HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19940104A G E N D A
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
January 4, 1994, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Billings Property Residential GMQS, Subdivision, PUD
and GMQS..Exemption, Mary Lackner
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Moore & Benedict/Stillwater Referrals -
Transportation & Annexation, Leslie Lamont
V. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: January 4, 1994
Work Session with City Council - January 11, 5:00 PM
Superblock (LL)
Regular Meeting - January 18, 4:30 PM
BCS Conditional Use Review & Change in Use (LL)
Special Meeting - January 18, 5:00 PM
GMQS Revisions (CH) (with Council, BOCC & County P&Z)
Possible Special Meeting - February 1, 4:30 - 6:30 PM
GMQS Revisions (with County P&Z)
Regular Meeting - February 15
RO Text Amendments (LL/CH)
a.nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mazy Lackner, Planner
RE: Billings 1993 Residential GMQS, Subdivision, PUD, GMQS
Exemption, and Vested Property Rights
DATE: January 4, 1993
SUMMARY: This application seeks a Residential Growth Management
allocation for one free-market dwelling unit, Subdivision to create
a 9,130 sq.ft. parcel, PUD to vary the minimum lot area
requirement, GMQS Exemption for an affordable dwelling unit, and
Vested Property Rights for a period of three years.
The parcel presently contains three platted lots known as the Astor
Subdivision. Each parcel is improved a duplex unit. This
application will.resubdivide this subdivision into four lots.
In an initial scoring by Planning staff, the project meets minimum
scoring thresholds.
APPLICANT: C. L. Astor and Company,
represented by Vann Associates, Mr. Sunny
LOCATION: 981, 985 and 995 King Street,
of the Astor Subdivision. The subdivisio
feet.
ZONING: R-6 Medium -Density Residential.
Mrs. Carla Billings,
Vann.
which contains Lots 1-3
n contains 45,280 square
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a residential
growth management allotment for one free-market dwelling unit to
be located on a newly created parcel within the Astor Subdivision.
The applicant is proposing an affordable dwelling unit on the new
lot. Please refer to the complete application package.
PROCESS: It is suggested that the Planning Commission first review
the project's requested Subdivision, PUD and GMQS Exemption prior
to scoring. If the Subdivision, PUD and GMQS Exemption are
approved, the Commission will score the project. Staff has scored
the project and submits this score to the Planning Commission
("Exhibit A"). The Commission may elect to accept staff's score
as their own.
If the Commission finds the project meets minimum point thresholds,
it will be forwarded to the City Council for GMP allocation of one
dwelling unit, approval of a housing mitigation package, and vested
property rights. There is no competition for this year's
residential GMQS program, as this is the only application that has
been filed.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: Bruce Matherly has
indicated that there are downstream line constraints in the
Oklahoma Flats area and that all new development upstream is
required to pay a connection surcharge to relieve this system
constraint.
2. Engineering Department: Chuck Roth has discussed storm
runoff, trash/utility areas, right-of-way width, irrigation
ditches, encroachments, and sidewalk/curb and gutter issues
in this memorandum.
3. Fire Marshall: Wayne Vandemark states that the project will
have to meet the Uniform Fire Code.
4. Housing Authority: Tom Baker has reviewed the applicant's
housing proposal and has indicated that the unit must be a
.minimum of 600 net livable square feet.
5. Parks Department: Rebecca Baker has requested that a six foot
easement from the centerline of the Aspen ditch be granted by
the applicant for trail purposes. The easement will only
encumber the southwestern portion of the property.
6. Water Department: Phil Overeynder has submitted comments that
the Water Department has the ability to serve this project
once the applicable utility and connection fees are paid by
the applicant.
STAFF COMMENTS: This is the only residential growth management
submission for 1993. At a minimum, after other GMP exemptions are
counted, 30% of the 20 total allowable units must be available for
competition. The minimum is 6 units., so this proposal does not
exceed the available allocation.
Staff recommends that the Commission first discuss the Subdivision,
PUD and GMQS Exemption prior to scoring the project.
Subdivision
The Astor Subdivision was platted in 1980. The Subdivision
Agreement approved by the City specifies the limitation of a total
of six dwelling units within the subdivision unless the applicant
receives growth management approval to construct additional units.
This application will supersede the 1980 approval.
Section 7-1004.0 sets the following review standards for
subdivision applications:
i.a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen
2
r�
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) was adopted in
January 1993. The Housing Action Plan identifies this site as
"great" for small infill units. The applicant approached the
Housing Auth Board to purchase is property for affordable
housing, but it was not obtained by the County. Therefore, the
applicant has pursued the application being reviewed today which
consists of a one -bedroom fully deed restricted unit in conjunction
with a new free-market residence, thus creating a 50/50 unit split
on the property. The Growth Action Plan recommends a minimum of
60% affordable housing with new residential subdivisions (although
60% is not defined as bedrooms or dwelling units).
The Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan identifies
King Street as a primary pedestrian commuter route and an off -road
bicycle route. The applicant has agreed to join an improvement
district, if one is formed, to facilitate the construction of
pedestrian improvements. Staff recommends that a sidewalk
agreement be filed with the City Engineer, so -that construction of
a sidewalk can take place along the Astor Subdivision at the
instance of the City.
The applicant's proposal is not consistent with the Growth Action
Plan because the applicant is meeting a minimum of 60% affordable
housing in this new subdivision. The applicant's proposal is
consistent with the Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action
Plan if the applicant files a sidewalk agreement with the City.
1.b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in this area.
Response: King Street contains a mix of single family, duplex and
multi -family dwelling units. The Astor Subdivision is the only
parcel on King Street which is zoned R-6, while the remaining
parcels are zoned R-15 and R-15a. Garrish Park, which is adjacent
to Astor Lots 2 and 3, is zoned Park. Due to the R-6 zoning,
additional density will be permitted within the Astor Subdivision
than on surrounding parcels. However, floor area of the R-6 lot
will be less than on a comparable sized lot in the R-15 and R-15a
zone districts. Staff believes the application represents an
infill project in a developed area of town where the majority of
future land use changes will be redevelopment of existing parcels.
1. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.
Response: As discussed in item b, there will be no adverse impact
on future development of surrounding properties.
1.d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
3
3
Response: The all development within the Astor Subdivision will
be required to comply with the requirements of the R-6 zone
district and relevant provisions of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
The applicant is requesting a PUD variance for the minimum lot area
requirement on the newly created parcel. This request is discussed
in the following section.
2.a. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock
or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide,
steep topography or any other natural hazard or other
condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
Response: None of these natural hazards will affect the proposed
development.
2.b. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or
premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary
public costs.
Response: Since this project is an infill development, no
inefficient spatial patterns, premature extension of public
facilities or unnecessary public costs will be created by the
proposed development. The primary infrastructure to serve
development in the King Street area is already in place.
The applicant will need to submit a Final Plat and Subdivision/PUD
Agreement within 90 days of City Council review, if the project is
approved.
Planned Unit Development
The applicant is requesting one variance pursuant to Section 7-
903, the PUD section, of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The
request is made in .order to reduce the minimum lot area requirement
for the newly created parcel. In addition to the review
requirements of the Subdivision regulations, PUD adds a requirement
for density reduction for steep slopes. The slope density
reduction calculation prepared for this property does not affect
the proposed development.
The newly created parcel will be 9,130 sq.ft. of which
approximately 1,840 sq.ft. is encumbered by an access easement.
Therefore, for density and floor area purposes, the lot size is
actually 7,290 sq.ft. The applicant is proposing a free-market and
an affordable dwelling unit, 4,500 sq.ft. of lot area is required
for each unit, for a total of 9,000 sq.ft. Section 7-903.B.4
allows a lot area variance if "the total area of all lots, when
averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone
4
V\
district." When all lots are averaged (easement excluded and slope
density reduction taken into account) the total subdivision
contains 41,160 sq.ft. Therefore, each lot averages 10,260 sq.ft.
in lot area, which exceeds the 9,000 sq.ft. required for each
parcel. The Final Plat shall include a note specifying that the
minimum lot area of Lot 1 has been varied pursuant to the Planned
Unit Development regulations because the total lot area of all lots
within the subdivision exceeds the minimum lot area for the zone
district.
Staff recommends that the PUD variance be accommodated through the
consolidation of conceptual and final development review because
of the limited extent of the issues involved with the PUD request.
GMQS Exemption for an Affordable Housing Unit
In order for a residential growth management application to be
competitive and meet a threshold score, a provision of affordable
housing must be made by the applicant. In this application, an on -
site, one -bedroom, low income affordable housing unit is proposed
to be constructed on the newly created parcel. Section 8-104.C.1.c
allows City Council to exempt these affordable dwelling units based
on the need for the unit, their compliance with the adopted housing
plan, the type of unit and the price category to which the unit
will be deed restricted.
City Council adopts the applicant's housing mitigation package
based upon a recommendation by the Planning Commission. When
assessing the housing proposal the Commission should consider the
following:
1. Whether the city has an adopted plan to develop affordable
housing with monies received from payment of affordable
housing dedication fees.
Response: The Housing Authority has a program to acquire land and
develop affordable housing units.
2.* Whether the city has an adopted plan identifying the
applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable housing.
Response: This site is designated within AACP's Housing Action
Plan as a "great" location for use as affordable housing, however,
the Housing Authority did not purchase the property when it was
offered to them by the applicant.
3. Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the
development of affordable housing, taking into account the
availability of services, proximity to employment
opportunities and whether the site is affected by
environmental constraints to develop or historic preservation
concerns.
5
5
Response: The site is well suited for affordable housing, due to
its location to downtown Aspen and the available services on -site.
No environmental constraints or historic preservation issues affect
this property.
4. Whether the method proposed will result in employee housing
being produced prior to or at the time the impacts of the
development will be experienced by the community.
Response: The employee housing is proposed to be phased with the
development of the new residence.
S. Whether the development itself requires the provision of
affordable housing on -site to meet its service needs.
Response: The GMQS process requires a provision of affordable
housing to be provided with new development, because such
development has been determined to generate the need for additional
employees within the community.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the housing mitigation package to City Council.
Growth Management Scoring
Staff has scored the project and finds that the minimum thresholds
required by the Land Use Code have been met. The Commission may
elect to accept staff's score and forward this project to City
Council for allocation of the dwelling unit. Staff s score summary
follows:
Minimum
Category Threshold
1. Public Facilities 4.8
2. Quality of Design 4.8
3. Energy Conservation 2.4
4. Prox. to Support Services 2.4
5. Provision for Afford. Housing 7
Total Points
Staf f
score
7
10
5
5
7.4
34.4
Pursuant to Section 8-106(D)(7) a development application shall be
required to meet the thresholds of each category and combined
categories to be eligible for an allocation. Combined minimum
threshold for categories 1-4 above is 33.6 points. This project
scored 34.4.
6
0
This project meets the minimum threshold scores established in the
Land Use Code. The Commission may accept staffs score or prepare
your own score. Blank score sheets will be provided at the
meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of
this application subject to'the following conditions of approval:
1. The applicant shall place the following note on the final
plat:
"Lot 1 shall access the parcel across the existing access
easement. No road cut off King Street is permitted for
Lot 1."
2. A drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer, prior
to issuance of a building permit.
3. The applicant shall submit a sidewalk, curb and gutter
agreement to the City Engineer, prior to recordation of the
Final Plat.
4. A housing mitigation program for 1.75 employees must be
approved by.City Council and appropriate deed restrictions or
payments must be completed, prior to issuance of a building
permit.
5. The right-of-way width to be granted by the applicant shall
be resolved, prior to re.cordation of the Final Plat.
6. The name of the subdivision shall remain the Astor
Subdivision, as there is already a Billings Subdivision within
the City.
7. The applicant shall submit a Final Plat and Subdivision/PUD
Agreement within 90 days of City Council review, for review
and approval by the City Attorney, City Engineer, and Planning
Office.
8. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and public meetings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, 'unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to score the Billings Residential
Growth Management Project at 34.4 points, finding that all required
thresholds have been met. I further move to recommend approval for
the Subdivision, PUD, GMQS Exemption, and Housing Mitigation
package to City Council with the conditions recommended in the
Planning Office memo dated January 4, 1994."
7
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Information
"B" - Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District referral memo
"C" - City Engineering Department referral memo
"D" - Housing Office referral comments
apz.gmgs.billings
NO
a
THOMAS D. ISAAC
975 KING STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303)920-2199
January 3, 1994
Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Dear Mr. Kerr and Commissioners,
,
JX,.
I am writing to you in regards to the Growth Management Quota
Application of C. L. Astor & Co. I am not in favor of this
application since it will introduce large expensive homes into a
neighborhood that is almost exclusively inhabited by full-time,
working residents. A 4000 square foot development threatens the
economic viability of the older single family and duplex homes on
the street.
Since the addition of this duplex will have little impact on the
City outside the immediate neighborhood, I will address the site
impacts that should be addressed by the developer.
1. Driveway. The City of Aspen Code specifies that all driveways
serving more than three homes be brought up to street status.
This drive will be serving four duplexes and should be paved and
improved at the expense of the applicant.
2. Development site Plan. No site plan has been offered. !4hat
will be the access to the driveway, where is the parking, what
provisions will be made for trash, ect.?
3. Utilities. My electric and natural gas utility access lines
are located in the proposed Lot 1. I request the applicant
relocate these services underground at their expense.
4. Trash '"ollection. I have placed my trash cans at the northeast
corner of the proposed Lot 1 at the insistence of 'airs Billings. I
request accep=tabl:provisions be made for future trash collection
at this time.
5. Future Deveopment. What are the plans and potential
development of Lot 4?
6. Zoning. The applicant had this property rezoned to R-6 in 1980
and now wishes to take advantage of the increased density. I
request my property be zoned R-6, the same as my neighbor.
The "MQS and subdivision application is vague on specific details
of it's future development. i have pointed out some of the
impacts this application will have on the neighborhood. The
applicant should be held responsible for mitigating these impacts
before the application is approved.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely;
Tom is aac
Lance L. Luckett
995 1/2 King Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
January 4, 1994
Bruce Kerr, Chairman
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado, 81611
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I would like to take this opportunity to express my favorable
opinion for you and the Board to grant sub -division rights to
Carla Billings for her King street property.
Furthermore, I feel you should be made aware of how Ms. Billings
has contributed to this community and as a result, not denied her
application.
I currently live in one of her duplexes (995 1/2 King st.) and I
have been there for a little more than.a year. I feel she is one
the best landlords I have had in the 14 years that I have lived
in Aspen. Ms. Billings rental rates are below market because she
feels a duty to the community to provide inexpensive housing for
the worker -bees!
She could have sold out years ago, for a lot of money, like many
others have done but she hasn't! In fact, the reason for sub-
dividing this lot is to cash out some of the equity she has in
order to pay for improvements and pay taxes. These necessary
expenses have to be paid.
I strongly urge you to vote in favor of Ms. Billing's
application. I am sure you would not like to induce more
displacement of worker -bees down -valley than is necessary.
Sincerely,
Lance L. Luckett
L
January 4, 1994 �y
TO: Bruce Kerr and the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
FR: Jackie Kasabach
980 King Street
303/925-4124
RE: Astor Subdivision lot split on King Street
Unfortunately, I am unable to attend your meeting this afternoon;
however, I would like to express my concerns about this lot split
as well as the process of notification.
First, because of the holiday mail I was not notified of this
request until last week and therefore, feel a bit rushed in my
comments.
My primary concern about this lot split is that our neighborhood
is already very impacted with density and I am not comfortable with
the prospect of increased development of this nature.
Frankly, I would prefer the demolition of the existing duplex on
lot 1, with a replacement duplex and the conversion of the existing
barn to affordable housing - perhaps two units. This would
maintain some of the "open space" feeling which our little street
could use.
Further, I would like to know why this property is zoned R-6 and
all the rest of the street is zoned R-15 and R-15A.
• „84 -- i r ,
f
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District DEC
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 -
Tele. (303) 925-3601 FAX #(303) 925 2537 -
Sy Kelly - Chairman Albert Bishop
John J. Snyder - Treas. Frank Loushin
Louis Popish - Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
December-15, 1993
Mary Lackner
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Billings Property GMQS
Dear Mary:
At the present time the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
has sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve, this
development. There are downstream line constraints in the
Oklahoma Flats area that we are eliminating with funds generated
from connection fee surcharges, which would be applied to this
development.
As usual service is contingent upon compliance with the
District's Rules and Regulations, which are on file at the
District office. Once detailed plans are available a tap permit
can be issued through our office which will estimate the total
connection fees.
Please call if you have any questions.
sincerely,
l
Bruce Matherly
Di s z: i ct Manager
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1976 - 1986 - 1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
l
E-Vwl-� 1C 11
UV UV 6
,1K1121 bill Sy
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer (2c
Date: December 27, 1993
Re: Billings Property Residential GMQS, Subdivision, PUD, and GMQS Exemption
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Storm Runoff - For the GMQS scoring, the application meets the minimum standards
of the Municipal Code.
This application is for a resubdivision of the Astor Subdivision which was approved
by the City Council on May 13, 1980. The storm runoff requirements of Section 24-7-
1004.C.4.f should have been applied to development on the parcels at that time. In any
event, storm runoff mitigation in accordance with the Code should be required for future
development on any and each of the proposed four lots. Additionally, we would like to
add the requirement that the development plans provide, during construction, for storm
runoff from soils exposed by excavation to be maintained on site and not released to the
Roaring Fork River or public rights -of -way.
2. Trash Storage - The final development plans for each parcel shall indicate on -site trash
storage locations.
3. Utilities - Any new transformers or utility pedestals must be located on easements on
the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way.
4. Right-of-way Width - The right-of-way widths of King Street were created when the
abutting properties were in the jurisdiction of Pitkin County. The City Engineering
Department records are incomplete concerning the right-of-way widths, but it appears from
the annexation map (The Smuggler Enclave Annexation, Drawing No. 540-44) that the
width varies and may be as narrow as 35 feet or less.
Section 24-7-1004.C.4.a(3) requires a right-of-way width of 60 feet for a local street
and 80 feet for a collector. (This has generally been interpreted to apply as 75 feet since
that is the typical dimension for the right-of-way widths in the historical platting of Aspen.)
King Street is at present a one-way street. There is no master plan for future right-
of-way widths for Aspen streets or for the eventual two-waying of King Street. However,
in the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan (Ped Plan), King Street is indicated
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 a single-family GMQS allocation and Subdivision and
Planned Unit Development approval for the Billings property, which
is located at 981, 985 and 995 King Street in the City of Aspen,
was given by 1) posting of notice containing the information
required in Section 6-205.E.2., which posting occurred on December
24, 1993, 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 application to all
property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject
property, which mailing occurred on December 22, 1993.
Applicant:
C.L. ASTOR & COMPANY
The foregoing Af f idtvit of Public Notice was acknowledged
and signed before me this �V day of 1994, by SUNNY VANN
on behalf of C.L. ASTOR & COMPANY.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1993 RESIDENTIAL GMQS APPLICATIONS (CITY OF ASPEN)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, January 4, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO to score the 1993.City of
Aspen Residential Growth Management Quota System applications. One
application was received for this competition. It is described
below.
1. BILLINGS PROPERTY: C.L. Astor & Company, c/o Mrs. Carla
.Billings, 2727 DeAnza Road, Shore Drive #33, San Diego, CA
92109, is requesting an allocation for one single family
dwelling unit for the Billings Property, which is located at
981, 985 and 995 King Street, Aspen, CO; Lots 1, 2 and 3,
Astor Subdivision. Approvals are requested for Subdivision
to create a new lot for the unit, PUD to vary the underlying
zone district's minimum lot area requirement, GMQS Exemption
for an on -site affordable housing unit, and vested property
rights.
For further information, contact Mary Lackner at the Aspen/Pitkin
Planning Office, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO (303) 920-
5106.
s/Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published -in The Aspen Times on December 17, 1993.
City of Aspen Account
V'_ nt J . Higens
President
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303-925-1766 : 303-925-6527 FAX
300' OWNER'S LIST
Christina Davis
Vice President
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list
of property owner's within three hundred feet of Astor
Subdivision,Tax Rolls, as
obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors
updated to October 01, 1993.
NAMES AND ADDRESSES TAX SCHEDULE NUMBER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
�4r
AUTHOR I Z S I CNATURE
103 PARK PARTNERSHIP
154 E. LUPINE DR.
ASPEN
CO
81611
CARL E. SIEGESMUND
P.O. BOX 9680
ASPEN
CO
81612
CARL MARBACH
HELEN MARBACH
753 JOHNS LANE
OMBLER
PA
19002
CHRISTINE ELKINS
1020 E. HOPKINS AVENUE
SUITE 26
ASPEN
CO
81611
DARYL SNADON
973 ST. ADDISON ROAD
SUITE 300
ASPEN
CO
81611
DIETER BIBBIG
P.O. BOX 175
ASPEN
CO
81612
DONALD WILLIAM LANG
JACQUELYN A. KASABACH
P.O. BOX 4166
ASPEN
CO
81612
DR. LOTHAR M. VARADY
1164 BISHOP
SUITE 124
HONOLULU
HI
96813
ELIZABETH OWEN FERGUS
JOHN C. FERGUSf II
500 S. FRONT ST., STE
700
COLUMBUS
OH
43215
ERNST KAPPELI
Po P.O. BOX 1962
ASPEN
CO
81612
2737-181-00-050
2737-181-09-024
2737-181-09-023
2737-181-09-015
2737-073-00-047
2737-181-00-017
2737-074-14-001
2737-181-09-004
2737-181-09-011
2737-074-00-022
4i
• b
EUGENE KALNITSKY
LINDA BUDIN KALNITSKY
1701 S. FLAGLER DR, APT. 1601
WEST PALM BEACH
FL
33401
FLORENCE E. HOSE
�k
926 E. HOPKINS
ASPEN
CO
81611
j; GRAHAN LOVING, III
t
5137 INDEPENDENCE ROAD
E BOULDER
CO
80301
HARRY MOORE
C/O M & I BANK / BONNIE
WETTER
500 E. GRAND AVENUE
4 BELOIT
WI
53511
i
HENRY TRETTIN
LANA TRETTIN
17 QUEEN STREET
ASPEN
CO
81611
HOWARD EUGENE WILSON
407 PARK CIRCLE B
ASPEN
CO
81611
HOWARD H. HATANAKA
980 KING STREET
ASPEN
CO
81611
J. MICHAEL SOLHEIN
DALE HOWER SOLHEIM
P.O. BOX 4811
ASPEN
CO
81612
JAMES AND MARLENE MICKEY
927 GIBSON AVENUE
ASPEN
CO
81611
JEAN STERN
1020 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN
CO
81611
2737-181-09-019
2737-182-01-002
2737-181-09-002
2737-181-45-002
2737-073-00-038
2737-074-26-002
2737-074-14-002
2737-181-09-013
2737-074-00-004
2737-181-09-021
JEFFREY S. SHOAF
P.O. BOX 3123
ASPEN CO
81612
JETTIE M. KELLY
NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE
P.O. BOX 82408
LINCOLN NE
68501
JOE L. CANDREIA
930 KING STREET
ASPEN Co
81611
JOHN L. ENGLES, JR.
VELMA B. ENGLES
55 OTTER ROCK DRIVE
GREENWICH CT
06830
JOSEPH R. TARBET
BARBARA P. TARBET
980 GIBSON AVENUE
ASPEN Co
81611
KENNETH AND JANE OWEN TRUST
P.O. BOX 88
CHAPMAN RANCH TX
78347
LOIS M. BROWNELL VAGNEUR
P.O. BOX 28267
EL JEBEL Co
81628
LOIS M. BROWNELL VAGNEUR
P.O. BOX 28267
EL JEBEL CO
81628
LOIS M. BROWNELL VAGNEUR
P.O. BOX 28267
EL JEBEL Co
81628
MAGNE NOSTDAHL
ARNE MARTHINSSON
607 EAST COOPER AVENUE
ASPEN CO
81611
2737-073-53-002
2737-181-09-022
2737 073 00 037
2737-181-20-015
2737-074-10-001
2737-073-53-001
2737-074-15-001
2737-074-15-002
2737-074-15-004
2737-074-04-010
t y
MARCELLA DECRAY
2737-074-00-025
30 COMMONWEALTH AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO CA
94118
MARGARET 0. TROUSDALE
2737-181-09-007
7 ALEXANDER LANE
LITTLETON CO
80121
MERCI 1984 IRREVOCABLE TRUST
2737-074-00-024
C/O PAULINE T. HASTY
2 VINE STREET
ASPEN CO
81611
MICHAEL S. CHURCHMAN
2737-181-09-025
JULIA CHURCHMAN MC CUE
20 LE MANS COURT
SHAWNEE MISSION KS
66028
MICHAEL W. MORGAN
2737-074-00-021
MIRIAM ELMORE HARTHILL
3649 AUSTIN ROAD
BRAWLEY CA
92227
NORMA LOIS DOLLE
2737-181-09-009
P.O. BOX 4901
ASPEN CO
81612
NORTON AND JANET EISENBERG
2737-074-261-001
407 PARK AVENUE
SUITE A
ASPEN CO
81611
P.S.W.D. INVESTMENT CO., LTD.
2737-181-45-001
C/O CARL LINNECKE
215 S. MONARCH, STE 101
ASPEN CO
81611
PATRICIA S. MARA TRUST 89%
2737-074-26-003
NANCY M. BLOCK 11%
2550 E. DESERT INN ROAD #128
LAS VEGAS NV
89121
PAUL K. SCHROEDER
2737-181-09-020
PATRICIA A. SCHROEDER
5020 CENTER CT.
BETTENDORF IA
52722
r m
PAUL R. AUVIL, JR.
2737-181-09-005
CAROLE AUVIL
1231 ASHLAND
WILMETTE
IL
60091
PAUL R. HAMWI
2737-074-26-004
D/B/A EQUITIES DIVERSIFIED OF
COLORADO
630 EAST HYMAN AVE. SUITE 27
ASPEN
CO
81611
E
PETER HEINEMAN
2737-074-00-028
9899 SOUTH TURKEY CREEK
ROAD
MORRISON
CO
80465
PETER WIRTH
2737-074-10-002
JANET B. WIRTH
P.O. BOX 9525
ASPEN
CO
81612
R & R COMPANY
2737-181-25-001
j 653 26 1/2 ROAD
GRAND JUNCTION
CO
80222
RANDALL R. MARTIN TRUST
2737-181-09-001
1930 NORTH ORCHARD
CHICAGO
IL
60614
RITA BLITT 1/2
2737-181-09-027
RRCHARD & PEGGY KRIGEL
5530 MISSION DRIVE
SHAWNEE MISSION
KS
66208
ROBERT A. CARDWELL
2737-181-09-018
1672 LOUISE STREET
LAGUNA BEACH
CA
92651
ROBERT F. LEWIS, GLORIA
J. LEWIS
2737-181-09-008
AND LINDA S. LEWIS
1028 E. HOPKINS, #23
ASPEN
CO
81611
ROBERT L. CARD
2737-181-25-002
P.O. BOX 30036
GRAND JUNCTION
CO
81503
SAMUEL WEISBARD
2737-181-09-017
RUTH WEISBARD
1160 CHATFIELD ROAD
WINNETKA IL
60093
SANDRA WILLIAMS
l
2737-181-09-012
718 HEATHERY LANE
NAPLES FL
33963
SETSUO AND TOMOKO ICHIMARU
2737-181-09-016
3-924, KAMIOCHIAI 324-4
YONO-SHI, SAITAMA 338
JAPAN
4
STELLA HENRY CONNER TRUST
2737-181-09-014
C/0 NANCY F. GRAY, TRUSTEE
152 JUNIPER HILL
ALBUGUERGUE NM
87122
STEWART L. WALLIS & LYNDSAY SHADDOCK
2737-181-09-026
C/O GREEN INTERNATIONAL INC.
5275 DTC PARKWAY, #44
ENGLEWOOD CO
80111
SUNNYBROOK COLORADO, INC.
2737-074-00-020
C/O KRABACHER, HILL & EDWARDS
201 N. MILLST.I SUITE 201
ASPEN CO
81611
SUSAN F. BARLOW
2737-181-09-010
1010 GRAND AVENUE
SUITE 500
KANSAS CITY MO
64106
THERESA BIRRFELDER
2737-181-09-003
APARTMENT 24
1028 E. HOPKINS
ASPEN CO
81611
THOMAS D. ISAAC
2737-074-00-023
975 KING STREET
ASPEN CO
81612
VALLEY -HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST
2737-182-01-003
215 S. MONARCH ST.
SUITE 101
ASPEN CO
81611
WALTER H. PROCKTER
MARIAN H. PROCKTER
1815 S. FEDERAL BLVD.
DENVER
CO
E
WAYNE VAGNUER UND. 1/2
INT.
LOIS M. VAGNUER UND. 1/2 INT.
P.O. BOX 28267
EL JEBEL
I
E
CO
WILLIAM R. DUNAWAY
TENA D. FARR
P.O. BOX E
ASPEN
CO
i
WILLIAM R. DUNAWAY
BARBARA ALLEN DUNAWAY
P.O. BOX E
ASPEN
CO
WILLIAM W. KENNEDY
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
3721 VENTURA DR., STE 100
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS
IL
80219
81628
81612
81612
60004
2737-074-00-027
2737-074-15-003
2737-074--06-017
2737-074-07-002
2737-181-09-006
L
M0811 HOME PARK FiK /.�� �'L 03
1�
ti
0
ISM A-, R 44
10
3 2 11 $ 4 t 1 ; A.D �8
n� O1
4.7 FCC.
b 11 R CREEKTREE
n ± SUBDIVISION ® eZ1°
Fc
3j' O
94s-449 .o .Q 'w�i 00 AC $r
.37 Pr- L
i CITY OF ASPEN . ` ^.,'`
ut[�"a awoca ` ws." coolStlOO F.:p 1 021 .!1 IIC.
os cnu.Ea o
rr1 Jr ` OAFS
WA ERFA L� �o•��'C
SUIVIS N o
loss11
;e S •f
1 �O
'SSl��r SUB. Is
HERROON PARK
I T
�S /- +1
Ica® ► Q. a $ .oPC.
® y . -
�• I � ' � Mom• . • ♦� , .' _ ..•� '.,..
A.O.
13 0TY OF ASSFEN �' ® V i`� W� ; :;. ^•' / �`, �
�. 2
C A sA -- `-- �' •.17 IIC _ _ Mar
x ®® ZT 03 �' N T f � •
L. o - ... as
r.
tyr t M OO 27" f 0 i i 5Nopkms
.D
noi
f
+ o
s c -*4Erw AVLr
T T R+CT 1 R
J! Og oo X 0, rRIC !-r 67' Q
H a r.qFs s2 ae �
t s 0+4 pk! 016
r
++c g L N
N ` 0 3Z 0
� I O 4
0 `s' o° Mr .T7���� I C 29 3 S73 IOE I93 RIVERSIDE
"' 33 E 1 ADDITION
v o o 3 s 7,3 r 4 k 0s
, p p A c Og ® I Ei 3 E
°"► o>
A K "� S VCLY/ INDEFE NCE s > 2
o® ® 3
>fN a�K
ilslo '��� 2 ,
e K E ® 6 N cr
C YM033.
o rRlec A. NG '.
00 >S
A u
AA
to 36 a
lava r
K %
J
4t
W •/ W b ^ ^
o, i t 25 F D LoY zi
C C c o° N°�'s= o° COOPER ^ SrRE i ® > ®' OM
I+e u / .. i� 14 ) l F T s
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Diane Moore, Planning Director
Francis Krizmanich, Zoning Officer
Mary Lackner, Planner
DATE: January 4, 1994
RE: Benedict/Stillwater Subdivision - Referral
SUMMARY: Parcels located within two (2) miles of the City boundary
are referred to the City for their advisory comments regarding the
development proposal. Section 6-3.4 B.2A of the County Land use
Code and the Colorado State Statutes requires development review
by the City for any subdivision proposed within two (2) miles of
the City limits. Review should consider the parcels proximity to
the City.
The City Planning and Zoning commission (P&Z) reviews the
application and forwards their referral comments to the County
Planning and Zoning Commission. Previously, the City P&Z has
reviewed the application in the context of its compliance with the
Aspen Area Community Plan. Projects within the metro area
typically impact city services and result in the need for increased
city services. In many cases, the metro development does not
provide the revenues (sales tax, property tax and fees) needed in
order to expand the city services. As a result, the city manager
would like to expand the city's referral process and include
referral comments from the various city departments. Staff will
coordinate this review with the city departments and provide this
information to the City P&Z prior to the City P&Z review of the
development proposal.
Staff would recommend that the P&Z review the departments referral
comments and forward them to the County P&Z.
In addition to the require two (2) mile review, if an applicant
seeks the use of city water, a water service agreement must be
finalized and approved by the City Council and contain a
contractual obligation to annex the property benefitted by the
Water Service Agreement to the City of Aspen if such property is
contiguous to Aspen and Aspen determines that the annexation is
desirable.
The City and the applicant are currently in the process of
determining whether the property owner is required to enter into
a water service agreement with the City. The review process for
development applications within the two (2) mile referral area will
1
consider its consistency with the AACP and the potential impacts
to city services. This is essentially the same review process that
will be considered in the review of applications requesting a water
service agreement with the city with several exceptions. The city
will also review the application that requests a water service
agreement to determine if:
* There is sufficient water and water treatment capacity;
* The extension will not result in an operational financial
deficit;
* The extension will not adversely impact the environmental
goals of maintaining water quality and quantity, minimum
stream flows and overall water conservation;
* The extension will include adequate facilities for treated
water storage and fire suppression.
It is important to note that the review of the application based
on the above listed "exceptions" will be handled through the Public
Works Department and those comments will be forwarded to the City
Council in their review of the water service agreement along with
the recommendations form the City P&Z regarding AACP consistency
and impacts to city services.
PROCESS: The Commission has already reviewed the Benedict proposal
with respect to the AACP at the November 30, 1993 meeting.
However, the Commission did not review the project as it relates
to the impacts on city services and its proximity to he municipal
boundary.
APPLICANT: Mrs. Fabienne Benedict, represented by Sunny Vann
LOCATION: Stillwater Ranch, south side of Highway 82 between the
Aspen City Limits and The Preserve Subdivision
ZONING: R-151 AF-1 (1 dwelling unit/10 acres) and AF-2 (1
dwelling unit/2 acres)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant proposes to subdivide Parcel
#1 of the ranch into 5 single-family lots, one of which will
contain the existing residence. Three of the lots will be conveyed
to the children and the remaining lot will be sold.
REFERRALS:
A. The Streets Department had the following comments:
Currently Ute Avenue is plowed to the cul-de-sac just beyond
the Aspen Club. The cul-de-sac is on the Benedict property.
2
ON
The Streets Department requests an easement to continue to
plow up to the cul-de-sac which enables the snowplows to turn
around. Otherwise, the plows would not be able to plow the
entire length of Ute Avenue.
The applicant should ensure that natural drainage patterns are
not impeded by roadway and/or homesite construction.
B. The Police Department had the following comments:
The winter trail crosses several avalanche chutes and the City
would be concerned about liability of a trail crossing a red
zone.
If access to the development off of Highway 82 crosses the
bikepath, an adequate line of sight should be maintained for
safety reasons.
C. The Parks Department had the following comments:
An alternate trial easement should be provided outside of the
red zone.
The Department has also considered a purchase of some of the
Benedict property for recreational purposes and will continue
to pursue this option.
D. The Environmental Health Department had the following
comments:
* Sewaae Treatment and Collection: Sections 2-7 and _5_-200:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has adequate
capacity in the immediate area to handle any excess flows.
This Department recommends that any development on site
connect to the ACSD lines as opposed to constructing
individual sewage disposal systems. The application commits
to doing this.
* Adequate Provision for Water Needs: Sections 2-6 and 5_-
205:
The application notes, that water service lines transverse the
property. This system should be utilized, since lines are
within 300 feet of each proposed lot.
* Water Quality Impacts: Sections 2-22 and 5-107.2:
There are no concerns on this issue.
* Air Quality: Sections 2-17 and 5-106:
3
3
No development in Pitkin County is allowed that increases
overall traffic and PM10 in the non -attainment area without
the development eliminating at least as much PM10 as it adds.
The applicant has suggested measures to minimize pollution,
such as prohibiting wood burning devices in the caretaker
units, having the development on existing bus routes and
maintaining a road dust control plan. However, these measures
are not enough to eliminate increases of PM10 in the non -
attainment area. Without additional controls, the project
would not comply with the requirements of state laws, the PM10
SIP and the land use code. This department needs to evaluate
the proposed mitigation factors.
E. The Water Department had the following comments:
Water Service Agreement:
Under current City policy, a water service agreement will be
required to provide water service to the proposed subdivision
including four single-family dwellings and four on -site
affordable housing units. I would recommend that the
Benedicts contact the Water Department regarding the
established procedures for entering into a water service
agreement outside of the City boundaries.
• Clarification of Water Rights:
City policy for water service agreements requires the
dedication or transfer of water rights from the user to the
City comparable to the services to be provided. While the
applicant proposes to continue the use of water rights in the
Nellie Bird Ditch to continue irrigation of the meadow areas
adjacent to the Roaring Fork River in order to provide water
service, a dedication of a portion of these water rights to
the City will be required to account for the anticipated water
usage from the City's system. The application for City water
service will need to identify the expected water use to be
utilized by the proposed residences and the on -site affordable
housing units and provide an offer of dedication of water
rights to the City in a corresponding volume.
• Proposed Water Service Connections
The GMQS application correctly identifies the existing water
system configuration which was installed to serve the adjacent
Preserve subdivision. There are no significant issues to
providing service from the existing system. The existing
system provides for a looped configuration consistent with the
City's policy. No system upgrades are anticipated in order
to serve the proposed development.
4
• Availability of Raw Water:
The City Water Department is conducting an evaluation of the
availability of streamf lows to support the exercise of its
water rights in accordance with City water management
policies. The City has also received several other requests
for large developments outside of the City limits. Prior to
entering into a water service agreement for the Benedict
property, the availability of raw water to meet other priority
uses will need to be established.
* Potential Future Connections:
A water service agreement will identify the extent of
connections to be provided by City water service. Future
connections would likely require an amendment to the
agreement.
• Contractual Obligation to Serve Benedict Parcel
City Water staff is aware that the Benedict's believe that the
City is contractually obligated to serve the proposed
development. Water staff will request assistance from the
City Attorney's office regarding the extent of contractual
commitments. We are not presently aware of any agreements
which would supersede the need to enter into a water service
agreement.
E. The Engineering Department had the following comments:
* Annexation:
If the City is interested in annexing -the parcel, it should
be a condition of approval while there is only one owner of
record of the property. Once the property is subdivided, it
would be more difficult to obtain annexation approval or
consensus from a greater number of property owners.
* Ute Avenue Cul-de-Sac:
The last approximate 100' of Ute Avenue and the cul-de-sac are
located on the applicant's property. We request that an
easement be conveyed to the public or preferably that right-
of-way be dedicated (60' wide per 24-7-1004.C.4.a(3) for the
road width. The Code requires 100' diameter for the cul-de-
sac, but 80' should suffice in this situation with one-way
travel.)
* Highway 82 Right-of-way Dedication:
The width of the Highway 82 right-of-way adjacent to the
5
applicant's property scales off at about 58 feet. During the
East Cooper Affordable Housing Project review process, the
City obtained right-of-way widening for a 75' wide right-of-
way. We request that the County obtain appropriate right-
of-way widening dedication from the applicant with 75' as the
minimum desired right-of-way width. (If the existing ROW is
5811 17' would need to be added, and the applicant's half
would be 8.51. This may not be sufficient if CDOT requires
exit and left turn lanes.)
* Emergency Access Width:
Insofar as this subdivision may be annexed by the City, we
should note that City Code requires 20' emergency access
width.
* Storm Runoff:
There are at least four aspects to storm runoff design. One
is the runoff from public streets. The second is the runoff
from private property. The third is site design and lot
layout configuration to respect existing, natural drainage
patterns, and the fourth is that storm runoff from soils
exposed by construction excavation must be prevented from
entering public rights -of -way or the Roaring Fork River.
a. Runoff from private property in newly created
subdivisions is addressed in the Municipal Code at
Section 24-1004.C.4.f as follows: "f.Storm drainage."
(1) Drainage plan. The drainage plan for the proposed
subdivision shall comply with the.criteria in the City's
"Urban Runoff Management Plan."
(2) Detention storage. Short-term on -site detention storage
shall be provided to maintain the historical rate of
runoff for the 100-year storm from the undeveloped site.
(3) Maintain historical drainage flow. In cases where storm
runoff from an upstream basin passed through the
subdivision, the drainage plan shall provide adequate
means for maintaining the historical drainage system.
(4) Calculations and quantities of flow. The drainage plan
shall include calculations and quantities of flow at the
points of concentration."
b. Runoff from public streets is addressed in the Urban
Runoff Management Plan which the City adopted in 1973.
The Plan identified locations for storm water detention
ponds. The Benedict Stillwater Subdivision is located
C.
Il
outside City limits and therefore was not address in the
1973 Plan. Therefore we recommend that the subdivision
include a location and easement for a storm runoff
detention pond if necessary. The Clean Water Act will
eventually regulate the water quality of runoff from City
streets into the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries.
C. The City has suffered problems in at least two incidence
(one on Silver King Drive, in the Cemetery Lane area, and
the other on Eastwood Road) where the lot lines were not
coincident with the centerline of natural drainages.
Therefore, development should respect natural drainage
patterns.
* Summary - Storm Runoff - Specifically, for this
project, we would like the County to provide conditions
of approval that (1) no drainage from the 100-year storm
be permitted to enter public rights -of -way or the Roaring
Fork River and (2) storm runoff from soils exposed by
construction excavation must be prevented from entering
public rights -of -way or the Roaring Fork River.
* Subdivision Review Standards and Requirements:
The applicant is encouraged to review the Aspen Municipal Code
Section 7-1004 for the City of Aspen requirements for
subdivisions. In the case of possible annexations, the
subdivisions improvements must meet City of Aspen standards.
The. pavement width would be 24 feet if no parking is on the
streets, 32 feet for parking on one side of the street or 40
feet for parking on both sides of the streets. The City of
Aspen Engineering Department would be available to clarify any
of the code sections if the applicant requires additional
information.
* Utilities Underground:
The City of Aspen is presently in the third phase of
undergrounding overhead utilities in the city limits. We are
pleased that the applicant has proposed to underground all
utilities. We ask that the applicant maintain the separation
of utilities and that the applicant provide easements that
are reasonable and practical to maintain. We are also
requesting that the transformer and pedestal easements be
located on private property outside of the public right of
ways.
* Street Lights:
For the East Cooper Affordable Housing Project, the City
required that the .applicant install an antique street light
at the intersection of the access road and Highway 82. We
request that the same condition of approval be applied to this
project.
* Final Plat:
a. Boundary - The final plat should indicate which
boundaries are coincident with the. City limit line and
should indicate those distances and bearings of record.
Please refer to memo of November 24, 1993, to Planning
Office, copy attached.
b. Contiguity - The final plat should contain a general note
that states the percentage contiguity with the City.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission accept the referral comments from the City of Aspen,
listed above in this memo.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to accept the referral comments from
the City of Aspen about the Benedict/Stillwater Subdivision and
forward these referrals to the County Planning and Zoning
Commission."
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Referral Comments
14