have some technical things to get through here.
Kerr asked, let's hold off on that for just a moment. I want to
find out about the conditions of approval.
Vann said, the simplest way, other than going through every one of
of them.. Kerr stated, I don't want to go through them all, just
the ones where we disagree. Vann said, I was just going to outline
those that I think we want to discuss.
Vann said, we can start on page 12 of the memorandum. On page 13,
which is Condition 3-d. I think I have already noted this for the
record, and that is, this is the first time I have seen a condition
in which under the land use code we attempt to regulate the
perception of property as either being gated, private, or anything
else. I will state for the record that while we don't have any
intent of that, at the moment, we have not even discussed it, but
this is something that is not in our land use code and it begins
to stretch the bounds of the subdivision review process as a
condition of approval.
Vann stated, Condition 4, on page 13, item h., the dedication of
Spring Street right -of -way, and a trail easement across this parcel
(referring to map), which is Mr. Mocklin's, as well. The City has
proscriptive right, I'm sure, for Spring Street, across Mr.
Mocklin's property, it's been there forever. There is no plated
right-of-way, and the City, at some time, would like to extend this
trail across this area where people have already cut across to get
down to Spring Street in the Oklahoma Flats area. We are certainly
willing to discuss both of those issues with the City, but I
believe, and I think the City Attorney would support, that is not
part of this application and, therefore, I don't think you can
exact it as part of this subdivision approval. It's like me having
34
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
two pieces of property and saying, for exchange for approving this
one, I want you to give something else on this piece over here;
they're not continuous, they are separated by a plat of right-of-
way, and I simply register my objection to that condition at this
time, and I'm sure we'll debate it further with the City Attorney
and City Council.
Vann stated, 5-b. requests that we address PM10 caused by this
project. There has been considerable discussion on the PM10 issue
in recent years, the City has not adopted any regulations in its
land use code and, particularly, in subdivision regulations,
regarding the PM10, and it has not exacted this condition on any
project that I am aware of. Leslie tells me that they did make it
a condition on the Juanstreet Project, the City was the applicant
in that case, and I assume they agreed to do it. It was not done
on a recently approved Williams Wood Project; it has not been done
on any other City affordable housing project, to my knowledge, nor
on any other public or private residential development application.
I personally have done multiple projects in recent years with you
people, we just finished the 204 E . Durant, and it was not required
as a condition of approval there, it has not been required on any
lot splits which we have approved last year and, therefore, I
question its appropriateness in this location. I don't think we're
going to resolve it here tonight, I think it is a question for the
City Attorney and it is something that we will resolve when we go
to City Council. I do want you to know my objection to the
inclusion of that condition; I don't necessarily object to the
concept, but I think if the City is to apply such regulations, they
should be applied across the board and you should adopt amendments
to your land use code to put applicants on notice that it is, in
fact, a requirement that has to be met.
Vann stated, on page 14, Leslie and I have discussed Item 6-b.
before, and I think we have an agreement that the drainage plan
issue on here would be addressed prior to issuance of individual
building permits because it is depending, in part, on the size of
the structure, the nature of roof drains, impervious services, and
so forth. This is one which Chuck has routinely agreed to as a
condition preceeding the building -permit. When we have more
information, we will address basic site drainage with respect to
the access road as part of the plan and profile. Information is
to be submitted in conjunction with the final plat. We will agree
to, of course, to maintain historic run-off, and so forth. We are
just saying that the individual draining plans for the individual
lots will be met in connection with building permits and,
therefore, 6-b. will be moved to 5, and will become 5-e.
Vann further stated, Leslie has already noted a mix-up in this
particular memorandum, and has agreed to delete the last portion
of Condition #8, "correct any runoff or erosion problems that
35
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
currently exists on site". I'm not sure where that came from; she
said it came from a prior approval.
Vann said, the rest of this is fine. There are some conditions
here I've not seen before but, I guess, this is the new
requirements from the Engineering Department, and I don't think we
have a problem with meeting any of the rest of these conditions
So, with those two objections noted, and the request to change 6-
b., these conditions are acceptable as drafted to the applicant.
Chuck Roth stated, I think the Engineering Department had some
comments on some of the conditions of approval, either on Condition
#1 or in Condition #4-a., we suggested that the applicant prepare
to underground aerial utilities to the site. Right now, there are
aerial utilities and I believe that would involve undergrounding
one scan of aerial utilities. Vann responded saying, the code
requires that all of the utility extensions to serve the project
be undergrounded, and the applicant is committed to such as part
of the application. So, therefore, any extensions of utilities
will all be placed underground. There is an existing power cable
that crosses the property which may or may not be affected by this
project. I believe that, Mr. Mocklin, or any developer of this
project, will elect to underground that at their expense, but I
don't believe that our code requires that that be made a condition
of approval. I think it will become the end result because it
enhances the value of the lots, but since we are not changing those
lines, moving those lines, I don't think our code requires us to
underground them at this time as a condition of approval.
Lamont stated, it is not Clear whether the code requires it or does
not require it, if you want to put that in as condition of approval
pursuant to our land use codes, then, we can follow up on that.
Roth stated, I would like the subdivision agreement to acknowledge
the existing sidewalk that the City constructed and take over
immediately upon approval, maintenance, snow removal, cleaning,
repair of that sidewalk. That would be 3 - f . , and 3 -d, I would just
like to document that during construction of any of the units or
any of the infra -structure that no tracking of mud on the City
streets will be permitted. Vann answered, the second one is
actually, fine.
Vann stated, as such time as we installed the new sidewalk on Lone
Pine, and the homes are built and construction, there's a
Homeowner's Association where you can retain that sidewalk, as well
as the one on Gibson, subject to whatever regulations are currently
on the books. However, Mr. Mocklin did not build a sidewalk that's
on Gibson now, he has no immediate plans to develop this project,
and I think it is unreasonable to say, as a condition of this
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 6, 1995
approval, which is not going forward at this time, to require him
to automatically assume maintenance of the sidewalk which the City
elected to place along this property. That's just my feeling on
it.
Kerr asked, what does the code say about sidewalks, now? Roth
answered, the code clearly states that the adjacent property owner
is required to maintain the sidewalk. Kerr asked, if that's what
the code says, then, why do we need it as a condition? Vann asked,
have you taken any actions to ask him to maintain it? Roth
answered, I don't know the answer to that question. I know that
the City did assume maintenance when the sidewalk was constructed,
both there, and on down the hill, and up the hill. Because,
perhaps, of the difficulty of enforcing or .... I'm not sure how to
state this ... there's a difficulty of requiring that the adjacent
property owners maintain the sidewalk. On the Neal Avenue sidewalk
project it has been more appropriate to enforce the adjacent
property owner to remove the snow. The density on Neal Avenue is
higher, the density along Gibson was lower. It wasn't a clear
situation. Vann stated, that is enforcement action, it's a
regulation, the City installed the sidewalk, if they think Mr.
Mocklin ought to be called on the sidewalk they ought to contact
Mr. Mocklin accordingly. I don't think it has anything to do with
this land use approval, I hate to see it made a condition of
approval.
Roth stated, Item 4-c. relates to 6-a. 6-a. talks about an
agreement to construct curb and gutter. We would like the
applicant and the developer to construct the curb and gutter on the
Lone Pine. Kerr stated, add "sidewalk". Vann stated, it was my
understanding, we represented as part of the application, that we
would install the sidewalk on the condition of our approval. It
will be contained in the improvements agreement, the financial
guarantees provided, will be constructed in connection with the
project. I read this to mean that you wanted us to join in Joint
Improvements Agreement, in the event the City required any further
approvals in the area. I'm not sure what your problem is. Roth
answered, well, it sounds like, maybe, I don't have one.
Lamont stated, Chuck, the reason why I say, shall enter into
agreement with the Engineering Department to construct curb and
gutter in the future; I see what you are saying, that it should be
"sidewalk" curb and gutter. Roth stated, no, we want neither or
both of them constructed at this time. Lamont said,my thinking
was, that by bringing the applicant in on an agreement situation,
if the sidewalk isn't ready or we don't have a good alignment yet,
when they want to file the plat, then we have time to work on the
sidewalk and the alignment. Kerr asked, do you want to add
"sidewalk" to 6-a? Vann stated, I think this came up, we
represented that we would include a sidewalk, because it is covered
37
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
in the clause to put a sidewalk in, and when we went out to look
at the site, this area here (referring to the map), you can see
that the topography is quite steep, there is some substantial,
mature cottonwoods along here, and when we inspected the site the
Parks Department said without a sidewalk we're going to lose all
the vegetation, maybe we ought to talk about how we are going to
do it in this area, and so forth. So, I think Leslie's attempting
to respond to the concern they had about this portion of the
sidewalk. Kerr stated, I don't think there's a point of
disagreement there. Lamont stated, no, there's not. I just left
out the word "sidewalk". Vann asked, what about the alignment on
that, when you say alignment, would that include, potentially, the
other side of Lone Pine. Lamont answered, no. Well, if it gets
to that point, we will acknowledge that, but what the agreement
does, it gives everybody an opportunity to work on it, and then,
when we are ready, we pull the agreements. Vann stated, we will
agree to put the sidewalk in, we will resolve the sidewalk
alignment and specifications to the satisfaction of Engineering and
Parks. If that involves the entire length, that's what we'll
build. If you decide you don't want it in that location, we'll
agree to that as part of the subdivision agreement and we'll build
what it is you agree is appropriate.
Roth stated, the City has received other land use applications with
difficult sidewalk situations where the applicant is providing
easement on the property for the sidewalk. Vann stated, it doesn't
really work here because of the parking. Kerr stated, what Sunny
just said covers it, and Condition 15 incorporates everything that
Sunny just said. He says they're .going to make sure a sidewalk
gets built, that's good enough for me.
Hunt stated, your plan shows two new hydrants in the access and
utility easement, and the text on page 29, paragraph 108, indicates
one, how many do we get? Vann answered, we will meet the
requirement under the subdivision regulations for spacing. I wrote
the application while Hans Broker with Banner Associates was still
developing those plans, I've seen the discussions with the fire
chief; he indicated a preference for two, if that's what's
required, that's what we will provide.
Hunt stated, also, on page 7, paragraph 3, you indicate that there
will be an access turnaround and I don't see it on the plan. Vann
answered, it is a hammerhead turnaround so we don't have to eat up
half the site with a hugh cul-de-sac. It has been reviewed by the
Fire Department. This cannot be used for parking.
Hunt stated, the last item for me is the harriest one. It relates
to the two close curb cuts, which I know that Engineering,
generally, doesn't like. But more particularly, I'm very concerned
about that approximately five foot grade change on your access road
M:
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
and how you are going to do that. That means to me that you are
going to have to move an awful lot of dirt somehow or another. I
would like to know just how you are going to do that. It looks to
me that any grade down there; you're going to have a major grade
change between the road and Lot 6, inevitably.
Vann stated, (referring to map), this lot will be filled in this
area, and it will be feathered back to permit a general downhill
through this area. We thought about consolidating the grade and
some of the radius requirements here would acquire into this area
here and lose parking for the existing tenants. 15 parking spaces
is what we need to provide, but it's guest parking, provides
overflow and.this is a nice, landscaped, grass area. So, rather
than trying to come in in one place, cross the ditch, make a huge
turn radius, and so forth, we elected not to do that. You raised
a very good point regarding what this is actually going to look
.like. The code requires us to submit a plan profile and engineering
drawings for the next stage of review, and that is our intent to
do so. If the Engineering Department has a problem with that when
it comes up, we may have to re -visit that issue. It did not
require that detailed grading plan at the conceptual level, so, the
way it is set up now, that issue would get further deferred to City
Council. What I would suggest is to note your concerns about it
and if it comes in with the detailed drawings, and the staff feels
that it doesn't address your concerns, they may elect for us to
come back on that issue and discuss if further.
Roth asked, is there 25 ft. between the driveway and .... Vann
answered, yes, there is more than that. Roth stated, that's what
the code requires, Roger, is 25 feet. Vann referred to the map
again, and stated there were no curb cuts. He said, there is one
parcel here, and there is one parcel here which is accessed off of
Gibson Avenue, so, there is only one other parcel here, and I'm not
sure, but I think it is also owned by Hunter Creek. It's the area
behind the building that sits right here (referring to map). So,
the potential for substantial development and additional curb cuts
along here is limited. In either case, even if you go through that
existing driveway that's out there, we still have a major grade
change, between there and Lot 6. Roth stated, that driveway needs
to be looked at as a road, because the driveway generally serves
the same as the road does. Vann stated, under the code, a driveway
will serve up to seven residences. Kerr asked, City code or County
code? Vann answered, as far as I know, the City code. Roth
stated, I don't think I've seen that, I'm not familar with that.
Vann stated, the point is, if we build a City street here to serve
six residences, we have destroyed this site. What we need is an
adequate roadway, paved surface, to accommodate two lanes of
traffic, with no parking on it, to accommodate emergency vehicles
so they can get in and out of the site, with the least amount of
39
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
obstruction to the site as possible. As the Planning Office
pointed out, they would also like to have a separate, dedicated
walkway along that road so that these residents do not have to walk
on this pavement to get here. What we are trying to get away from
is classic curb and gutter on site. So, this is a problematic
area, we're certainly aware of it, we are planning on addressing
it as we go forward, and as I said, Roger, the best thing to do is
to note the concern and if the Planning Office thinks it hasn't
been adequately addressed, we'll discuss it further.
Lamont stated, so, essentially, with having the fill and the grade,
we are going to lose primarily that entire aspen grove. Vann
responded, we are having a problem with the "topo" not fitting
completely here, and one of the things that Leslie has asked to do,
is to come back and locate all the trees over 6 inches which will
give us a better idea if there's anything over 6 in this area.
This is primarily a grove of small aspen samplings, there may or
may not be a couple that are 6 inches in here, but for the most
part, they are very small. To the extent that they are aspen, they
can be replanted and I think, the only landscape plan that we are
going to propose, is the access road, and it's shielded from this
particular site (referring to the map), and we are going to
establish minimal landscape guidelines for the construction of the
individual homes, like no manipulation of the vegetation outside
the envelopes, and specify things that need to be done. We're not
proposing to come in and landscape all of this area. So, except
that we lose some smaller aspen in this area, it is our intent to
offset that lose through additional landscaping. Something has to
give somewhere. I think we have tried to preserve most of the
major site features, I think we can address Leslie's concerns, at
least in part, on some of these other key features that she wants
to talk about, we can certainly fine-tune some of these building
envelopes to address some of the concerns she has raised. We are
going to have to do some grading on the site. I think it is
remarkable that we can develop a project of this scale and have
this amount of grading on site. If you compared this to Williams
Ranch, where you are moving soil all over the place, I think it is
remarkable that we can do it with so minimal a site disruption.
Hunt stated, what they are showing here is, basically, just the
access that's there, but my point is, that you will probably have
to fill in this area here (referring to map), as well, in order to
get the sidewalk. Vann stated, and that will provide an
opportunity for landscaping. Hunt said, that's all "stuff" I would
have liked to have seen. I will just make a comment about the
mound. If the mound is so important, it could be moved somewhere
else and put a flagpole on it or something like that. I don't have
a problem with that mound on the building site vanishing. Move the
darn thing, if it's that necessary. Vann stated, we can't replant
the sage.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
Kerr asked, Roger, would you be satisfied with some kind of
condition saying that entryway, and the grades, and all that, must
satisfy the Engineering Department? In affect, that's what
Condition #C-2 says, I think. They've got to submit a subdivision
plat and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for a review and we
could add in the word "and approval by the Engineering and Planning
Departments". I don't feel qualified, as a lay person, to be
making decisions about the grade changes in the entryway. Lamont
stated, I would recommend that that language be put under 16, where
we talk about prior subdivision review by Council following issues
that shall be resolved. Kerr answered, I don't care where it gets
resolved, but when. Lamont continued, so, it would be number c.,
Vann stated, that's fine, because the code already dictates that
we provide certain additional material. We used to have a four -
step subdivision process, and we consolidated to two. It has
created certain problems because normally conceptual process is
shorter, you don't get to see as much information as you did under
the old process because now it gets done when it goes to f inal plat
at Council. If you remember, you "guys" were trying to shorten
the process, so that was one of the things that fell out of it.
Kerr stated, shorten the process and lengthen out meetings. Is
there a word from you, Roger? Hunt stated, I ' m not too happy about
it, but I guess it will do. Vann, stated, once we get it, I'd be
happy to sit down and show you what we are doing. Hunt replied,
the problem is, you're going to make, basically, a hole for that
Lot 6 building envelope to sit in. Vann stated, it's already a
hole. Hunt said, I agree, it is already a hole, obviously there's
five or six feet along that edge, but now it's going to be wrapped
around it. Vann stated, when you think about it, the height
requirements on that lot are problematic anyway, because we have
to measure height from existing or finished grade whichever one is
more restrictive. So, it doesn't do any good to grade it and fill
it, because it doesn't help the height situation, so, my thinking
would be that we would use that grading and also accommodate some
of the landscaping to shield that home. So, I think it's a
problem, but I don't think it is something we can't resolve.
Kerr asked, Leslie, do you have language for '16-c? Lamont
answered, "prior to subdivision review by Council, the following
issues shall be resolved: C. a grade plan shall be submitted
indicating.." Roth interrupted saying, I think it's in a., isn't
it? "A revised site plan shall be submitted indicating the
internal pedestrian way". Lamont continued saying, "identification
of trees greater than six inches in caliper, and grading plan for
access drive". Kerr stated, so, you're standing on 16-a? Lamont
said, yes. Kerr said, good.
Buettow stated, if we go with that issue, I have some concerns
about the initial trade. I feel that the City is getting the short
41
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
end of the trade of the existing building for all these rights.
For instance, the present building is "maxed out" at
for its usage, right now, and if we traded for. affordable housing
or employee units, it's already being used for that, and in
particular, five of the units don't meet out code and our Housing
approval and if we are only going to take 6 or 7 of them, instead
of all 8, we should at least take the 3-bedroom ones that are the
nicest units and let the owner keep, for his free market, the ones
that are underground and so much smaller.
Vann stated, let's look back, and first of all, the code says that
even though they will be used as defacto housing, you can check the
rents over there, they are fairly high, they are not low income
which was proposed under this guideline, because they are very nice
units. In fact, Mr. Mocklin owns one of the 3-bedrooms and the
others are rented out at fair market values. Our plans says, even
though they may be defacto housing it is important to maintain them
as part of the enventory. Our feeling was, and think the City has
already agreed, so I don't think it is even on the table here, that
the swapping of those units is within the intent of the provision
of the code that provides the growth management exemption. In
other words, you are getting more units than what could be torn
down and I would be required to replace. As I pointed out earlier,
you are getting an income category that is below that which would
ordinarily be required under the replacement provision. You're
getting seven of the eight units, and the seventh unit would
increase the square footage as being deed restricted, as to being
over the minimal requirement if I was to tear the building down.
Furthermore, the reason for maintaining Mr. Mocklin's unit; he may
wish to live in that unit until he decides to leave this community.
So, no, I don't want to deed restrict Mr. Mocklin's unit, you are
getting one of the 3-bedrooms deed restricted to deed restricted
status which takes you over the requirement and Mr. Mocklin will
then have the ability to live within his existing unit for so long
as he chooses to remain within this community.
Buettow stated, this whole project is not in compliance with the
Aspen Area Community Plan, which recommends open space there.
Thirdly, I really feel that with the R15 zone, FAR that's allowed,
we're going to end up with 7,000 to 8,000 sq. ft. houses on half
acres lots and lots of them, and they are going to be very large.
And so, I would prefer to see an R15B designation for this area.
I think would keep it much more in scale with a subdivision like
this that should be small in scale rather than having very large
houses. I see a very large square footage because this site does
have radical changes of grade in it, where you can do walk -out
basements; you have very large basements in there. The access
road, you definitely should have conditions so that doesn't become
a private situation similar to the 1010 Ute Avenue. The site
landscape has a lot of problems that need more consideration as far
Z
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
as how to put these envelopes on the site and not graded flat. I
have some serious considerations about this subdivision.
Vann answered saying, as far as the zoning, the City zoned it, I
didn't zone it; they zoned it R15A, it should be zoned RMF and I
think it already has a legal argument of why it should be RMF. So,
we are developing under existing zoning and attempting to maximize
the size of the lots with respect to the minimal requirement of the
R15 zone district. As far as the walkout basements, I don't think
it's possible because we can't disturb outside of the building
envelope. I guess you could dig a. hole down within the building
envelope and have an area where you could walk out, but you would
never see it from the street. Non-compliance with the community
plan, let me state this regarding the open space, for the record,
the plan recommends or suggests that it should be in an appropriate
location for acquisition as open space. To date, no one has
approached Mr. Mocklin regarding the acquisition of that property.
We have stated in our application that we would entertain any such
request, I think it is unreasonable to expect Mr. Mocklin to give
it to the City, and if the City would like to come forward, or any
other party, I'm sure he would be willing to talk to them. In the
interim, he is trying to do some estate planning regarding his
property, and he is trying to do it out of existing regulations
which are applied to his property. I might also mention, the
referral comments from the Parks Department itself, indicated that
this was no longer high priority for acquisition as a park because
of the decisions that were made in respect to the Snyder property,
I believe, and with the Williams Ranch project's proposal or
requirement *to improve the Molly Gibson Park as part 'of its
application. If this was to be acquired, I don't think the City
would acquire the entire site, because I don't think they want to
destroy the existing building and displace residents. So, what
they would be looking at is acquiring that portion of the project
which we are proposing to subdivide for single-family; I think the
City would probably recognize that its appraised value of single-
family verses its desirability for open space is not an economical,
viable, opportunity for the City. As Mr. Mocklin has pointed out,
he is willing to attain an offer for the property if someone would
like to buy it for open space purposes.
Vann stated, as far as the FARs, I don't believe you going to be
able to do a 8,000 sq. ft. lot. We are going to re -calculate the
FARs once we subtract out the easements, as requested by Leslie.
It is kind of premature to calculate it, because I'm not sure what
the new FAR regulations are going to be. The mayor is still
calling for an across the board reduction, perhaps, in overall FAR,
so it' s hard to say where this is going to be with the most liberal
interpretation of the existing regulations and not subtracting the
easement, which you tell me is incorrect, is around 4,000-plus
Z
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
feet. So, it can't go anywhere but down with the requirement to
subtract the easement and with the potential requirements that are
coming out of the new FAR regulations.
Lamont stated, allowable FAR on a 15,000 sq. ft. lot in this zone
district is 4,500 sq. ft. Buettow stated, you've got a large
garage, you've got 500 sq. ft. ADU, you've got a full basement
under there, these are going to be very large houses. Lamont
stated, ADUs would not be required. Garton stated, so, we could
say, no, to ADUs here, Steve. Buettow stated, they are going to
ask for ADUs, I'll make a prediction. Vann stated, when the City
changes its regulations to say they are mandatory rentals I think
you will see an automatic dryup of any requests for further ADUs.
The beauty of the ADU is the flexibility, admittedly, some people
tend to abuse it, or may abuse it, but there are also those who
legitimately use it for that purpose.
Garton stated, my big concern with this is the height of the roofs
and I don't think we can put that into a subdivision approval.
Hopefully, this will be under... because it's under first reading
already, Leslie, they will be required to comply with whatever is
in affect, right, as far as this new ordinance goes? Lamont
answered, yes. Garton stated, regarding the language providing
the installation of signage in Condition 3-d., I would like to
see ... I just live in that area, and I know how confused people are
navigating; I definitely think there has to be some kind of signage
saying, dead end, no public thoroughfare, or something. To say no
signage at all, is unrealistic.
Garton continued saying, Condition 12 about lighting. Chuck
recommended in a memorandum about the antique street lighting,
which I am happy to see that the staff does not recommend. I like
this condition, Sunny. Vann stated, I think this is an internal
lighting, I think, if I'm not mistaken. Garton stated, I hate to
see the antique lamp posts go over to that area. This is not the
old City plot, and for those antique lamp posts to go over on any
of the public streets there, I think is very inappropriate. They
don't fit, they don't work, they could be a kind of ranch lighting,
put the Design Workshop on it, or something like that; it would be
much more appropriate to the more rural areas that are over there.
Vann stated, our feeling on it is, that the subdivision regulations
require the installation of street lighting, I think there will
probably be a requirement that some go along Lone Pine; the City
also required us to pay for.more lighting beyond which they
installed, on Gibson, which I find ironic; we didn't put it in
because we didn't think it was necessary. Nonetheless, the code
says we will install street lighting and I assume we are at the
mercy of the City and to what that is and how many. Garton stated,
it is.just a recommendation to look harder at the design of the
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
poles that are over there and for the City to also consider getting
rid of all the sodium vapor lighting, which is really inappropriate
around town. They look like prison lighting. And, Leslie, I think
deducting from the allotment pool for affordable housing is not at
all with the intent of what the community plan said. The community
plan wants growth to be deducted as growth, and this is not new
growth, so, no, I do not think it should be deducted, these 7
units, from the Housing allotment pool. That wasn't the intent of
those kinds of deductions.
Mooney stated, can you again, tell me why this should be exempt
from the GMQS? Lamont answered, right now, in the code, we exempt
by Planning Director from competition and from pulling out of our
allotment pool, demolition and replacement of housing. The theory
was, originally that if there are six units on your property, if
you were going to tear down and then you were going to put six
units back on your property, theoretically, that was not growth.
What happened with Ordinance 1 is we are losing apartment buildings
that were defacto local housing. So, Ordinance 1 said, if you are
going to tear down and replace your six units on your property, you
have to mitigate your employee housing generation. So, Ordinance
1, said you have to put back, not only put back your six units that
you tore down, but you also have to put back on your property, 50
percent of the bedrooms that were in the old building, and 50
percent of the FAR of that old building as deed restricted housing.
The reason it was exempt from the competition was because it was
not considered growth, we were just tearing down and replacing.
It was not exempted ,from the allotment pools because there were no
new units going on the market. We were getting potentially new
units on the market, but they were affordable housing units,
because they were not only replacing what they had, they had to
provide affordable housing. . The Housing Replacement Program
doesn't allow you to cash -out, you have to put the affordable
housing back on the property. So, maybe, you've got ten units back
on the property when originally there were six. Now, when we
revised our growth management section in the code, we still kept
the demolition and replacement as exempt from competition. We
still say that if you tear down and replace multi -family, you have
to put deed restricted housing on the site as part of the Housing
Replacement Program. What we didn't say in that language is that
new affordable housing is exempt from coming out of the pool.
Buettow stated, but, these units here are essentially, already
affordable housing, so what we've got is growth of six houses,
despite all the "mumbo jumbo". It's the same amount that is
already there. Mooney stated, I don't get that, either.
Lamont stated, sure, we could say, these units are free market,
whether they feel and look like free market units, they are ' f ree
market units and are not deed restricted. Peter could tear down
45
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
the building tomorrow and build back and do six parcels, free
market homes. Or, he could tear down a luxury condo building of
six condos tomorrow. Mooney asked, what about the free market
houses, I mean, why are they exempt? I can see how the push
between the existing building and the elimination of the ADUs is
what we are talking about. But, why aren't the free market lots
competing there?
Mary Lackner of staff stated, the City has recognized they're
exchanging each unit in that multi -family building for a free
market unit. They said, the equivalent of this, one or two or
three -bedroom unit in that multi -family building, is the equivalent
of one single-family house. That's where the demolition and re-
construction that Leslie's talking about is coming from.
Commissioner Blaich excused himself from the meeting during the
proceedings for personal reasons as expressed to Chairman Kerr.
Mooney stated, so, what you are saying is, that the existing
improvements are the equivalent of six single-family homes? Lamont
stated, they are the equivalent of eight, because there are eight
units in the apartment. Mooney stated, it looks to me, it's two
different parcels that we have. Lamont said, our code always, and
still, today, says when you demolish and replace. Mooney said,
O.K., we've got this theory that if he did demolish it, then, he
would be penalizing himself, and so, he's not going to do that.
Lamont stated, no, the theory is, with eight free market units on
it. Now, one of the units is only 370 sq. ft. If that was all
that was on that parcel, a 370 sq. ft. shed, that was considered
a legal dwelling unit, Peter could tear that down and rebuild back
a 4,500 sq. ft. home. Growth management and the replacement and
whether you have credits on your land, meaning a development
allotment on your land, has never taken into consideration that
what we lose, and what is replaced are two very distinctly
different structures. That was the whole point behind trying to
come out of living unit equivalent for growth management, which is
not in these regulations, which we may still work on. So, he has
eight free market units on that property; he could tear down that
building today and build back, in whatever configuration he wants
to rebuild on his property, those eight free market units, exempt
from competition, exempt from coming out of the allotment pool.
Mooney asked, exempt from Ordinance 1? Lamont said, no. But the
only difference in this is, because of Ordinance 1, because he has
to, if he tears down and replaces, put in housing on the property;
the request came to us a couple of years ago, why do we have to
tear down our building to build affordable housing on our property?
We have enough land to realize our eight free market units, in
whatever configuration we want, and supply our affordable housing,
without tearing down our building. Why do we have to tear down our
building? So, the theory is that tearing down and building back,
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUKE 6, 1995
on the same piece of land, is no growth. On six of those units,
the code is pretty clear on, those six free market units are not
considered growth. What the code is not clear on is when someone
provides employee housing, whether they deed restrict existing
housing or whether they build new employee housing on the parcel,
where does that come out of? Hunt stated, don't you mean
affordable housing? Lamont stated, affordable housing, I'm sorry.
I don't disagree with you that it is already defacto affordable
housing. Hunt stated, no, it's not affordable housing. Lamont
said, it's not on our enventory, it's not deed restricted. Once
it becomes deed restricted he has met his obligation for
mitigation. Garton stated, it should not come out of the pool, to
me, because it is not increased growth.
Lamont stated, one thing that you need to decide on that is not
reflected in my conditions of approval, is how many units would you
recommend that are deed restricted? Six units, as the applicant
proposes, seven units, as the Housing Office recommends, or eight
units as Steve recommends. I failed to include that in my
conditions of approval.
Kerr stated, we haven't decided anything yet. Vann stated, just
in response to that one issue; there is precedent for deed
restricting additional units in sufficient number to meet the
minimum square footage requirement. Since the deed restriction of
the one additional 3-bedroom unit will take us over and above the
minimum requirements, and because of the generosity regarding the
income categories, to which Mr. Mocklin has proposed to deed
restrict them, I think we would agree to do one additional unit.
I would not agree to do all eight units, for reasons I stated
before; Mr. Mocklin would .like to live on the property for the rest
of his tenure in this town and it is not necessary to deed restrict
it to comply with the affordable housing guidelines, nor has the
Housing Authority asked that all eight units be deed restricted.
MOTION
Garton stated, I move to approve the special review for floor area
ratio, parking and open space for Lot 7 of the Mocklin Subdivision.
Hunt seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor,
motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Mooney stated, I think this is where we should talk about whether
or not additional development can happen on this parcel. Parcel
7, right? Garton asked, you would like me to add a condition to
my motion that the existing floor area ratio remains? Mooney
stated, I think, looking at what we are approving, and considering
the approvals we are going to get for the density of the rest of
47
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
the property, I would like to see something that says that this
parcel has the integrity of what we are voting on. Garton stated,
it says, special review for floor area ratio. Floor area ratio is
stated. Lamont added, you could do that, but, for example, if the
building burned down, someone could come up with a different
configuration. What I would suggest to say is, with the following
condition that the existing floor area, density, and free market
affordable housing mix shall be maintained without a substantial
amendment to the subdivision that requires P&Z and Council review.
Lamont stated, I would also make it a recommendation under
Subdivision, not your Special Review, your Subdivision. Kerr
stated, I don't think this motion is the place to make some kind
of additional condition. Garton stated, so, my motion stands as
written.
MOTION
Garton stated, I move to recommend to.Council Subdivision approval
of the Mocklin property to seven parcels with the conditions
outlined in Planning Office memo dated June 6, 1995, as amended.
In my motion I would like to allow limited signage indicating that
it is not a through street. Hunt seconded, voting commenced, vote
was.4 approved, 1 opposed (Buettow), motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Garton stated, in my motion I would like to allow limited signage
indicating that it is not a through street. Lamont stated, so,
signage shall be limited to "not a through street".
Kerr asked, what about the maintenance on the sidewalk. Garton
stated, you know, this is what I've asked for on Neal Street, as
Chuck knows, a study. I thought we were going to review all these
linking, what I consider, trailway sidewalks. I'm wondering if
it's proper to ask the homeowners to maintain this. We were going
to do an enventory but we considered main trail sidewalks. Roth
stated, one way I would differentiate between sidewalks and trails
is that sidewalks are always in conjunction with the street and
they are always adjacent to the street, whereas, the trail
generally isn't and generally goes between two other points.
Kerr stated, my feeling on this one is that, it's an enforcement
issue and I don't want to see it as a condition of approval; if the
code already says a joint property owner must maintain the
sidewalk, that's good enough for me. If the City chooses to
enforce it, then that's between the City and the property owner.
Garton said, that's what we've.been doing on those areas, already.
There was discussion at random regarding the issue of sidewalks.
Garton stated, I will eliminate the condition then.
Hunt stated, we missed 3-g. for the record, it would now be f. No
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUKE 6, 1995
tracking of mud and dirt on the City streets. Vann stated, those
are City requirements they're not subdivision requirements, but if
you want to put it into the agreement, that's O.K.
Kerr stated, 4-h. is the one Sunny had a problem with. Lamont
stated, I asked the City Attorneys about this. They told me I
could ask for it, and I will check with them again before Council
to see if it is a problematic condition of approval, but I have not
check with them since. Vann stated, that's fine with me. Kerr
stated, leave it in.
Kerr said, 5-b. Lamont stated, I have a whole one -page memorandum
here from Lee Cassin anticipating this argument. It basically
talks about why they request PM10 mitigation, and it talks about
the fact that it's not that difficult for applicants to comply,
they need to work with the Environmental Health Department. They
have standards and they have tables. Garton stated, I think it was
Mr. Kaufman saying that there is actually no way to measure that.
Lamont stated, Mr. Kaufman hasn't worked with the Environmental
Health Department. Vann stated, I have. I'm not objecting to the
concept of amendment, I just think, and you've heard me say this
many times, that if you want to impose things like this, amend your
code and provide a regulation, and apply it uniformly to people
that come through. The Planning Office, and I think Leslie will
agree, cannot sit here and tell me.. Garton said, I agree with you,
Sunny, I don't know how you measure the increase in PM10, I don't
know how you do that on six lots. Lee has to come here someday and
explain it to us. Lamont stated, I don't disagree with Sunny that
it's not being applied uniformly. Garton stated, I'm not going to
make it a condition. Lamont stated, there are a lot of things that
are not in the land use code, but people are required to comply.
Fireplaces and stoves are some of them.
Kerr said, 5-e. You agree to move 6-b. to 5-e. Garton stated, 6-
b. becomes part of 5-e., that makes sense.
Kerr stated, in Condition 8, you have a period after the word,
"site". Lamont stated, right, and delete it.
Lamont stated, on 16 -a . we added a grading plan and profile for the
access drive.
Lamont stated, just for clarity's sake, on C-1. I would recommend
that you add, any cost to the public services that must be
installed or upgraded shall be borne by the applicant, including
the sidewalk curb and gutter. Garton stated, just for logic, I
think 15 ought to be the last condition, by the way. Kerr stated,
just re -number 15 and 16.
49
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
MOTION
Garton stated, I move to recommend to Council the rezoning of the
Mocklin property, Lot 7, to the Affordable Housing zone district.
Hunt seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor,
motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Lamont stated, with the following condition that the existing FAR
density and free market/affordable housing mix shall remain unless
any proposal shall be a substantial amendment to the subdivision.
Vann stated, that's probably what the code says now. Kerr asked,
is it in or out? Garton stated, it's out. Kerr said, the motion
is as stated in the memorandum.
Lamont stated, you did not indicate whether you would recommend
six, seven or eight units.
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to recommend seven deed restricted housing
units in Lot 7. Garton seconded. Voting commenced, vote was
unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Kerr closed the public hearing on the Mocklin property.
TIMROTH 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR A DRIVEWAY
Mary Lackner represented staff and stated, Lenny Oates and Jerry
Timroth are here and this is a request to construct a parallel
access road with Spruce Street to access at Timroth Parcel. This
parcel was approved by the County and he is ready to go with his
building permits, except he can't get access across the existing
Spruce Street. Before Williams Ranch was approved, Mr. Timroth was
able to get an access easement through that parcel to access his
property. So, he's got legal access on paper, but doesn't have the
ability to construct it without going through this 8040 Greenline
Review with the City. Here's some pictures of existing Spruce
Street and looking down where the access road will be constructed.
Lackner described on map the parcels, and where the access road is
proposed to be. She stated, this request is to develop, along this
access easement that has been granted, about 330 feet. Under the
8040 approvals, staff has some concerns that it is a parallel
50
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
access road that is additional disturbance in an 8040 Greenline
area. We have outstanding concerns with that. The City road
departments require a minimum of 20 foot lot access road, but
because th.is.will be accessing two residences in the County and a
proposed one in the City, staff feels we can go to the 12 foot
minimum access requirements of the County, and that the City parcel
can get alternative access from within the subdivision.
Lackner stated, I'll be brief; in this, staff is uncomfortable, you
can probably tell that from my memorandum, but we don't know of
another alternative to allow the applicant to get access to his
parcel, and we think we are reducing disturbance as much as
possible. We're recommending that it go to a 12 foot wide access
road. We are looking at reducing air quality impacts by having
them do some kind of dust mitigation plan, and also, all trees that
are taken out be replaced.
She stated, there are some concerns that the Engineering Department
raised, and Lenny has a follow-up letter to that (attached in
record) .
Kerr asked, Mary is that all of your presentation. Lackner
replied, yes, but I will answer any questions you may have.
Kerr asked, Lenny, do you have anything? Oates answered, we will
be more than happy to answer any questions that you might have.
For the record, I'm Lenny Oates, and I'm here on behalf of Jerry
Timroth. Jerry, a resident of Aspen in excess of 30 years, desires
to build on these properties. Likewise, his son, who owns the
adjoining lot, wishes to construct his residence on his lot. Also
here, is Hans Broker, who is with Banner Engineering. Hans
supplemented the material he originally provided to us in response
to Chuck Roth's May 16th memorandum. I'm sorry for the lateness
of getting this to you, however, we just got it this afternoon, and
apparently Hans did not understand the time crush we were under.
The proposals that Hans makes in this letter, we concur in. Also,
we are willing to accept all the conditions as set forth in the
Planning Office's recommendation. I want the Planning and Zoning
Commission to know that we did use best efforts to obtain a right
along existing Spruce Street. It wasn't even a question of whether
or not that we could pay for it, it was just a flat denial by the
property owner that they wouldn't even deal with us with respect
to the matter.
Oates stated, the easement which we do have within Silverlode is
an access that was created in 1989. I think that at that point and
time it was recognized that that particular property owner might
pose some difficulty in alternative accesses. We will be more than
happy to answer any questions you might have with respect to the
easement or respond to any suggestions that you might have, and
51
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
I'll just close it up with that.
Buettow stated, you had a question about the agreement to use this
Spruce Street; are you sure that absolutely every legal possibility
has been explored on that because building this road here, right
next to the other one, seems like an incredible waste for just a
lack of an agreement. Oates answered, I don't disagree with you
on that, however, it's really beyond our control. We have
attempted to enter into discussions with that property owner and
have had discussions with his representative who just says, that
he just doesn't want to deal with it.
Garton stated, Lenny, I thought that the State required that you
had to provide access, a private owner did, to any other private
owner who's lot was beyond. The State says that. Oates answered,
I don't believe so. Garton said, we used to be in development in
Vail, and we sure had to. Oates said, I don't think there's any
requirement, there is a private right-of-way of necessity which
might be available to a property owner if this property were land-
locked by virtue of being split off from a larger common parcel.
Also, in some circumstances that might be a private right-of-way
of condemnation, but that's an extremely difficult process.
Buettow asked, but there's no rights that are associated with this?
Do you call this a street? Lackner asked Chuck Roth of
Engineering, where does it change from public to private, do you
know, Spruce Street? Roth answered, I don't know if I can say that
definitively. The County just recently had a case up on Castle
Creek that I read.about in the papers, where there was a similar
situation where a property owner, basically, condemned the access
through a different property owner and then the County backed off
and made some other arrangements. Oates stated, I'm certainly
hopeful that the adjoining property owner will reconsider. I'm
hopeful, and frankly, that's one of our thoughts. Indeed, just for
your information, part of the existing Spruce Street is on our
property, it's that close to the property line, so it actually laps
over. He's actually using part of our property to access, if that
makes a lot of difference? You would have to see it, but it is
sort of a very homogeneous kind of situation up there with respect
to where this road runs.
Hunt asked, I would sort of like to know where the accesses are off
the existing Spruce Street on the north side here? This apparently
goes onto a Witz easement. Oates answered, yes. Hunt stated, and
this Witz has use of this Spruce Street? Oates answered, yes.
Hunt stated, my inclination would be, where it overlaps, fine,
stick a jersey dairy around that north side and prevent him from
using that portion of Spruce Street. This is really ridiculous.
Oates said, nobody wants to escalate this thing, and we want to be
52
PLANNING & ZONING_ COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
as sensitive as we can be in connection with the whole thing. I'm
optimistic that it will work at the end of the day, and maybe we
won't have to use this. That's our sincere hope, we don't want to
be here.
Hunt stated, right now, what you're proposing is, basically, making
Spruce Street a sort of a strange four -lane for that portion,
right? Oates answered, something like that. From our perspective,
we don't even care if they move the whole thing over so that it
occupies the easement. Maybe the Williams Ranch people do, but we
don't.
Kerr stated, just to remind my commissioners that our task is not
to answer the questions about the easements or the access, but to
determine whether the new 380 foot section complies with the
requirements of 8040 Greenline. All these other issues are kind
of neat and fun to talk about, but that's not really our task.
Garton stated, it's very hard to approve it though. Hunt stated,
it sort of sticks in one's crawl. Kerr stated, there are 8040
requirements, they are supposed to mitigate, and the visual
impacts, and grading and all that sort of stuff; if their plans
have done that, along with the conditions, then I think that's all
we really need to discuss.
Garton asked, John (Worcester) has already looked at this, there's
nothing the City can do? Lackner stated, yes, he has looked at it
and he agrees that we can build in a lower road standard to reduce
impacts. We can't force the other property owner to give them
access. Hunt stated, I suggest that if Spruce Street is an
official City name, that it get transferred over to the middle
right-of-way, and just make that "guy's" access wherever his
driveway is. Don't give him the nicety of having an address on
Spruce Street. Garton stated, I know what Roger's saying, it
shouldn't be named Spruce Street if it's a private road. Hunt
said, exactly.
MOTION
Mooney stated, I'll make a motion, I think that for the leverage
that you need, I move to approve the 8040 Greenline Review for an
approximately 380 foot access drive to be used by the Albert and
Donna Timroth Parcel and the Grant Timroth Parcel, with the
conditions noted in the Planning Office memorandum dated June 6,
1995. Hunt seconded. Vote commenced, vote was 4 in favor, one
opposed (Garton), motion carried.
53
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
FARISH HALLAM LAKE ESA REVIEW
RECONSIDERATION
Kim Johnson represented staff and stated, this is back to you
because you voted to bring this back to reconsider it on April
25th . Apparently, the staff and P&Z, when they first reviewed this
in March, was not aware that the house would be totally demolished;
we were under certain assumptions that the rear portion of the
property would be left in tact, or substantially in tact, and
therefore, would remain in the 15 foot setback of the new
development area. I provided for you information from the packet
that you originally reviewed, and I tried to highlight the areas
where specific reference was made to this part of the building.
My memorandum sets forth for you options available to either
approve this demolished with replaced portion of the building with
certain findings along the criteria for special review for the
Hallam Lake. What this particular avenue would hinge upon is your
finding a unique condition on the site which would create a
hardship and an unworkable design problem in order to allow this
special review to be approved. We mentioned in the past, including
at the original meeting, that the site is heavily vegetated with
spruce trees and this is the site plan that would indicate to you,
along the road frontage here (referring to map) , that there's major
spruce trees in the front part of the lot. Where they are, adding
totally new square footage, pretty much takes advantage of what
area on the site would allow for further development. We want to
make sure that if you did approve a special review like this, that
there would be special condition finding, because we want the P&Z
to be able to set a precedence, so that if there are other
demolition and replacement type projects coming forward to you that
it wouldn't be just a handy way for someone to get out of totally
demolishing and totally replacing something that may also be in
that 15 foot setback of new development.
Johnson stated, alternatively, you could make the finding that the
building has to remain as is but we would also want to have
clarification from the architect, specifically, what would be
remaining so that we aren't all confused and somewhat surprised
down the road to find two or three studs up and the rest of the
building removed. You could also make some findings that the walls
themselves could remain, but the hip roof would need to be lowered
to a flat roof section which currently, it is a flat roof now, and
that would limit somewhat the intrusion into that 15 foot setback
area.
Johnson stated, I tried to summarize my summary on the back sheet,
54
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
I don't know if I necessarily hit anyone right on the head, but
we're just forwarding that to you for your review.
Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, stated, I'd like to
lead you through this as quickly as possible. If you will remember
the discussion that we had the last time focused upon the need to
keep the development within the existing footprint because of all
the trees that' were there. For some reason, there is a
misunderstanding among some members of the P&Z, as to whether or
not the existing walls would remain, we would add on to that or
remove. Just so it's very clear, in our application for the Farish
Hallam Lake Bluff Review response to release standards, in which
we asked for the special review, we specifically stated, that the
applicant intends to reuse the existing foundation for the new
development and will reconstruct the walls and roof so that the
roof will not extend past the top of the slope line. I want to put
that out very clearly, that there was no misrepresentation on our
part, we're sorry that there was some misunderstanding, but our
application clearly explained what we intended to do. If the P&Z
feels better, we can preserve the existing wall, and add onto it.
I don't know that that accomplishes a whole lot, but if you feel
better and feel that that what you approved, we're willing to go
along with maintaining the existing wall and lending to it, as
opposed to removing the existing wall and making the structure go
up, which is a lot easier, and the end result is the same, but it
works better. So, we are willing to do either one of those things.
Our intention was, rather than keep the wall like this
(demonstrating with paper), and then add to the wall like this,
what we were going to do is take wall down and build one wall like
that. The hardship that was discussed and the reasons are the
same, and that is, that the site is such that the trees are there,
the only place to really build is within the footprint, and what
we wanted to be able to do is to add the roof in the livingroom so
it went above 8 feet. I'm happy to address them with you if you
would like us to go to what you thought you were approving, which
was keeping the wall and adding to it and we can do that; we
thought it made more sense to just take the wall down and rebuild
it. We're happy to discuss either of those options.
Kerr stated, let me say, that I was one of those on the P&Z who
also, along with Steve, was one the Special Review Overlay, and
that's kind of how this issue arose. I have since been satisfied
that if we were to makea special finding, special conditions, and
then also approve it subject to all the same conditions that were
part of the original ESA approval, I don't have a problem with it
now. It was my misunderstanding, I don't know about you, Steve,
I just misunderstood what was happening before, so I don't
personally have a problem with, especially based on the application
where I clearly see it, that they are going to build on the same
M
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, 1995
foundation. I was my misunderstanding about the wall. Is that #4,
Kim, in your list of options? Johnson answered, yes.
Garton asked, Gideon, would you point out, because you've attached
an application... Kaufman stated, Farish Hallam Lake Bluff Review
Response to Review Standards, #2-1. Sheet that says, existing
livingroom wing at the south easterly corner. Halfway through
there, it says, the applicant intends to reuse the existing
foundation for new development and will reconstruct the walls and
roof, so the roof will not extend past the top of slope line.
Hunt stated, my recommendation is to let this go on. I don't think
there was any misrepresentation, I think it's something that I
missed, along with some other people. So, there's no point in
holding up this applicant on this issue. However, I want to lock
firmly the barn door, now that it has been opened, and would like
us to consider something in _the remodeled language or demolition
language if more than 50 percent of the house is remodeled or
demolished, that puts the developer at risk of complying with all
required setback requirements, etc. That might have helped us
catch this type of thing. I do have a problem with a remodel of
the house where literally they pull out about six studs and a
little bit of roof, set it over to the side, and that's all that's
left of this historic structure that's being, quote, remodeled.
Kerr stated, we already have that option, Roger. If we had really
wanted to, we could have told this applicant, or any other
applicant, you have to move it back, you can't use that foundation.
Kerr stated, the special condition was the trees; we felt like the
trees were worthy enough of saving and not to change that
footprint. Because of the way the Hallam Lake ESA Review reads we
have the option to do almost anything we want to do, in terms of
demolishing the whole thing, move it back, or whatever. In this
case, we made a finding that because of the trees and unique
circumstances, we permitted them to stay on that same foundation.
Mr)rr T C1TT
Hunt stated, I will move to reapprove both previous special review
and further add the conditions 1-13 on Planning Office memorandum
dated 6-2-95, for the Farish Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review.
Mooney seconded. Voting commenced, vote was 4 in favor, 1
(Buettow) opposed, motion carried.
Kaufman stated, Roger, the only other question I would have is, so
there is no misunderstanding again, are we to add onto the existing
wall or can we just replace the wall? Hunt stated, I have no
problem with replacing that wall for cosmetic purposes.
Kerr asked, your motion is based on the finding of special
56
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
circumstances in this case.
Discussion of Motion
JUKE 6, 1995
Hunt answered, that is correct.
Buettow stated, I have a problem with that. Basically, I think you
realize that if this was a new house, this wing would not be
allowed in this area and 100 percent demolition is almost the same
as a new house. In this case, substantial construction is being
done throughout the entire house, from 60-80 percent is going to
be totally rebuilt, and this particular encroachment has been
enjoyed for 30 years by Mrs. Farish and I see this as an
opportunity to bring this non -conforming encroachment into
compliance on this site.
Kaufman stated, I need to correct a couple of things. I want to
go back and remind those of you, you weren't on the P&Z at that
time, but the rest of you were; but Mrs. Farish came in when they
tried to impose this on her house, having been there for all these
years. Buettow asked, does she live there now? Kaufman stated,
yes. It's the same lady. Buettow asked, 100 percent of the time
she lives there? Kaufman answered, most of the time, she's been
in this town for 20 years and what difference does it make whether
she's a part-time resident or full-time resident, she came to this
particular group and this meeting and she raised the concerns that
she had about her particular property. The reason we had this
special review, that you are making a finding on, was the P&Z's
concession to her. Because what happened, and I'll read to you
from the minutes, many of the properties on Hallam Lake have as
their boundary, the dropoff that we are talking about. Mrs. Farish
is one of the few properties that not only goes past that, but goes
all the way down to the lake. One of the concerns that she had
when she came in here, she said, that this application is really
being unfairly applied. In her case, it cuts out 40-50 feet of
what ordinarily would be her setback, where for a lot of other
people,*it has no impact at all. The other thing she had at that
time, she wanted to build down and out onto,a secondary bench that
she had on her property. Tom Cardamone came in here, and one of
the discussions we had at that particular point and time, was that
Tom was uncomfortable with allowing her to go down and out onto
this other bench, but he specifically said, I don't have a problem
of her going to the top of the slope there if there are mitigating
circumstances such as vegetation. As Kim has pointed out in this
particular memorandum, they have a tremendous amount of vegetations
there. So, when this ordinance was adopted, we knew that Mrs.
Farish would be coming in, that she would be treated unfairly, and
so there was a specific finding made to allow her to come forward
at this particular time. She dropped her request to go back down
and all she is trying to do is go up a little bit, and I want to
remind everybody that for all these years she's had the benefit of
it, it's absolutely not true. We burdened her after -the -fact,
57
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 6, 1995
acknowledging that she would be coming in on a particular property
that was surrounded by all these trees and had only a 2,200 sq . f t .
house. I know it' s late, but I have quote after quote to read you,
if it's necessary.
Garton stated, I have just one question to the staff. If the
foundation is remaining, is that considered a remodel? Johnson
stated, I would say if it was completely removed, except for the
foundation, I would say, no. In common usage terms.
Kaufman stated, one other thing, just for a comfort level. Right
now, 11 percent of the existing house encroaches after the remodel
is done. Only 4 percent of the new house will encroach. Right
now, the existing facade on that place, 44 percent encroaches,
after this, less than 20 percent will encroach. So you can see
that the addition that's being made minimizes the amount of
encroachment that's taking place.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk