The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.19930119 AGE N D A ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 19, 1993, Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room ci ty Hall ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ I. COMMENTS commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARING A. Rio Grande Subdivision, Leslie Lamont (To be continued to February 2, 1993) B. Common Ground Housing Subdivision, Stream Margin Review and Special Review, Leslie Lamont C. Thalberg Conditional Us~. Review Dwelling, Kim Johnson - ~~v--.v for a Second IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Zaluba 8040 Wall Amendment, Leslie Lamont IV. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: January 19, 1993 Regular Meeting - February 2 Rio Grande Subdivision (LL) Text Amendment for Trellises in Open Space (KJ) Regular Meeting - February 16 Text Amendments (FK & KJ) 1. Lot Line Adjustments 2. GMQS Exemption 3. PUD Amendments 4. SPA Amendments a.nex MEMORANDUM TO P & Z COMMISSION ON CO" ON GROUND PROJECT Please read the following at the Review.,Meeting, Jan.19,1992 (We are unable to attend due to very recent surgery,and illness) 1. We feel that 21 units is much too high density on this site of 1.967 acres of land which already has a 7,500 sq. ft. building on it. (former kitchen dining etc. of Community Center) 2. There is a definite lack of open space ,as this parcel was robbed for the Hunter Long House Addition..v(open space was also taken from the Hunter Long House) 3. We have serious concerns about parking, which does note provide one space per bedroom, and curbside parking is not available for this parcel. 4-Another problem is added automobile congestion in this highly developed areaywhich will make it almost impossible to turn north on Mill Street during certain times, coming otut of the Post Office - :Market area. (the problem is already bad) 5. Present units should be cut down in size also, because The two story buildings along the North side (our lot line) have been drawn closer than the existing one story building. 6. We request that story poles be used to see how our view planes and sun loss will be affected. 7. We request that any expenses envolved with changing utilities and water to us be borne by the Common Ground Project. We will be leaving town Feb. firstLto the end of May so would appreciate some story poles for sighting before we leave. Than you for your consideration, f r% MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: January 19, 1993 RE: Continued Public Hearing of Rio Grande Subdivision Due to belated public noticing, staff must continue the public hearing for subdivision review for the Rio Grande parcel to February 2, 1993. TO: CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: TAYLOR GAMBLIN for Common Ground Housing Association,Inc. To Whom It May Concern; I Granville Taylor Gamblin do hereby attest that the public notices to the adjacent land owners for the proposed Common Ground Project, 0100 Lone Pine Road, Subdivision,Stream Margin Review and Special Review mailed by me from the United States Post Office in Aspen, Colorado on January 9th, State of Colorado) ) SS County County ) 1993. Granville Taylor amblin, representative fo Common Ground Housing Association,Inc. This signature was acknowledged before me, the undersigned Notary Public, this 19th Day of January ,/ 993 by Granville aylo Gamblin. My Commissiol PUBLIC NOTICE RE: COMMON GROUND HOUSING SUBDIVISION, STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 19, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted by the Common Ground Housing Association, Inc., Box 11499, Aspen, CO, requesting subdivision approval for 21 employee deed restricted units, stream margin review, and special review for parking and open space. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 920-5090 sliasmine Tygre, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on January 1, 1993 City of Aspen Account _ Adiacent Home Owners for Notification Pitkin County Community Center Site MISC. OWNERS PAGE 1 Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (Long -Term Lease) 530 E. Main Aspen, Colorado 81611 Pitkin County 506 E. Main Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tercerco, Inc. 4400 One Williams Court Tulsa, OK 74172 Ms. Fleeta Baldwin and Ms. Roine St.Andre Box 502 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Ms. Joan Lane Box 46 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Oden Enterprises P.O. Box 660 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Marcia Cowee P.O. Box 904 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Donna Kay Rowlands 770 Cemetary Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gerald D. Hosier 100 S. Wacker Dr.,Suite 224 Chicago, IL. 60606 MISC OWNERS Jeffrey Hines and John C. & Brenda Duncan c/o Gerald Hines 2800 Post Oak Blvd. Houston, Texas 77056 Byron and Martha Spanjer and John and Susan Garza 712 Larkspur Blvd. Acworth, Georgia 30101 Southwest Guarantee Trust Co. Successor Co -Trustee William B. Rubey Estate c/o Meredith Cochran & Parks P.O. Box 35688 Dallas, Texas 75235 Stan Kopp and Robert Zupancis Box 100 Aspen, Co 81612 PAGE 2 LONE PINE HOMEOWNERS A-1 Barney Oldfield 0155 Lone Pine Rd # A-1 Aspen, Colorado 81611 A-2 Paul McDonald 0155 Lone Pine Rd. # A-2 Aspen, Colorado 81611 A-3 Rich Wager 0155 Lone Pine Rd.# A-3 Aspen, Colorado 81611 A-4 Sandra Ann Nerds 0155 Lone Pine Rd # A-4 Aspen, Colorado 81611 A-5 Linda Zurek 0155 Lone Pine Rd.# A-5 Aspen, Colorado 81611 A-6 Sharee Sonfield 5 Syloan Lane Westport,Conn 06880 A-7 Mark Danielson 0155 Lone Pine Rd. # A-7 Aspen, Colorado 81611 A-8 Stephen Connolly Box 3183 Aspen, Colorado 81612 A-9 Neil Alan Leibowitz Dorothy Ann Sharp 0155 Lone Pine Rd. # A-9 Aspen, Colorado 81611 A-10 Marilyn Foss Box 10149 Aspen, Colorado 81612 A-11 Lawrence Slater Box 2334 Aspen, Colorado 81611 A-12 Robert C. Braudis 0155 Lone Pine Rd. # A-12 Aspen, Colorado 81611 LONE PINE OWNERS A-13 Bruce Muhefeld 0155 Lone Pine Rd. A-13 Aspen, Colorado 81611 A-14 Gretchen Greenwood Box 10599 Aspen, Colorado 81612 A-15 John Bethold Fraser 450 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 A-16 Jake Vickery and Della Pegolotti Box 10623 Aspen, Colorado 81612 A-17 Susan Sanchez 0155 Lone Pine Rd. A-17 Aspen, Colorado 81611 A-18 Peter Maines 0155 Lone Pine Rd. A-18 Aspen, Colorado 81611 A-19 Henry W. Thurston IV Lisa Thurston Box 1221 Aspen, Colorado 81611 A-20 Tom Voorhies Box 619 Aspen, Colorado 81612 B-1 Vincent Partyka 0155 Lone Pine Rd. #B-1 Aspen, Colorado 81611 B-2 Luu Tong P.O. Box 619 Aspen, Colorado 81612 B-3 Deborah L. Smith Box 3659 Aspen, Colorado 81612 PAGE 2 LONE PINE OWNERS B-4 Tom Fisher 236 Pleasant Rt. Rd. Branford, Conn 06405 B-5 Michael L. Tanguary 0155 Lone Pine Rd. B-5 Aspen, Colorado 81611 B-6 Elizabeth Faison Box 10602 Aspen, Colorado 81612 B-7 Stan Snyder 0155 Lone Pine Rd. # B-7 Aspen, Colorado 81611 B-8 Dorothy Danieli 0155 Lone Pine Rd. B-8 Aspen, Colorado 81611 C-1 Fayez Zukau 77 29th St., Suite 301 Boulder, Colorado 80303 C-2 Roger & Pricilla Schultz Robert J. Schultz 3829 Del Campo Palos Verdes Estates, Ca. 90274 D-1 Willian Wesson & Eileen Rostad c/o R. Allen 601 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Roberta Allen (Notice Hand Delivered) c/o Allen Sharkey Braden McCormick 610 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 D-2 Frances Ginsburg 2 Sea Colony Drive Santa Monica, Ca 90405 D-3 Jerome Ginsburg c/o Lansco Corp. 122 E. 42nd. St. New York City, NY 10168 D-4 John Ginn Box 256 Aspen, Colorado 81612 PAGE 3 LONE PINE OWNER D-5 Beverly Trupp c/o Wright Connection 17313 1/2 Sunset Blvd. Pacific Palisades.Ca 90272 D-6 Murray Pett 4760 Wendrich West Bloomfield,Mi. 48033 D-7 Dr. Morris Barton Suite 1005 6245 N. 24th Parkway Phoenix, Arizona E-1 Sam Shamie 26111 W. 14 Mile Rd. Franklin, Michigan 48025 E-2 Glen A. Daly Carol Center Daly Suite 2101 5220 West Hills Drive Woodland Hills, Ca 91364 E-3 Alexander Garrett Kaspar Box 12061 Aspen, Colorado 81612 nA rMI A HUNTER CREEK HOMEOWNERS BLDG. 100 & 200 PAGE 1 211 Thomas F. Moher Jr. Thomas F. Moher Sr. 0286 Auburn Ridge Lane H-301 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8101 212 Sharon D. Heedum Box 3086 Aspen, Colorado 81612 213 Gennaro S. Federico 114 Davis Rd. Bedford, Ma. 01730 214 Lynda Green Apartment A 303 1111 Crandon Blvd. Key Biscayne, Fl. 33149 215 Louis L. Guns Margaret Guns 617 N. 4th St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 216 H. Don Chumley Annelise Chumley 1970 N. Broadway Oklahoma City, Ok.73103 217 T.W. Kinkead 2204 Lakesider Dr. Lexington, Ky 40502 218 Robert A Emigh Patricia A Emigh 7877 Andrews Way Boulder, Colorado 80303 221 Doreen Anderson 30880 State Highway 82 Snowmass,Colorado 81654 222 Rhoda Ushida Roger M & Julia K Estrella 2334 Jefferson Ave. Berkeley,Ca 94703 HUNTER CREEK BLDGS 100 & 200 PAGE 2 223 Neysa Sigler Rt.l, Box 3236 Barrows Rd. Stowe, Vt. 05672 224 Michelle Marie Bruce 0143 Lone Pine Rd. Unit 224 Aspen, Colorado 81611 225 William Lee Pomeroy Leslie Wing Pomeroy 2624 3rd. St. Santa Monica, California 90405 226 Howard B. and Betty S. Wallach 2229 Troy Ave. Brooklyn,NY 11234 227 Warren Obr c/o New York Times 3rd Floor 229 West 43rd St. New York,NY 10036 228 Laurie Ann Beeman Box 418 Aspen, Colorado 81612 231 Adrian N Patrascioiu and Emilie 2901 E. 1st. St. Tucson,Arizona 85714 232 Leilani Kre Damke 5371 East Caley Ave. Littleton, Colorado 80121 233 Marvin L. Raupp # 105 1142 Manhatten Ave. Manhatten Beach, Ca 90266 234 Edward T. Purcell Anne Celeste Purcell Box 10791 Aspen, Colorado 81612 235 John L. Sheehan 5 Crown Way Marblehead, MA 01945 HUNTER CREEK BUILDINGS 100 & 200 236 Walter and June Tilds 2716 Lakeridge Lane Westlake Village,CA. 91361 237 Brian Wiegand # 7E 45 Westend Ave. New York,NY 10028 238 Ilene H. Richmond 0143 Lone Pine Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 111 Erna D. Jackson 727-17 Tramway Lane N.E. Albuquerque NM 87122 112 Rosario Ilardo 6306 Moss Way Baltimore, MD 21212 113 Karl G. Larson Suite 101 210 N. Mill St Aspen, Colorado 81611 114 Myron & Helene Rappaport HWR Jewelery Inc. 318 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 115 Andre & Sophia G. Van Schaften 80 Waterside Close Rochchester,NY 10709 121 Robert N. Lankering Box 4427 Vero Beach ,Florida 32964 122 Oskar & Hilde Guenther 1038 Oak Hills Circle Ashland,OH 44805 123 Carola Terry Lott & Theresa Van Pantz 54 Avenue O'Iena Paris,France PAGE 3 124 Dr. Patricia Ann Hill DBA Institute for Excellence Box 20105 Village of Oak Creek,AZ 86341 125 Denise Lock 0143 Lone Pine Road # 125 Aspen, Colorado 81611 131 Robert Kershaw,John Thomas Ward, Kieron F. Quinn, Darell R.(JR) and Susan C. Cammack 113 West Monument St. Baltimore,MD 21201 132 Jill Martin 132 Vine St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 133 Andrew Gustave Larson Suite 101 201 N Mill St Aspen, Colorado 81611 134 Christian & Lott Christ 555 E. Durant Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 135 Evan Griffiths P.O. Box 75 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Hunter Creek Management 0143 Lone Pine Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 I IL MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner RE: Common Ground Housing Subdivision, Special Review and GMQS Exemption for 21 Fully Deed Restricted Residential Units DATE: January 19, 1993 SUMMARY: Common Ground Housing Association, Inc. (CGHA), the applicants, propose to develop 21 fully deed restricted residential units on the site formerly known as the old community center. The property was rezoned from Public to Affordable Housing (AH) in November of 1991. Although the County still owns the parcel it is within the City requiring City Land Use Review. The proposal requires subdivision review which is a two step review process at the Commission and Council. The AH zone district also requires special review by the Commission for open space and parking. The development of fully deed restricted affordable housing is exempt from the Growth Management System. However, the Commission must review the exemption and make a recommendation to Council. Attached for your review is the full application submitted by the applicant, Exhibit A. Staff recommends approval of this application. APPLICANT: Common Ground Housing Association Inc., as represented by Randy Wedum, Marcia Goshorn and Richard DeCampo. LOCATION: 0100 Lone Pine Road (the old community center site), Aspen, Colorado, 81611 ZONING: Affordable Housing (AH) APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subdivision, special review for open space and parking, and GMQS review for 21 fully deed restricted residential units. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral Comments are attached to the memo, Exhibit B. STAFF COMMENTS: When the County began the development of the new Health and Human Service building potential redevelopment of the Community Center site became eminent. Several housing development scenarios were reviewed for the site. The CGHA group, working through the Housing Authority, proposed using this site for co -housing. The BOCC and the Housing Authority, acknowledging CGHA's intent, agreed to let the group submit a proposal for review. The parcel was rezoned from Public to Affordable Housing in November of 1991. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Site Description'- The parcel is approximately 85,944 sq. ft. The existing building is approximately 21,700 sq. ft. The parcel is zoned Affordable Housing and is on the edge of the high density Hunter Creek and Centennial neighborhood which is zoned R/MFA. Single family housing is located behind the parcel at the base of Red Mountain. The parcel is oddly shaped. A "dog -leg" portion of the parcel extends behind the Hunter Longhouse addition along Hunter Creek but will be traded to Hunter Longhouse for a greater side yard area via a lot line adjustment. The west parking lot for Hunter Longhouse encroaches onto the Community Center parcel and half of the spaces in that lot will be used by CGHA upon development. The applicants intend to retain approximately 5,794 sq. ft. of the existing building which is the two story kitchen and meeting rooms. This portion of the existing building will be renovated as a Common House. The Common House will include laundry facilities, common kitchen, storage, lounge/library and 2 guest rooms. B. Project Summary - The applicants propose to construct 21 fully deed restricted dwelling units: eight 622 sq. ft. 1 bedroom units, five 1,000 sq. ft. two bedroom units, and eight 1,200 sq. ft. three bedroom units. Unit mix and sizes were derived by actual participants of the project taking into account the guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Please see development data, Exhibit C. This project has been designed to be consistent with several goals and objectives that have been adopted by the City. The Common Ground housing proposal helps to create a housing environment which is dispersed, appropriately scaled to the neighborhood and affordable. Because the Common Ground group is comprised of various income levels and age groups, the proposal is consistent with the community goal to encourage and maintain the existing character of the community. The site is within close proximity to community services, important bike/pedestrian and mass transit routes. 'These benefits support the goal of development that is non -auto oriented. The development review of this proposal is subdivision, special 2 review for open space and parking, and a GMQS Exemption review for 100% affordable housing. -- Council will review subdivision, �MQS Exemption for affordable housing, condominiumization, and a lot.line adjustment. C. Applicable Review - I. Subdivision - In order to develop multi -family housing on a single parcel a development plan must be reviewed pursuant to subdivision Section 7-1004. Section 7-1004 C.1. outlines the General Requirements for subdivision as follows: 1. (a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The proposal is a multi -family development permitted in the AH zone district. The project is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan because it disperses affordable housing among the City's existing residential neighborhoods. The proposal is also consistent with the recommendations of the Housing Sub - Committee that has worked on the Aspen Area Community Plan. The Committee identified the site for affordable housing. (b) The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. RESPONSE: The project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The surrounding land uses are mixed residential including high density multi -family adjacent to the site. (c) The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. RESPONSE: The proposed multi -family is supported by extensive infrastructure improvements that were made or in the case of sidewalks, are proposed to support high density development. Except for the Mocklin property, the surrounding neighborhood is essentially built out. Therefore the proposed development should have little effect on future development potential of neighboring properties. (d) The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: This proposal is 100% deed restricted and is in compliance with the AH zone district requirements. The proposal is not in conflict with any other sections of the Land Use Code. 3 Pursuant to Section 7-1004 C. 2 - 5, the pertinent subdivision requirements are as follows: 2. (a) 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 other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. RESPONSE: The existing building will be demolished and asbestos removal carefully monitored. The two story portion of the old building will be preserved and renovated for use as a common house. The property is virtually flat. Existing vegetation will be preserved. There are no natural hazards that exist on the site that would endanger the welfare of future residents. However, the applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to ensure that historic drainage patterns are maintained. (b) 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: There are no unnecessary public costs associated with this proposal. All utilities are available near the site. All public improvements to serve the project will be borne by the applicant. 3 & 4. Improvements and Design Standards - following is a review of the relevant subdivision standards: (a) WATER - The City water system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the project for both domestic and fire protection needs. Tap fees may be required for the renovation of the common house and separate taps and meters for the residential units may be required. (b) SEWER - The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve the project. The applicant shall submit detailed plans to the District office for a tap permit. No clear water connections may be made to the District's system. The individual buildings may require six inch service lines. The kitchen in the Common House must have a grease interceptor with a capacity approved by the District. All fees must be paid to the District prior to connection to the system. 4 (c) ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, NATURAL GAS AND CABLE TV - All required extensions will be located underground. (d) EASEMENTS - An access easement will be provided for Hunter Longhouse residents to park on the east side of the shared parking lot between the Co -housing development and Hunter Longhouse. The easement shall be included in the subdivision agreement and depicted on the final plat. (e) SIDEWA.LK, CURB, AND GUTTER - Section 19-98 of the Municipal Code requires construction of sidewalks for new construction in areas indicated on the adopted sidewalk, curb and gutter plan, similar requirements of the land use code notwithstanding. Sidewalks (along Lone Pine Road), curbs and gutters are required at the time of construction. The curbs and gutters shall align with the existing curb and gutter on Lone Pine Road. (f) FIRE PROTECTION - The Aspen Fire Protection District would strongly suggest sprinkled units for life safety reasons. (g) DRAINAGE - A drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Section 24-7-1004.C.4.f must be provided by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado and submitted to the Engineering Department. The storm drainage plan provided in the application must be modified so that the drainage from the parking lot does not enter onto the public ROW. The engineers need to comment on the functional aspects of the facility in order to determine that it can be cleaned for continual, proper performance. (h) STREET LIGHTS - Street lights may be required at the time of development. The applicants shall work with the City to determine location and design of lighting. Low level pedestrain lighting from the parking area to the dwelling units must be provided and included on the site plan that is filed with the subdivision plat. (i) STREETS - A revised site drawing must be provided that clearly shows the right-of-way and proposed development. It appears that the eighty foot right-of-way dedication may be in conflict with the parking lot. The two driveways for the property do not meet the standards of the municipal code. Section 19-101 allows for one eighteen foot wide curb cut or two ten foot wide curb cuts. While some non -conformities are allowed to exist these need to be remedied primarily for traffic safety reasons. The development should have one access to their parking lot from Lone Pine Road. The Red Mountain Road driveway must be 5 reconfigured to an approximate right angle intersection servicing the single family residence. (j) FINAL PLAT - Prior to the issuance of any permits the applicant must submit a subdivision plat in accordance with Section 24-7-1004.0 and D of the municipal code. (It is recommended that the applicant review bluelines with the Engineering Department prior to final submission.) Specific items that must be included on the plat are as follows: 1. Statement determining basis of bearings. 2. A statement to the effect that title policy number , d all easements of record are shown on plat. 3. Metes and bounds descriptions for all easements and their book and page numbers if an easement agreement has been recorded. Include the new Landscaping/Visual and Passive Use Easement. Also, verification is required that the lot line adjustments do not affect any easement agreements in place. 4. The plat submitted in the application indicates that there is right-of-way to be dedicated. The plat must contain language dedicating the right of way. In addition, per the municipal code, the right of -way width must be eighty (80) feet. 5. All existing site improvements, including streets. (The condominium map to be filed will amend this plat with any new development.) 6. Owner and title certificates for Hunter Longhouse. (k) STREET TREES AND LANDSCAPING - The subdivision agreement should establish landscaping guidelines and list plant materials that are appropriate to be included in the development. The applicant should consult the Parks Department or a registered landscape architect for a landscape guidance. (1) SITE PLAN - The applicant should reconsider the location of the children's play area and the common garden. Their proximity to one of the parking lots may pose health and safety problems. The final subdivision plat and agreement must be filed within 180 days of final approval. II. Special Review - The Affordable Housing zone district requires Special Review for establishing off-street parking and open space. C. a) Parking - The development will provide 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit (which includes 6 guest spaces) for a total of 32 parking spaces for 21 dwelling units. The AH zone district requires parking at a maximum of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. b) Open Space - Approximately 44,500 square feet or 500 of the site will remain undeveloped. Outdoor spaces will be more than just "open space," as a children's play area, a garden , and terrace overlooking Hunter Creek are proposed. A community commons is the focal point of all residential units. Each unit will front onto the commons and have it's own private "backyard" space. III. Stream Margin Review - There is no development proposed within 100 feet of the high water line of Hunter Creek. Therefore stream margin review is unnecessary. However, the Common Ground property line does extend into Hunter Creek. If future development, including decks or gazebos are planned, stream margin review shall be necessary. IV. GMQS Exemption - Pursuant to Section 24-8-104, before any proposed development can be considered for exemption by the City Council, an application for exemption shall be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation at a hearing. The applicants propose to develop 21 fully deed restricted dwelling units: eight 622 sq. ft. 1 bedroom units, five 1,000 sq. ft. two bedroom units, and eight 1,200 sq. ft. three bedroom units. According to the application there are three Category 1 units, 11 Category 2 units, and 7 Category 3 units. The applicant shall work with the Housing Authority to confirm unit prices before Council GMQS Review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of subdivision and special review for parking and open space for the development of 21 fully deed restricted units for Common Ground Housing with the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that clearly shows the right-of-way and proposed development, revised driveways and access to the parking lots, and the revised Red Mountain Road intersection servicing the single family residence. 2. Prior to Council review the applicant shall submit a revised storm drainage plan. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits: 7 a. A final plat and subdivision agreement, to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments and City Attorney, shall be recorded within 180 days of final approval. b. The final subdivision plat shall be submitted in accordance with Section 24-7-1004.0 and D of the -municipal code and shall include: i. statement determining basis of bearings; ii. a statement to the effect that title policy number , dated , was used in preparation of this survey plat and all easements of record are shown on plat; iii. metes and bounds descriptions for all easements and their book and page numbers if an easement agreement has been recorded, including the new Landscaping/Visual and Passive Use Easement, and verification that the lot line adjustments do not affect any easement agreements in place; iv. language dedicating the right-of-way which must be eighty (80) feet wide; V. all existing site improvements, including streets; vi. owner and title certificates for Hunter Longhouse; and vii. the access easement for Hunter Longhouse. C. The applicant shall submit a drainage analysis performed by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado to the Engineering Department. d. The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to be reviewed and approved by the Water Department. 4. An excavation permit is required for any work in the public right-of-way. 5. Prior to final approval a revised site drawing shall be approved by the Engineering Department and filed with the subdivision plat. The site drawing shall include the sidewalks (for Lone Pine Road), curb and gutter. 6. All public improvements to serve the project will be borne by the applicant. 7. The applicant shall adhere to the all representations made in the application and during the review process. 8. Stream margin review shall be required if future development including decks or gazebos are proposed within 100 feet of the high 8 water line. 9. The applicant shall submit detailed plans to the Aspen _ Consolidated Sanitation District office for a tap permit. No clear water connections may be made to the District's system. The kitchen in the Common House shall have a grease interceptor with a capacity approved by the District. Prior to connection to the sanitation system, all sanitation district fees must be paid. Staff also recommends approval to Council of the GMQS Exemption with the following condition: 1. Prior to Council review, income categories and unit prices shall be confirmed. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits deed restrictions shall be reviewed and approved by the Housing Authority. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend to Council approval of the subdivision and GMQS Exemption for the development of 21 fully deed restricted dwelling units at 0100 Lone Pine Road with the conditions listed in the Planning Office memo dated January 19, 1993." "I move to approve special review for parking at 1.5 spaces per unit and open space for the development of 21 fully deed restricted dwelling units at 0100 Lone Pine Road with the conditions listed in the Planning Office memo dated January 19, 1993." EXHIBITS: A. Application B. Referral Comments C. Development Data 9 P1AP.N1%:NG V&ONIINS COMMISSION EXHIBIT , APPROVED , 19 BY RESOLUTION MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer Date: December 11, 1992 Re: Common Ground Housing GMQS Exemption, Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Stream Margin Review, Special Review and Condominiumization and Vested Rights Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. GMQS Exemption: No comment. 2. Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment: Prior to the issuance of any permits the applicant must submit a subdivision plat in accordance with Section 24-7-1004.0 and D of the municipal code. (It is recommended that the applicant review bluelines with the Engineering Department prior to final submission.) Specific items that must be included on the plat are as follows: a. Statement determining basis of bearings. b. A statement to the effect that title policy number , dated , was used in preparation of this survey plat and all easements of record are shown on plat. c. Metes and bounds descriptions for all easements and their book and page numbers if an easement agreement has been recorded. Include the new Landscaping/Visual and Passive Use Easement. Also, verification is required that the lot line adjustments do not affect any easement agreements in place. d. The plat submitted in the application indicates that there is right-of-way to be dedicated. The plat must contain language dedicating the right of way. In addition, per the municipal code, the right of -way width must be eighty (80) feet. e. All existing site improvements, including streets. (The condominium map to be filed will amend this plat with any new development.) f. Owner and title certificates for Hunter Longhouse. /r 3. Site Plan: a. The two driveways for the property do not meet the standards of the municipal code. Section 19-101 allows for one eighteen foot wide curb cut or two ten feet wide curb cuts. While some non -conformities are allowed to exist this one needs to be remedied, primarily for traffic safety reasons. The Common Ground Housing should have one access to their parking lot from Lone Pine Road. The Red Mountain Road driveway must be reconfigured to an approximate right angle intersection servicing the single family residence. From the application drawings it appears that the lot line adjustment no longer allows Hunter Longhouse clear access to its property. While Hunter Longhouse has right to access Lone Pine from a different location, a written access easement must be provided to continue as a shared access. b. Curb and gutter must be extended along Lone Pine Road adjacent to the property and aligning with existing. Sidewalks must also be constructed. c. It appears that the eighty foot right-of-way dedication may be in conflict with the parking lot. d. Street lights will be required on Lone Pine Road as provided for in Section 24- 7-1004.C.4.a.(23). Please note that this department has received several calls concerning street lighting at the new Williams Woods Addition development. Also, the applicant should be sensitive to p oviding some low level pedestrian site lighting c ruc. within the project site. `u . � e. A revised site drawing must be provided. It needs to clearly show the right- of-way and development within. f. Verification that the trash area and receptacles are sized properly for this development. The applicant should consider including recycle containers in this area also. g. The applicant needs to coordinate mail delivery with the U.S. Post Office. It is quite possible that they may require a central delivery box for the residents in which case one will have to be located on site. 4. Storm Drainage: Calculations meeting the requirements of Section 24-7-1004.C.4.f and prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice -in the State of Colorado, must be provided. The storm drainage plan as shown on Exhibit R of the application needs to be modified so that the drainage from the parking lot does not enter onto the public right-of-way. The engineer needs to comment on the functional aspects of the facility in order to determine that it can be cleaned for continual, proper performance. �r In addition, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the storm run-off design construction must be certified in a letter by the design engineer. 5. Condominiumization: A condominium plat must be filed which meets the requirements of Section 24-7-1004.D.2.a of the municipal code prior to the conveyance of any units. 6. Stream Margin: No comment. 7. General Comments: a. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way, we would advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) 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). b. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of- way. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to the issuance of any permits the applicant must submit the following: a. a subdivision plat in accordance with Section 24-7-1004.0 and D. b. a revised site plan. c. storm drainage calculations and revised storm drainage plan. 2. Prior to the conveyance of any unit the applicant must file a condominium map. cc: Chuck Roth, City Engineer CASELOAD41032 l6�' WAYNE L. VANDEMARK, FIRE MARSHAL 420 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 _ (303) 925-2690 TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Wayne Vandemark, Fire Marshal RE: Common Ground Housing GMQS Exemption Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Stream Margin Review, Special Review and Condominiumization and Vested Rights DATE: December 7, 1992 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Although not required, the Aspen Fire Protection District would strongly suggest these units be sprinklered thus addressing our concerns for life safety. Not taking advantage of all life safety issues could be a liability problem for the County. ASPEN46PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Environmental Health Department Date: December 18, 1992 Re: Common Ground Housing GMQS Exemption, Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Stream Margin Review, Special Review and Condominiumization and Vested Rights The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above -mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: The application indicates that the project is to be served with public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD). It is indicated that the District has adequate capacity at the wastewater treatment facility and in the collection system. The consulting engineer proposes to construct a new eight (8") sewer line within the project and tie to the existing sewer main in Lone Pine Road. By being constructed to ACSD standards, it is possible that the district will accept the line for maintenance. We suggest that arrangements be made with the District to approve and inspect the line construction to make sure that it conforms to standards. This proposal conforms with Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public sewers". ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: The application indicates that the project will be served with water provided by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system". The City water distribution mains are in place and can accommodate the flows and demand expected from the proposed units. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado B'Mll rrcrcred OMB+ 303/000-6070 Common Ground December 18, Page 2 AIR OUALITY: Housing Association Review 1992 The location of the proposed development provides easy access to town by walking, biking, or riding the bus. Parking is to be provided for the units. This use should have little effect on the total air quality impact of the airshed due to location and restrictions that are indicated limiting woodburning in the individual units. No woodburning fireplaces are allowed in the metro area, and, as we understand it from the DRC meeting, a gas -log fireplaces is to be used in the commons building. Gas appliances for the other units are allowed, however, the application does not address what is planned or proposed. We recommend that the applicant address this as a part of the Condominium association declarations and covenants. This written documentation will allow individual owners to understand the restrictions and the allocation of wood stove and gas -appliance devices. NOISE: There obviously will be noise generated by the intended change of use of this facility, as construction activities occur. The applicant should take appropriate steps to minimize noise leaving the property and into surrounding neighborhoods. Should complaints be received by this office, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code - Noise Abatement, will be the document used in the investigation. It is important that the applicants become familiar with the regulation and design accordingly. MESSAGE DISPLAY TO LESLIE LAMONT CC LARRY BALLENGER From: Judy McKenzie Postmark: Jan 12,93 3:54 PM Status: Certified Subject: WATER ISSUE REGARDING CO HOUSING DEVELOPEMENT OLD HOSPITAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message: ALL UNITS WILL HAVE SEPERATE TAP'S WITH SHUT OFF, OLD HOSPITAL REMODEL WILL BE SUBJECT TO TAP FEES. IRRIGATION DRAWING WILL NEED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE WATER DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL ALONG WITH WATER DRAWING FOR THE COMPLETE PROJECT To: Leslie Lamont, Planning From: Dave Tolen, Housing Re: Common Ground Housing GMQS/Subdivision The Housing Office has reviewed the application from Common Ground Housing for subdivision and GMQS exemption. The Housing Board previously reviewed the proposal for a 100% affordable project, and found the unit configurations and prices to be very attractive. At its meeting of September 23, 1992, the Housing Board recommended that the proposed unit prices be modified slightly. Since the applicant has not included unit prices in the current application, we are unable to determine whether or not this recommendation was followed. The prices recommended by the Board, in a unanimous vote, are as follows: Unit Type Category Recommended Price 1 BR 1 $32,000 1 BR 2 60, 00G 1 BR 3 106,500 2 BR 2 76,000 2 BR 3 116,500 3 BR 2 88,000 3 BR 3 126,000 The Housing Office recommends that the units be priced as above, and that any proposed changes in unit prices be reviewed by the Housing Office. 17 ;� - - - - -� Sys•. � `•s'-.r,`'J - -i- — - T c , 21 -2537 OW 92&W01 Loush.in erly, Mgr. raw 4.*s i le Laion t planning �0ffios - J - --430 S. Ca Iona St. Aspen, _M $1Si i r -Re: Common Ground Housing Association Viand use to sal Tear L"Ile: 'The Aspen Consol,1#ated Sa►nttatisn ;,DlwLrict -; Currently has sufficient line and treatment capacity to'-' Tve--A-b-is _eject. Ve wou 1 d request that the a►pplieaRa� i.t.: atag d plans to our office when they become avai Ii a so A*m- t ar►��p .permit .can be -c3oupteted and the .associated connection fees determined. -If It i s the intention of ILhe ;,M+pl i cant to deed the on -site collection system over to our District Tor-Vdture -maintenance and repair then the construction of the on -site system .gust comply with District specifications. Compliance would be -determined by the District engineer's review and inspection, the cost of which will be added to the total connection charges. The applicant would also be required to convey standard D-istrict ,easements for access to the lines. The proposed crossing of the on -site wastewater line with a water line will require spieciai Atbentton, but if the District -Is specifications are followed, this should .not create a .problem. 1 would -encourage the applicant's engineer -moo 'contact Tom 4Bracewe l 1 , our line superintendent, at the District office for more information. usual no clear water cfln"Gt-tans -ray • .v the .fistrict's system. -T'he -individual bui ldi As,~ quire six = frvice .Alnss a,s is .represented -'in rifeteria Au:t $wave a Ztgrease mtvrcept : a<cApapity approved Oy the trim. 1l ?ess must #tor o►a�ctt� our - - _ review hen we would 1 lice to -4aw ► �. atn as = a prejeat _proces4in Z-- r -truce Mather _-- : at r i c t Plana se r , - r A. ; 001 a-- 1976 REGItiNAL AND NATI�C3I+TAL tom•_•-�3ri: � , ?•- - __ .. . PLANNING j:! fNG COMMISSION COMMON GROUND HOUSING ASSOCIATION IINC;XHIBIT , APPROVED , COMMUNITY CENTER SITE PROPOSAL 19 BY RESOLUTION Dimensional Requirements Criterion AH Zone 1. Minimun Lot Size 3,000 sq. ft 2. Minimun Lot Area/Unit 1 bedroom,1250 sq.ft 8 units = 10,000 sq.ft. 2 bedroom ,2100 sq.ft. 5 units = 10,500 sq.ft. 3 bedroom, 3,630 sq.ft. 8 unit = 29,040 sq.ft. TOTAL 49,540 sq.ft. External Floor Area Ratio ; Multi Family 43,561 sq.ft. to 3 acres .36:1 Proposal 88,661 sq.ft. ALLOWABLE FAR 88,661 x .36 = 31,918 sq.ft PROPOSED FAR 1 bedrooms 627 x 8 = 5016 2 bedrooms 997 x 5 = 4985 3 bedrooms 1195 x 8 = 9560 Common House = 5000 TOTAL PROPOSED FAR 24,561 sq.ft. 88,661 sq.ft. TABLE 1 DEVELOPMENT DATA Number Unit Type Category Unit Size 3 1 bedroom,l bath Cat 1 627 sq.ft. 4 1 bedroom,l bath Cat 2 627 sq.ft. 1 1 bedroom,l bath Cat 3 627 sq.ft. 3 2 bedroom,2 bath Cat 2 997 sq.ft. 2 2 bedroom,2 bath Cat 3 997 sq.ft. 4 3 bedroom,2 bath Cat 2 1,195 sq.ft. 4 3 bedroom,2 bath Cat 3 11195 sq.ft. TOTAL EMPLOYEE UNITS 21 a� TABLE 2 July 30 , 1992 Resident Generation and K-12 School Children Estimate Common Ground Project Aspen/Pitkin Housing Study- Final Report, July 1991 pg.5 Table 1- All Respondents living/working in Pitkin County Household Size Merged 1990-91 Data ( 1,876 responses) Average number of Adults = 2.0 Average number of Children = .6 Average Household Size = 2.6 Kids in School 21 deed restricted units = 9.25 kids 9.25 kids total Residents Generated ( Table 111-A Calculations for Resident Generation, APCHA Guidelines April 90 through April 91 pg.4) Employee units No units # bed/unit res./unit kids/unit kids 8 1 1.75 0 0 5 2 2.25 .25 1.25 8 3 3.0 1.0 8 9.25 kids TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTS 49.25 TOTAL NUMBER OF RIDS 9.25 kids `'�1 TABLES 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: January 19, 1993 RE: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline Wall Amendment SAY: When the 8040 Greenline approval was granted for Hoag Lot 3 in January of 1990 there was a specific retaining wall plan approved by the Commission. Since that approval the applicant, together with Randy/Wedum the architect for the adjacent property owner, have revised the plans for the retaining wall. A revision of this extent is a substantial amendment to the original 8040 Greenline review. APPLICANT: Joe Zaluba, as represented by Marti Pickett and Randy Wedum LOCATION: Hoag Subdivision Lot 3, Aspen Colorado ZONING: Conservation REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please refer to Engineering comments, Exhibit A. STAFF COMMENTS: The 1990 Greenline approval included a tie-in and boulder retaining wall for the new road cut to access the proposed single family home. Please see typical section for tie-in wall and boulder wall, Exhibit B. During recent non-compliance hearings, the applicant proposed a new wall design for staff's review. The original wall was designed for retainage purposes and meant to reduce erosion of the upper slope. The boulder wall segments were also intended for aesthetic purposes. The revised wall is a 32" precast exposed aggregate concrete stem wall. Please see entry road sketch, Exhibit C. As the application states, "Its purpose is not to retain; it is mainly serving as a barrier for water drainage from the hillside, debris flow from the uphill side, as well as allowing for a drainage channel for the driveway." The wall will also act as a barrier from cars and snowplows under -cutting the base of the cut hillside. Staff has reviewed this revision with the applicant's representatives. Based upon the expertise of the engiDeers working on this revision, staff understands that the precast wall will require less grading and cutting back of the upper slope compared to a boulder wall or any other system. Because of the structural integrity of the slope, basically dry stacked stones, a strong retainage system is unnecessary. A tie-in wall would require extensive cribbing of the slope which is not required. The precast wall provides a barrier to undercutting and channels drainage. With hydromulching and revegetation of the upper slope, erosion potential will be reduced. In addition the precast wall has a lower profile than a tie-in wall. 'The revised wall proposal offers a physically sound solution with minimal impact. RECOMMENDATION: Because less grading of the upper slope is required and the lower wall is less obtrusive then a potentially 8 foot high tie-in wall staff recommends approval of the revised wall plan with the following conditions: 1. Prior to construction of the wall: a. all previous approvals that do not pertain to design shall remain in effect. b. the applicant shall coordinate the tree location plan and/or replacement program with the Park's Department. C. details showing final grades and revegetation of the upper road cut shall be provided. d. the applicant shall consult with the Rappaport's to determine whether a large evergreen above their residence is unstable and should be cut down. 2. A geotechinical engineer shall perform field monitoring during slope grading and retaining wall construction/installation. A signed and stamped letter shall be provided that all construction was completed in accordance to drawings and specifications. 3. Signage shall be posted: warning nordic skiers and drivers that they share the lower driveway, and only the uphill side of the shared auto/nordic road shall be plowed. 4. Hydroseeding/mulching shall be provided for any areas disturbed by the removal of the debris. 5. A guarantee for the hydroseeding/mulching , plus a 30% contingency for City administration time to complete the project, shall be provided before on or before February 24, 1993. K 6. The trail width near the lower portion of the access road shall not be compromised for the access road and shall remain 8 feet wide. 7. Failure to comply with any or all of the above conditions shall be cause for non-compliance consideration of the 8040 Greenline approval for Hoag Lot 3. EXHIBITS A. Referral Comments B. Section of tie-in C. Entry Road Sketch and revegetation wall and boulder wall & explanation of wall 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT A , APPROVED , 1'1A-T7M00ANMIT%i9 BY RESOLUTICN To: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer Date: January 13, 1993 Re: Zaluba Access Road - amendment With reference to the drawings submitted requesting precast wall units in lieu of a tie back retaining wall I have the following comments: 1. All previous approvals that do not pertain to design shall remain in effect. 1. The applicant shall coordinate the tree location plan and/or replacement program with the Park's Department. 2. A geotechinical engineer must perform field monitoring during slope grading and retaining wall construction/installation. A signed and stamped letter must be provided that all construction was completed in accordance to drawings and specifications. 3. The submitted plan did not shoe, locations for the required signage. 4. There was no mention of regrading and revegetation of the upper road cut. Details showing final grades and revegetation should be provided. >. Apparently the fence separating the trail and the driveway has been deleted. Warning signs should be placed notifying both skiers and motorists. 6. Hydroseeding/mulching must be provided for any areas disturbed by the removal of the debris. 7. A guarantee for the hydroseeding/mulching must be provided. 10. There should be a contingency of 30% on the total agreed costs to handle City administration time should they have to complete the project. 11. As a general comment I have concern that the trail width near the lower portion of the access road will be less than eight feet. The width of the trail should not be compromised for the access road. µ PlANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT , APPROVED 19 By RESOLUTTQW mmmo_ EXISTING SLOPE v — WIDTH OF TIE -BACK WALL: 3 FT. MAXIMUM I 2 FT. MINIMUM I W 12 j< \ { _ REMOVE TOPSOIL AS NECESSARY, PLACE 1 4OF COMPACTED CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE ON COMPACTED SUBGRADE. (ALL 4 FT. MINIMUM TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR). - 2 FT. DEEP, ROCK FILLED DITCH/TOE DRAIN. FILL DITCH WITH 1-1/2' SCREENED ROCK. TYPICAL SECTION, 1 +00 TO 5+73,35 NOTE: TIE -BACK WALL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE LET AS A SEPARATE DESIGN /BUILD CONTRACT TO A CONTRACTOR NORMALLY ENGAGED IN SUCH BUSINESS. EXIST. SLOPE l-l/,? I CUT SLOPE OR EX/S TING SLOPE WHERE REASONABLE EXIST. ROADWAY BENCH (NOT TO BE WIDENED) I FT. 12 0' �� W10T =l V,4R fS E MIN. PLACE BOULDERS ROAD PORTION TRAIL POR77ON AGAINST NEW CUT 0.5 6 00' 6.00' SCARIFY e RESEED SHORT (3' TO 67 RETAINING / M/N. WALL AS 'KEYSTONE" SYS7LF'M OR GRAVITY ROCK WALL WHERE NEEDED TO PROTECT EXISTING TREES OR ? % I 3% STEEP CUT SLOPES, ANGULAR BOULDERS TYP. MIN/MUM BASE - SIZE 2 FT. MIN/MUM ALLOWABLE SIZE REMOVE TOPSOIL AS NECESSARY, FOR INCLUSION /N WALL /S 1.5 FT. PLACE 4" OF COMPACTED CL. 6 2 FT, DEEP, ROCKFILLED DITCH/TOE AGGREGATE BASE COURSE ON COMPACTED DRAIN. FILL DITCH W/THl-1/2" SUBGRADE. (ALL TO 95% STANDARD SCREENED ROCK. PROCTOR.) /FAcF-cq• FT, TYPICAL ROAD SECTION STATION 10+00 TO 12-52.13, EXISTING RC4DWAY NO SCALE Ely/ DO C) ( Y c 4 J� `L! fr t' 1'lrr vix %+'' r a > ,. � � r-. i ] t _ � , -� � s� y �(^' ti♦ F��.-• • ram. AIM' � � ;� � " J� �, ' � ► `� i- tt �.,:' .. ; . _ . _ _ _ •+mat . , -x +•� � •��+ `4 JL_ jr ZVI 46 dr Air r°1 A•ee AIM Ak . �. y tF IPA Man - t P .� w i� - a w,- �F*` WEDUM & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS 616 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1961 TO: City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Staff ATTENTION: Leslie Lamont DATE: November 10, 1992 REFERENCE: Drawings Submitted For Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision Road Improvement This memo is written in response to your request for clarification of the drawings submitted. Sheet One of High Country Engineering, Inc., dated 10/12/92, represents the site plan of the proposed stem wall along the uphill side of the road from Ute Avenue to the Hoag, Lot 3, building envelope. This is approximately 700 lineal feet on the south side g the roadway. Sheet Two represents typical cross -sections of the roadway and the AGQe stem wall system at various points along the road. There is also provided typical cross -sections reflecting how the design solves the drainage, debris flow of the hillside, as well as the drainage for the roadway. The design of this system was a result of the collaboration between the soils engineers of Chen Northern & Associates, Steve Pollack, Engineer; High Country Engineering, Tim Beck, Engineer; and Greg Mozian, Landscape Architects. The stem wall is shown as a precast exposed aggregate concrete system. Its purpose is not to retain; it is mainly serving as a barrier for water drainage from the hillside, debris flow from the uphill side, as well as allowing for a drainage channel for the driveway. The concrete stem wall is on the uphill side of the road, acting as a barrier for cars and snowplow from under -cutting the base of the cut hillside. Addressing all concerns i.e., drainage, scrapping back the hillside, revegetating using the natural vegetation existing and hydra -mulching —is the recommendation of all three parties. This allows for a minimal amount of exposed concrete i.e., stone, railroad ties, etc. This allows for natural vegetation to accomplish the majority of the solution in the disturbed areas. The solution was designed to minimize visual impact and to minimize disturbed areas. MEMO To City of Aspen Planning Department Staff ATTENTION: Leslie Lamont November 10, 1992 Page Two The final sheet submitted is from the office of Greg Mozian, Landscape Architect, describing and showing that the disturbed areas and the appropriate way to revegetate. In reference to Area Two on Greg Mozian's drawing, this refers to the downhill side of the road where rocks have been dispersed. This is due to the excavation where rocks have fallen over the hillside. The Landscape Architect's recommendation is to remove the stones, revegetate as required, and to do hydra -mulch. This is represented in their specs, not shown on drawings. High Country Engineers will be providing a volume of fill and landscape recommendations on the back -filling of the existing cut road that the City is requiring to be back -filled and revegetated, not addressed on this set of plans. The final item to be discussed is the area at the intersection of the driveway and the nordic ski trail as they merge and become one. There is a great differential between the road coming down the hill and the ski trail coming up the road. Based on input from engineering, we are redesigning that intersection to minimize the retainage required and to minimize the amount of area that is of differential height. Also based on input from the Engineering Department, we are not recommending a curb between the ski trail and the road; but to use a full 20' easement for both functions after the intersection of the two come together across Forest Service property, for the remaining driveway to Ute Avenue. RW:a2z GREG MOZIAN Pjall np October 15, 109*2 k . b RE: Hydroseeding Estimate for Hoag Subdivision Roadcut Attn: Randy Wedum Dear Randy, The following is an estimate for the proposed hydroseeding along the road cut in the Hoag subdivision. To successfully reseed the road cut as specified by our plan it would cost approximately $1,000,00. This includes travel time, set-up, fertilizer, straw, tackifier and seed. If you need a further breakdown of this estimate feel free to notify our office. 6 Sincerely, i 4 Nick Soho q 11; S. Spring titrrrt • A,,pcn, CO 81611 • (303) 925-8963 REVEGETATION GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS HOAG SUBDIVISION LOT 3 ACCESS ROAD Suggested Revegetation Plant Material For Area 1 Part 1 Materials 1.1.1 Native Seed Mix 1.2.1 This native seed should be custom mixed in the following proportions: 20% Mountain Brome 10% Sheep Fescue 20% Orchard Grass 10% Winter Wheat 20% Tall Fescue 5% Timothy 10% Canadian Bluegrass 5% Alsike Clover 1.2.2 All seed shall be furnished in bags or containers clearly labeled to show the name and address of the supplier, the seed name, the lot number, net weight, percent of weed seed content and germination rates. 1.2.3 Seed and seed labels shall conform to all current State and Federal regulations and will be subject to the testing provisions of the Association of Official Seed Analysis, 1.2.4 All brands furnished shall be free from such noxious seeds as Canadian or Russian Thistle, Coarse Fescue, Johnson Grass, Leafy Spurge and European Bindweed. 1.2.5 Guaranteed purity shall be at least 90% and germination 85%. 1.3 Seed Mulch 1.3.1 Hydromulch areas will use 200 lbs. virgin wood fiber per acre (ex: silva fiber or spray mulch) with an organic tackifier (ex: terra tack or M-Binder) at 150 lbs. per acre. 1.4 Fertilizer 1.4.1 Biosol organic fertilizer or equal to be provided at a rate of 600 lbs./acre. 0 /G Part 2 Installation 2.1 Topsoil Spreading and Preparation 2.1.1 Rough grading of areas to be revegetated shall be approved in the field, by the Landscape Architect before seeding begins. 2.1.2 Remove all deleterious materials which may remain from rough grading operation, including all rocks, cobbles, and other debris over 3" in any dimension. 2.1.3 Thoroughly scarify the subsoil. 2.2 Seeding of Native Grass Areas 2.2.1 Seedina Time: Seeding shall take place in the Fall. This will allow the Spring run-off to irrigate the seeding areas. The time frame for hydroseeding shall be from the last week in September to the second week in November. 2.2.2 Soil Preparation: See Topsoil Spreading and Preparation, Section 2.1. 2.2.3 Grass Seed Application: The seed shall be applied by a hydroseed truck on a day when there is no breeze, at the rate of 60 lbs./acre. 2.2.4 The seeded surface will be covered with mulch by an approved hydraulic -type mulcher. Hydromulch areas, as determined in field by the Landscape Architect, will use 200 lbs. virgin fibers per acre with an organic tackifier, at the rate of 150 lbs./acre. 2.2.5 Seed and hydromulch shall be mixed and applied at the rates recommended by the seed and hydromulch suppliers. If seed and hydromulch suppliers recommend, the fertilizer (as specified earlier) shall be mixed and applied with the seed mulch. 2.2.6 Erosion control mats will be located on slopes of 2:1 or greater. The location of all erosion control mats will be approved in the field by the Landscape Architect. 2.2.7 Clean-up: Any soil, peat, mulch, or other similar material which has been brought onto the paved areas shall be removed promptly upon completion of the seeding. All excess sod, stone, and debris, which has not been cleaned up shall be removed from the site. All seeded areas shall be prepared for final inspection. 2.2.8 Guarantees For Seeded Lawn Areas: Reseeding: Areas failing to show an adequate germination of Orass upon inspection by the Owner's representative shall be reseeded according to the instructions in Section 2.2. Suggested Revegetation For Area 2 It is our opinion the lower slope will recover best if the debris from the road construction is removed and the natural vegetation is allowed to reclaim itself. This can be done by following instructions in Section 2.1.2. Chen Northern, llic. October 16, 1992 non F )ari i C,ir.nvdnnt; j�,r,�,U- CcdonnnP,�r-,p, 'in.vw, ; ,vo, Western Heritage Log Homes . 30:1 ya,, : 16 ; i :' c/o Randy Wedum, '�-rchitect 616 East Hyman - Suite 102 ! Aspen, CO 81611-1981 Subject: Review of Retaining Wall Design for Access Road, Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado. Job No. 4 275 89 Dear Mr. Wedum: As requested by you, we have reviewed the retaining wall details prepared by High Country Engineering dated October 12, 1992 with respect to compliance with our grading recommendations. Observations and recommendations previously made for temporary grading were presented in a letter to Joe Zaluba dated September 16, 1992, Job No. 4 275 89. The current plan of driveway improvement is to leave the rough cut slopes as they were observed on September 8, 1992 through this winter and final grade the slopes next year. The proposed retaining wall at the toe of the cut (and at the transition of the Ute Trail into the driveway) will consist of 2 1/2 foot high precast wall sections with a backslope at 1 horizontal to 1 vertical. Cut heights should be on the order of 3 to 8 feet based on the site topography and cross sections. The backside of the wall should be filled with crushed rock and the backslope cut and fill graded to achieve the 1:1 design grade. Some modification in the final slope configuration may be needed depending on the tree cover of the natural uphill slope. Based on our review, the slope grading and wall design are in accordance with the recommendations for driveway grading presented on Pages 9 and 10 of our subsoil study report for Lot 3, Job No. 4 275 89 dated June 26, 1989. We understand that the final graded slopes will be hydromulched and revegetated according to recommendations by Greg Mozian. We should observe the final slope grading during and after the retaining wall construction. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, CHEN-NORTHERN, INC. er- _ Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. SLP/bjs cc: High Country Engineering, Attn: Martha C. Pickett, Attorney Joe Zaluba Tim Beck /3 A mvml)n, ni rninparne.<,