HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19920915
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
September 15, 1992, Tuesday
,2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
4:00-4:45 PM SITB VISIT TO KBADOWS BRIDGES
5:00-5:30 PM SITE VISIT TO CITY SHOP
A van will leave from City Hall promptly at 4:00 PM
5:30 PM
SPECIAL MEETING 2ND FLOOR CITY BALL
I.
COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II . MINUTES
,
III.
OLD BUSINESS - 5:30-6:30 PM
"'"!'-""
A. East Cooper Affordable Housing conceptual PUD, Kim
Johnson
IV. WORK SESSION - 6:30-7:00 PM
A. City Shop Master Plan, Roxanne Eflin
V. ADJOURN
,,,,.<,.~...
'"". .....
September 3, 1992
Kim Johnson, Staff Planner
Aspen-Pitkin County Planning Department
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Riverside Drive Access to Proposed East Cooper Affordable Housing Project
Dear Ms. Johnson and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission:
It has come to my attention that there is pending before the land use authority of the City of
Aspen an application for approval of a project called The East Cooper Affordable Housing Project
and that, access for the seven (7) free-market units proposed Riverside Drive is to be the access.
Please be advised that I was the developer of Riverside Subdivision in the mid-1950s and it was at
all times my intention that access along Riverside ' Drive be limited to the owners of lots and
occupants of Riverside Subdivision. It was never my intention that any portion of the property
proposed for development as the East Cooper Affordable Housing Project have access by Riverside
Drive.
Additionally, given that I have made conveyances to adjoining Riverside Subdivision owners
of portions of what is shown on the recorded Subdivision Plat of Riverside Subdivision as Park
Avenue, which said Park Avenue was never built, never existed in place and never was dedicated,
I believe that careful investigation needs to be made in respect of claim of ownership to any portion
of Park Avenue made by any party who did not receive a conveyance thereof from me.
If I may be of any further assistance in providing you with information which I might have
reasonably available, please feel free to call me.
Very truly yours,
Fredric Benedict
bend ict\p 1n g-p&z.1tr
V. . t
HELEN KALIN KLANDERUD
ATTORNEY AT LAW
-.a001 EAST BAYAUD AVENUE, #1001
ENVER, COLORADO 80209
,03) 722-8680
September 1, 1992
Ms. Kim Johnton
Planning office
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Mayor
City Council
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81E11
kJ.
tam
l
BOX 1558
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
(303)925-2796
VJ
3 n';'
Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Residential. Development
Deal- Kim, Planning and Zoning Commissioner-, mayor, and. City
Council-:
Ply re,s`idence is a - 1380 Riverside Drive (Lot 2, Riverside
subdivision), Aspen, Cclorado, adjacent to the above -referenced
proposed project. I am writing my comments on t!is proposal to
you, as I am not currently in Aspen full-time, and may be unable
to attend public hearings on this proposal on Septer:.ber 8, 1992,.
a7tc. Sept ember L8 , 1994 . I have no, object ions to this' proposal in
general, but I do have the following specific co'zcer-s and.
objection-, pursuant to the City of Aspen l uni_cipal Code.
1. Land Sultability
The sixteen (16 ) deed -restricted. units are located primarily
in the former grave_ p.-Lt area. No disclosure, recognitiol7., nor
planting has peen provided for the historiCa% ;Hater aCCL_i1lu_L -LCi?
in this area . in the spring, u,_,uall y about. the secc.nd wee � in
une; and often also in late summer, this area fills with Water,
My lot, approximately the same elevation as the graves_ pit
area, has historically suffe_ed sa?ire probl`m. In August and
September 1`''77, Chest and. Associates, Inc. performed So'! and.
Foul datic t _nv`_stJLg'1._ oil an) my ice, operty . One test hole Baas
drilled. c`-I.n a. lid A:-sCCiat esreport ind.i Caces tI e t`` t hole waS
dri l.1ed ?dug st 3.1 , 197-7, and „ponding c,�..=.ter c�s,:�s f��u,_td t the
'tort! t3ide" o-L the proper ti' . lit the . timc- n� tI11 i1lveStiCJat iol ,
tile wa.t-er tab' e Was found at depth 1L feet below the ground
st rfact . on September 1 7, 12 , and 14, 1977, the- wager table <<ias
Ireas ur elf at e��thS of i4.1 ' , 1 � . �) ' i� � S an(-, � ems; pe ;.iVe
Th_`_s indIc t.Ls that the s- tab ilized water ta13.J_e at j=re'sCnt ?,_• a. O L, c �b � t
13 . 5 ; below the ground surface."
The applicant, for the above -referenced project, performed
test drillings in October, outside the seasonal period for water
accumulation, and did no drilling on the portion of property where
water accumulates. Therefore, the proposal fails to produce
information as to potential hazardous ponding conditions in this
area.
The Code would seem to require the applicant to provide
information as to the nature of this problem, and information
necessary to determine whether this site is suitable for
development. In addition, should suitability for development
depend upon on -site mitigation, the Code would seem to require the
applicant to disclose on -site mitigation techniques, and.assurances
that these techniques will. solve the on -site, problem., and will
cause no adverse impact on adjacent properties or water resources
by diverting the natural course of the water table, or interfering
with natural underground and surface water flow. The Code requires
disclosure and resolution of this water hazard prior to approval
of this project.
2. Zoning
I have no objection to the proposed rezoning to provide for
the deed -restricted units. However, I do object to rezoning to
allow for seven (7) three -bedroom single-family residences, where,
I believe, current R--15 zoning would permit approximately five (5 )
residences. The proposed site is adjacent to the Riverside
Subdivision, zoned R-15. The proposes smaller sites permitting
more single-family residences tha_i current l v allowed. are
incompa.tib- e with the adjacent Riverside st _:)divis ion . Al so, I
o �j ect to any F . A . . for the three. J�edrolom s inTie-family rel: ici.enc es
greater thcin the F.A.R. in the Riverside Subdivislc3n. A reC'�zlctlol.
by twc3 units , i, i t.ii an increase , by nearly in size,
and an F.A.R. consistent with the F.A.� . for the adj adjacent R-15
Riversic e SujbQivi::ion would not rla :e thiE' project f:inan:cially
infeasible.
3. Access
T object to the prod,00ti;a. al t0 cc ess ti2e •- singlefaIIt-'_y
resid.ence,= through iv,-:-,rSiQA'e Drive. Rivet' •iae DI-ive provides liE'
Sole vehicular access t`� o the tweiIt-f :' -ve resiCnce.: -n i `ice
River,=ide Subdiv-LE:io_,, and ein s -n a cul-cte- :ac . T'ie s tret_ t
c1L.rv_:7, and h as numerous blilZd areas. so-Urtq Childr`.n pi zy Jn
ne] `hborhood, and e.:tre,lle caution, a.nr slow speeds are
when driving the street. Cars frequent y exi -frC..l 82 at
Breeds h7_n ier that;. is :ate, _ -'d. L1,.L I p�--1 d7 licit E e FC.E'�ti: 1c11- r G
C:hildren playing :ntJ_i t.fiey are rig�.�t =n f t o_'" tI.?erl. Res e :_ 1 G�_ _� t
r t l; c 7 4 r. .;� _ t- t n c- ll
ho live _ n t�i,_, neIghbonc�od. are faillil4LCa r�ith -_hJLs u_It.i. ation,
increaSinc"a traffic on '='iversi_Le Drive w:-ll eXacc'rbate the Bang :rou
situation.
ituation.
The applicant's proposal adds seven (7) additional three
bedroom residences to the Riverside Drive access, a residential
unit increase of 28%. However, the vehicular increase is even
greater, when you consider each residence will likely contribute
at least three additional vehiclesr plus guest and service traffic.
The traffic impacts on Riverside Drive during construction, and on
a regular basis following completion of the project are
considerable. I can think of no rational argument as to why the
Riverside SuIDdivision should bear these impacts of this new
development. I find no logic in altering the character of one of
the few remaining affordable residential neighborhoods in Aspen to
make another residential neighborhood more desirable. The new
development should bear its own impacts, and access should be
through the development itself. This requirement is consistent
with the Code, and does not make the project infeasible.
I am submitting these comments and objections for your
consideration during the approval process for the East Cooper
Affordable Housing Residential Development.
very truly yours,
Helen Zalin Flanderud
September 3, 1992
Kim Johnson, Staff Planner
Aspen-Pitkin County Planning Department
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commissiat _
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Riverside Drive Access to Proposed East Cooper Affordable Housing Project
Dear Ms. Johnson and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission:
It has come to my attention that there is pending before the land use authority of the City of
Aspen an application for approval of a project called The East Cooper Affordable Housing Project
and that access for the seven (7) free-market units proposed Riverside Drive is to be the access.
Please be advised that I was the developer of Riverside Subdivision in the mid-1950s and it was at
all times my intention that access along Riverside Drive be limited to the owners of lots and
occupants of Riverside Subdivision. It was never my intention that any portion of the property
proposed for development as the East Cooper Affordable Housing Project have access by Riverside
Drive.
Additionally, given that I have made conveyances to adjoining Riverside Subdivision owners
of portions of what is shown on the recorded Subdivision Plat of Riverside Subdivision as Park
Avenue, which said Park Avenue was never built, never existed in place and never was dedicated,
I believe that careful investigation needs to be made in respect of claim of ownership to any portion
of Park Avenue made by any party who did not receive a conveyance thereof from me.
If I may be of any further assistance in providing you with information which I might have
reasonably available, please feel free to call me.
Very truly yours,
e
Fredric Benedict
bond ict\ping-p&z.ltr
'Exhibit "A"
w
Referral Comments from:
Engineering Department
f
Housing office
,Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Parks Department
Water Department
p
Fire Marshal
I
i.
r
MG 2
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer S: t
Date: August 20, 1992
Re: .-East Cooper Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD
Having reviewed the above application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering
department has the following comments:
1. The applicant should provide more detail, establishing where the street to the free
market lots connects with Riverside Drive. There has been some confusion as to whether
Park Avenue as it extends from Riverside Drive is a public right-of-way or not. The
engineering department's records indicate that it is public right-of-way. It is recommended
that the new street enter within the Riverside Drive right-of-way.
In addition, lot 3 needs to have an access easement across lot 2.
2. Access to the affordable* units off HWY 82 is contingent upon an access permit from
CDOT. As requested in the DRC meeting, MOT needs to comment on the emergency
access drive. The permit should be included in the final submission.
3. The Fire Marshall needs to review and comment on the emergency access to HWY
82. It is presumed that the exit is in lieu of an adequate turnaround. If acceptable to
the Fire Marshall, it should be on the condition that it be -kept clear of snow in the
winter.
4. The application has allowed each unit with the option of a one car garage with storage
or two cars parked in tandem in the garage. Regardless of the owners choice, reality is
that the occupants will more than likely park in front of their units, as depicted in the
-application renderings. The existing design does not allow for a parking space in front
n
of each unit without encroaching into the area designated for 20 feet clear access. The
design -should be worked so that one 81/2 x 18 foot space will fit in front of each unit
without encroaching into the 20 foot -clear access. This must be shown on the final
submission plat.
S. All curb and gutters, streets and parking areas, whether private or dedicated as public
right-of-way, must he designed and constructed in accordance with city specifications.
6. The application has exhibited that all utilities will remain private. It was not
mentioned as to who is responsible for maintaining and repairing these utilities. Staff
believes this is could be an unnecessary burden on the affordable housing units. Staff
recommends that there be .an easement across the affordable housing parcel and that the
free market lots take the burden of any repairs and restoration except for -private service
lines to the affordable units.
7. If there is an existing easement in place for the Riverside ditch it should be noted on
the plat. If there isn't, one should be acquired. Due to stepping the affordable housing
into the hillside the Riverside ditch will be elevated 8 to 10 feet in the air, as depicted in
the application renderings. There is concern that this could be a potential hazard for the
affordable housing. units. It should be made clear as to who is responsible for
maintenance and care (Le. the flume breaks).
8. Holy Cross has expressed an interest in acquiring an easement for the overhead power
line that currently exists on the property. Their letter to service the development should
be expounded and discuss easements. In addition for final submission, each utility should
be ' specific if an easement is necessary to service this development.
9. It is preferred that the topographic map for slope reduction is prepared and stamped
by a registered land surveyor, although a registered architect is also acceptable. In either
case, the calculations and/or method of approach must be provided.
10. As indicated in the application, a complete drainage plan and -calculations will be
submitted with the final submission. Staff wants to point out that each free market lot as
it is developed will have to provide the same with its building permit application.
11. There is concern with the site grading plan. CTI.,f 1 hompson's report said that all
existing fill should be removed and replaced per the site grading section of their. report.
The site grading recommendations only includes cuts and fills to level building areas and
construct access roads and driveways. Staff does not believe that this adequately addresses
whether or .not all the existing fill has been removed and replaced. Further, their report
is preliminary and not intended for design purposes. The report should be upgraded so
that the project. is designed around their specific recommendations.
or final submission the following 12. Aside from the standard requirements f g is elements
-that staff would like to see addressed and/or included in the final submission:
- .designated common areas
F • parldng spaces
-trash access :area
• snow storage area
_ - -exterior site lighting _
all required easements must be recorded prior to the plat being recorded'
i
t
i .
TO: Rim Johnson, Planner
FROM: Tom Baker, Executive Director
DATE: August 13, 1992
RE: Referral -Comment: East
Development
AUG13
Cooper --"AH" Residential
VOTE: These.. referral comments are designed to focus on issues
specifically related to Housing.Office,concerns. Issues revolving
around broader land use, neighborhood character, density concerns
are the expected to be the purview of'the Planning Office, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council. The Housing
Board's lack of comment on issues of this nature does not
constitute acceptance or rejection.
BACKGROUND: The applicant has proposed a 23. unit (16 affordable/7
free market) development on 2.35 acres west and adjacent to the
Cresta Haus on SH 82. In total there are 16 deed restricted units:
2 one -bedroom cat #2 townhoues V 792 sf @ $ 69,000
2 one -bedroom cat 43 townhoues. @ 792 sf @ $106,500
4 two -bedroom cat #3 townhomss @ 1080 sf @ $116,500
1 three -bedroom cat #3 townhouse @ 1332 sf @ $126,000
4 -three-bedroom cat #4 townhoues @ .1332 sf @ $193,500
3 three -bedroom Res Occ townhoues @ 1332 sf @ Iriarket
All 16 units are proposed as sales units. The affordable units are
being designed to reflect .an urban setting reminiscent of urban
brownstones.
HOUSING ISSUES: Following is a discussion of several issues which
staff finds need to be addressed -during referral comments..
-Unit Mix - In terms of unit -nix, -eve have two issues: type ,of
unit -and category of unit. In terms of unit type,. the
applicant is proposing 8 three -bedrooms, 4 two -bedrooms, and
4 one -bedrooms. All of these units are configured as
townhouses. This mix is attractive -to staff because 50% of
the units are three -bedrooms (West Hopkins has 2 three -bedroom
units out of a total of 11 units) . This mix is consistent
with the AACP direction of providing family oriented housing
and staff finds the mix of unit types acceptable.
.--r.__ Iy:s_�r.-sr.rr,..-.+r-..- _c _. ac. gt"�F•Y _ _ - ;.u.. -
J
In terms --of category mix, the applicant is proposing -two
category #2 units, seven category #3 units, four category #4.
units, and 3-Resident Occupied units (West Hopkins has seven
_category # 2 units and four category,# 3 units) . When the AH
Zone was created there was a:general understanding that the
affordable units which were provide through this mechanism
would be concentrated in the higher categories. In this -
proposal the applicant has nine of the 16 units in categories
2 and 3. It is clear that the applicants have gone out of
their way to provide housing in the lower -categories and
f should be commended for this effort.
The applicant is also proposing three Resident -Occupied units.
,2n the past, both the City Council -and the.Housing Board have
indicated that they are interested but cautious regarding the
RO concept. Staff finds that this may be an appropriate test
case for RO units. While the Housing Board supports this
proposal, there was considerable discussion about the
appropriateness of three RO units. The Board had a very
energetic debate about the proposed Ro units and narrowly
decided to support the existing proposal with the caveat that
if the program changed at P&Z or City Council, then the -
Housing Board should review the new category mix.
Rental/Sales - The applicant proposes all 16 units as sales
unif ts. This is consistent with stafs finding that we should
concentrate on ownership housing. An additional advantage for
ownership is that these units are configured as townhouses
rather than condominiums.
Unit Sizes - All of the units comfortably exceed Housing
Office minimum standards set forth in the 1992 Guidelines.
---General livability - The applicant is proposing to create an
urban solution to this design problem. Without appearing to
delve into land use and -planning issues, staff finds the
concept to be different from our typical approach, but
acceptable. All of the units are large; they all have private
-decks; and the paved surface which connects all of the
buildings will not prohibit this area from being used as a
play area. Further, in comparison to the -West Hopkins the
development is less dense. The comment regarding density is
made in response to anevaluation of livability, not
neighborhood compatibility.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS: In conclusion, staff -finds the
proposal acceptable from a Rousing Of f ice perspective. Staf f f inds
the proposal provides a significant component of family oriented,
t ownership housing, with large units.
In terms of the three RO units, the staff and Board have indicated
that the proposal is acceptable; - however, ..-this _.is -_a -cautious
2
3
A
� Y -� 4. �T , 4 ,5�-S nitDtstu�ct'Iti
pl, �onsoltdated a ' ah6�;
65-N �;SbvievnV� ortlixin
Aspen Colorad'0 -_ = , _ ` 81611
7
Si'lCe'll
♦Snyder
J�
areas.
-'Louis Popish Secy.k ':-
7- _�F
A
"TL� rt,� -J:
ft
I m16hn Son
:4- HfP-;;:P.L 7Z
~P1ann3ng"0f2'ceE`�.�,
G
ipi7,
Mathefly, Mgr.
o n c e p t u a I
OR
0
aRe
er frordab'10P'.- oi
7k
771
tww
uea Z*
_-
AhQXonsodate d w," anitation-District:, curfen t-1 Xas
--
S U f f c e n �;-%p a ty*�"to servethe, .proposed =East.":' Cooper=.Af fordab 16*
;-constraints -L.--In.,,�--.-�:the
are .:.--..two d ownstream.,-
ect._'�There
_j1ous I ng 7,pro j
e d'4f om
--funds der V
-address��wlth
collection ---system which ".-we Sri 11
connection fee .
surcharges on development in this -drainage area':`e a'.�;
-
T h eme t h o d 7 b y.- -wh1 c h A h e devel'opment s-connected t-t
0 --t
,District
-
sy - s - tem*must--be approved.,by-:the,-I)Istr,ict.-Line.-.Superintendent,--prior
"a`~' �` -prop co
to: r ev I ew. of.'finalL plans 1_ -the proposed an �s I te .11 ect"lon
system,,. .. Is to be deeded to the District formaintenance and. 7*
M et'. -_Distr*lct'
-me
then: Ahe. syste must -be designed ---to'
-repair;
tions -are -on e ''at --the
specifications specifications* District line spe
District office..
Total connection -charges can be estimated once detailed plans for
--the—development are -available. A tap permit must be.completed-at
the District office, and all associated fees must be paid prior
toconnectionto the District system.
Please Call if YOU have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District -Manager
'.EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1976 -1986-1990 REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
IF
MESSAGE DISPLAY
'TO Kim Johnson i
rom: Rebecca Baker
Postmark: Aug 11,92 ..•1:32 PM '
Status: Previously read
Subject: East Cooper AH Conceptual PUD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
Comments for this application include: 1) Ensure that trees are
thirty feet from intersection 2) Developer meets with Parks
regarding irrigation ditches and flumes. Thank you. Call if
-questions. Also•, we have set up a requisition for transfering the
$200 tool shed money to Planning. Do we need to wait til the PO is
rolled (or whatever they do)? or can we go ahead and.get started?
Thanks again.
r
JUL 3
TO: Kim -Johnson,, Planning Office /
FROM: Judy McKenzie, Customer Service-Supervi
RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD
DATE: July 29, 1992
-The City of Aspen does have sufficient supplies iof potable water
to serve the proposed project being submitted by Tricor Resources.
All design, material and construction shall be in accordance with
the established standards of the City -of Aspen. The City -is
requesting that the new 8" water line from Riverside Drive to Lot
4 of the proposed subdivision must be .extended to Highway 82 to
finish a loop.
The Developer shall be responsible for all Tap Fees, Water Rights
Dedications, and all other applicable provisions of the Municipal
.Code of the City of Aspen.
The Developer will need to approach City Council/City Manager for
a waiver of the Water Mainline Extension Moratorium pursuant to
Resolution 45, Series 1991, if an extension of existing water main
is required.
cc: Larry Ballenger, Water Superintendent
PLANNING k ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT '/ it , APPROVED
.19 BY RESOLUTION
East Cooper Affordable Housing Project=:1�--:- -
Summary -of Neighborhood Meeting - August 27,-1992
This meeting was attended by 20 citizens comprising of -residents
of Riverside Drive, surrounding neighborhoods, and prospective
buyers of the .proposed free market lots and affordable townhomes.
'Kim Johnson of the Planning -Office 7made a -brief presentation on
the four step PUD process and how this project fits into these
-steps, ie timeframe, public, hearings, and associated reviews.
Leslie Lamont of the Planning Office gave a short history of the
AH zone district including its purpose of encouraging private
development of affordable housing, the incentives of GMQS
exemption, dimensional variations, and density bonus. Also present
was the -applicant Craig Glendenning and his project team of Tom
Stevens,. Yvonne Blocker, Bob Daniel, -and Michael Gassman. Tom
4 Stevens displayed a site plan and discussed the project.in terms
of layout, unit types and -restriction categories, and .access. - -
The following comments were expressed by the citizens:
Park Avenue as P °c
ap ublic r-o-w is -contested.
- The existing condition of Riverside Dr. is dangerous, with a
blind curve. The only reason serious accidents have not
occurred is the sensitivity and caution `of the residents
there. Putting more traffic on the road will increase hazard.
Making safety improvements -to Riverside Dr. (ie. removing
vegetation for sight distance and/or widening pavement) is not
wanted by the residents.
The real problem is not really 20 or so more vehicle trips per
` day from the seven new lots, but the construction traffic and
activity that will impact the neighborhood for the next
several years. The neighborhood has endured construction
impacts from other sides recently the Aspen Club Subdivision
and 1010 Ute.
Access from Highway 82 should be the only access into the free
market lots, regardless of the internal impacts of the roadway
cutting through the site and through the hillside.
z
- Bulk and massing of new single family homes is a concern. Lot
sizes are typically smaller than on Riverside Dr., with homes
that can be larger than currently exist on Riverside.
(However, overall allowable home size in AH is less than in
the current R-15 zoning).
- The setbacks shown for -the new lots (10 -ft. as allowed in AH)
will allow homes too close to existing residences (R-15 has
same 10 ft. setbacks) .
1
The numbers of zmits , both xestricted -and free market, should
be reduced.
The possibility of groundwater problems should be explored for
ramifications on extent of development of the site.
The townhomes as proposed offer a too dense, very urban design
-which. Is not applicable to Aspen or. this neighborhood.
In response to the comments from the neighbors,, the applicant has
-,-ioffered to -study the following:
1 Increase the setbacks along the project perimeter to lessen
impacts of new homes adjacent to existing homes.
2. Access the free market lots from the Hwy. 82 driveway rather
than from Riverside- Dr.— (provide costs and -physical implications
of cutting through the slope).
3. Provide information on the density of the Riverside Dr. area and
-surrounding zones for comparison with proposed zoning/densities.
Planning staff will be evaluating the site in terms development
under the existing R-15/Growth Management scenario.
- 1 -:.-2
. .. ........... . .....
Tot City of Aspen City :Council -and Planning and Zoning
Commission
Res The East Cooper Affordable Housing Residential Development
- - : As a resident of Riverside Drive, Aspen, Co.. (Lot #12 ,
f Riverside Subdivision),'I would like to express my concerns
regarding the.above mentioned -project, which was presented
-at a meeting with the developer _and,. city staff personnel
-on August 27th .
The provision of sixteen "affordable" housing units is a
f worthy goal of city policy. However, access to the seven
free market lots through Riverside Subdivision, as now
t proposed, presents a major difficulty.
At this meeting we were told that these free market lots
would sell ih the range of $400,000.00 and up. We were
also told that this $3,000,000.00 plus return on these lots
was necessary to provide amenities for the"affordable
housing". ....and we were told that the developer has no
obligation to defend this assertion or reveal his cost
figures... we are to take this on faith.
In the 35 plus years since Riverside Subdivision was
developed it.has been the home and neighborhood of Aspen
resident employees -- shopkeepers, ski instructors, carpenters,
lawyers, business and service people and people in the arts.
This is employee housing.
1
If the seven free Ban ket lots and the concomitant service
and construction traffic are given access through Riverside
Subdivision, the safety of neighborhood children and the
quality of life for twenty-four households now living on
Riverside Drive will be sacrificed for the foreseable future.
2
The bottom line for the developers argument for doing this
is --- the "bottom .line" ---dollars . - .-It is cheaper and
easier for him -to come through Riverside Subdivision
-instead of coming in from Highway B2. - -So,. to j)rovide
sixteen "affordable" units, the City council and planners
.are being -asked to degrade the neighborhood -of twenty-four
local resident families a bad trade-off in my view.
I respectfully request -that ,the City Council and Planning
and Zoning Commission turn down this'applicant'e request.
.for rezoning the .1_and in question until this .issue is
resolved and access to the free market lots is made from
.Highway -'82, and the existence one of Aspen'.s few
remaining family neighborhood is reserved.
ou s sincerely,
Dor thy Kell her
situation.
The applicant's proposal adds seven (7) . additional three
bedroom residences to the 'Riverside Drive access, a residential
unit increase of 280. However, the vehicular increase is even
greater, when you consider each residence will likely contribute
at least three additional vehicles, Plus guest and service traffic.
The traffic impacts on Riverside Drive during construction, and on
a regular basis following completion of the project are
considerable. I can think of no rational argument as to why the
Riverside Subdivision should bear these impacts of this new
development. I find no logic in altering the character of one of
the few remaining affordable residential neighborhoods
ghborhoods in Asper, to
make another residential neighborhood more desirable. The new
development should bear its own impacts, and access should be
through the development itself. This requirement is consistent
With the Code., and does not make the project infeasible.
I am submitting these comments and objections for your
consideration during the approval process for the East Cooper
Affordable Housing Residential Development. .
very truly yours,
Aelen. anderud
below the ground surface."
E
The applicant, for the above-rei:erenced project, performed
period for water
test drillings in October, outside the seasonalerty where
accumulation, and did no drilling on the portion of propto produce
water accumulates. Therefore, the proposal fails
information as to potential hazardous ponding conditions in this
area.
The Code would seem to require the applicant to provide
to the nature of this psoblem, and information
information as this ite is suitable for
necessary to detezrmine whether ment
should suitabilitY 'for develo-
p
development. In addition,
depend upon on -site mitigation, the Cade wou-1 L d seem to require the
at techniques, and assurances
applicant to disclose on -sites
that
Mitig -site problem, resources
thatthese techniques willsolve -the on
cause no adverEe impact on adjacenthere eriwer
f ertable,or interfering
by diverting the natural coursO]: flow. The code requires
derground and surface wate I
with natural un to approval
disclosure and re-soluti011 Of this water hazard prior
of this project.
2. Zoning
0 the proposed _.ezoni-_,-i,9 to provide for
I have no objectioll t do object to rezoning to
the deed -restricted units. However, I where,
allow for seven (7) three -bedroom single-family residences,
five
a tely
permit approximately
be-Lieve, current R-15 Zoning kA70U I - L, the Riverside
ad- scent to
residences.The proposed site is J pei-mitting
The prOPOS-c- smaller sit -es
-oned R-lz� k..4 aa r e
Subdivision, a J11 1 ow e
--,- e s d e n c e s than a n current,rJ
more slngie-fara''Y a -4sion. Also,
+-'b--Le w_�th the adjacent Rivl!-S--Lde Suj:)'.iv_L
�amily res,
inco-mpa-1
L F fee .,edroc, t ion
obiject 1-0 all for the thl vision. A reducl-
71, L L subdi
g -eater t'DE-n F.C-L.R. in the Rive--s
I- I tv nearly in, size,.
are
i t I increase,
by-t-WO Ul-Its, with A -cr the adjacent R-15
and an collsis'C'e-1-It- L -�ect f-Mancially
d not Iliac
E
d iv iS -Lon wou
R v e r s SU a
iliIPa s b 1 e
3. -,,c c e s S_
T- i'l s ing! e - 1Y
0 az. c 'C', e s S
T to the prc,,posall
cab c 've provides -he
R 1 v e i d. D-,
I v .4-
t ro.,igh e
41ve f, i e n c e s
V_
sole vel,.-Iicular aCct_�s-_ to the
Ti-le
-c, -'ac
10 d GE n a cu-L
P,St1�'`-
i-\.-er-_, ide dren plaY in
L
Iff c _L I v r-_hJ1 J
curv-2,Sr a��_id has numercus 1:)14nid areas
L
- - -, (-,. %NT speedS are req-1- I r
o --h o o d., and caution, ana S I - . 1 1-1 - -,AJ
h b H--';Qh, ay at
t a Uz? f r e qu e- n t v- x
when driving -f--he stree _', - -1 i a, n G 1-
d, D -,10 t e c- Pedc-stl_
-4 cafe, ai-ic C!,r-i-vers -Ut he,
Speeds, higher 1_- h a 4- m. R e S i
-1 U
t` ey a-L- J gh t -,-n JE r
'dren playing
ch-i -4 faith h JL b
,-i- ne4gi-iborl-ood are
who li-ve `j_n ti, - -L � I
g r o, -utt
P:-acerbate the
ve e D--ive
11 C re a S -JL n cT tra'T-ic Jli
HELENKALiNKLANDERUD
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1001 EAST BAYAUD AVENUE, #1001
DENVER, COLORADO 80209
(303) 722-8680
September 1, 1992
Ms. Kim Johnt.on
Planning Office
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Mayor
City Council
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
BOX 155F
ASPEN, COLORADO 816
(303) 925-271,
Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Residential Development
Deal- Kim, Planning and Zoning Commissioners, Mayor, and City
Council. ouncil:
My res'ide,_nce is at 1380 River -side Drive Lot 2, Riverside
Si_,..bdivi.,-; ion � , Aspen, Colorado, adjacent to the above -referenced
proposed project. I am writing my comments on this proposal to
you, as I am not currently in Aspen full-time, and .ray be u,-,Iabl--
Eo-a-IL--tend public hearings on this proposal on September 8, 1992,
a nc-
Sepember 28, 1 have no objectiOns to this prop -sal in
,SeptembergenEl,,--al, but I do have the fol-!owing specific co,,ricerns an(2.
ob 1 e c t i a n- s . P u r s id a nt t-k& the City of Aspen municipal. Code,
1. Land Suitability
The sixteen (161 deed-restrictec-. units are located primarily
in the former qrave! P�+.-_ area. NcD C-ti'sc1csure, re-c.-qnition., nor
Plarinina has been pr.--,vLued for tine historical water accu-mulatL cn
it this area Sri the sprl-Jig, 11..sually about the second week in
Jlune, and often a_-:15o in la,-:-e su-mme-i-, +-his a, -ea -"�ills with wa er _L
My'lot, approximately the -.ar,-(e elevation as tine gravel_ p Ii - -L--
area. has historically c-,IIfa---ed 4- A 4 same problem. In Au g u an(f Septe,�,ber 1977Csso Fc ,-�_n
, n: 'AI--_pef,-rmied a oad --Opp I _y le was;
�y Pi _r'
Foupdat joil T nv 6- s t J ga ion n n One test ho
4-
d r i Ii 1 e d Chen and As-scciat-s' I-eport i n d i c a t e s: tl e 's, t e war
C ry i eC� oi-k At(g,1.7 s t 21 19 7 "--onding wa, s c d h
9Z norti-I-i �-idel' of the pi--opert-,, 11': t t I a e time. of this i i,,J �e S T--, '10I-
''the found at depth 1-' feet b,--,(,,w the g c) u il w a � I table - -L
tab'a was f o
st, r a C E On Qeptel,,iber 1., -11 a n d 14 1977, 41--l-rie water tablef �,-iF
meal rec at -J e lu h s r-) f- I and 13 pe J_ V
T -J - �s i i - i d, I c a t -- s that t h e t � a _11 i J-1 - i I water t[lah-le at pr.-sent Ii-s ar
- 12. The grading plan and report �by CTL/Thompson must be finalized
regarding fill material removal/replacement. 'The project
shall then be designed around their specific recommendations.
13. In addition to standard Final submission 'requirements, the
following must be -addressed or included:
- designated common areas
- parking spaces
trash access -areas
snow storage areas
- exterior site lighting
.14. All required easements zust.-be recorded prior to the City
Engineer approving plats for recordation.
lious ing Office:
1. The mix of 8-three bedrooms, 4-two bedrooms, ' and 4-one bedroom
units is attractive to staff because 50%=are three bedroom
units. This is consistent with AACP:discussion�of providing
family oriented housing.
2. The deed restriction :categories proposed by the Applicant
should be commended. Nine of the sixteen units are categories
2 and 3,.indicating that the Applicant Is providing housing
in lower categories than expected for private development AH
zone projects.
3. Regarding the 3 proposed Resident Occupied (RO) units,,. -staff
believes that this may be an*appropriate test of these type
of units which are cautiously regarded by P&Z and Council.
The Housing Board narrowly supports this proposal and had
considerable discussion about the appropriateness of three RO
units. Their support was conditioned by the expressed desire
to review any changes to category mixes resulting from P&Z or
City Council review..
4. Offering all of the 16 units as sale units is consistent with
staffs finding that concentration should be made on sale
housing. The sale unit program is bolstered by the proposed
townhouse configuration.
5 . - -Unit sizes comfortably exceed Housing Off ice minimum standards
from the 1992 Guidelines.
6. The density of the affordable units is less than the W.
Hopkins affordable project currently under construction. The
proposal is an urban design solution which is different from
our typical approach., The size of the units and the private
decks enhance the project. 'The paved surfaces may be used for
play areas.
Water:.
1. If necessary for a water line extension,,' -the developer must
receive a waiver of the Water .Mainline Extension Moratorium
from City Council.
2. -The City requests that the proposed 8" waterline from
Riverside Dr. to Lot 4 be extended to Hwy. 82 to'complete a
loop. All installations shall be according -to established
City standards.
3
3. the Applicant is responsible for all tap fees, water right
dedications, and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code.
Fire Marshall:
1.: Hydrant locations, turn around, and .break -away barrier are
satisfactory.
Parks: - _ • . _ _ .
1. Ensure that trees are at least 301 from the intersection.
2. Parks is concerned about the irrigation ditch and proposed
flume. .The Riverside Ditch Co: controls the ditch. Maintain
} contain with Parks staff regarding these items.
Sanitation District:
1. Sufficient capacity exists for this project.
2. Connection fee surcharges will be -required to address two
downstream constraints -in this -.drainage. area.- connections
charges can be estimated when detailed development plans are
--available.
3. Connection to District system must be approved prior to review
of final plans. If site collection system will.be deeded to
the district for maintenance/repair, .it must meet District
specifications.
"1PROPOSAL: The site will be developed into two areas. The upper
bench will be -platted as 7 single family lots ranging between 8,250
s. f . and 11, 200 s. f . , averaging 9,320 s. f . Each home will be
limited to no more than three bedrooms per the project's compliance
with AH zone bedroom percentages. Access for the lots will come
off of the cul-de-sac end of Riverside Drive on the -southwest
corner of the parcel.
The lower portion of the site will consist of one 37,131 s.f. lot
containing 16 deed restricted townhomes within four buildings.
There are proposed to be four 1-bedroom units, four 2-bedroom
t -units and eight 3-bedroom units for a total of 36 bedrooms. Access
into the townhome area will be from Hwy.82 at the northwest corner
of the site. There will also be an emergency egress driveway with
a breakaway barrier further east onto Hwy. 82.
STAFF COMMENTS: This is the second,AH project proposed by the
private development sector to formally reach the P&Z since the AH
s zone was adopted in 1989. Earlier .this year, the Ute.Park AH
rezoning -and Subdivision/PUD received approval for three free
market single family lots and -seven deed restricted townhomes at
t the far east end of Ute Avenue. This project was a'four step PUD
review as is the subject East. Cooper AH proposal. Rezoning was
also considered as a threshold issue during the Ute Park Conceptual
PUD review.
i
4
i�.
Although the official approval of rezoning will occur at Final PUD
-review, staff has included all rezoning review criteria within the
Conceptual PUD memo so that the P&Z and Council may make informed
considerations of the rezoning _-to AH. Final .approval of the
rezoning is slated for Final PUD review because if official
rezoning approval were to occur with Conceptual PUD review but
Final PUD approval was denied, the property would be* rezoned
without an acceptable AH proposal. Conversely, if rezoning at the
threshold level was not acceptable to Council, the Conceptual PUD
review would not be approved., "Thus, the Applicant would not
proceed with Final'.PUD submission.
Public input to date: -The -Planning -staff , and -this applicant
recognize the value of neighborhood input towards the success of
..a project of this type and scale. Prior to presentation to P&Z as
the first step in the four -step PUD review (for which a public
hearing is not required), is was --decided -to invite the neighbors
and interested citizens -to a presentation and discussion of the
project.
A meeting was held on August 27 and was attended by 20 citizens,
staff and the project team.. A summary of the comments is attached
as Exhibit "B". The principal concern of the neighbors was the
access from Riverside Dr. for the free market lots. The belief was
reiterated that all access to the subject property should be
contained within the boundaries of the site. Additionally, the
Planning Office has received one letter -from a Riverside Dr.
resident who expresses the same concerns about road safety (Exhibit
11I CIO)
Rezoning from R-15 PUD to Affordable Housing (AH) PUD Zone District
(threshold discussion): The following review criteria and
responses must be considered along with the Conceptual PUD review
by P&Z and City Council. Final recommendation/approval of rezoning
will take place at the Final PUD Development Plan review.
A. Whether the proposed. amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: This rezoning is not In :conflict with the provisions of
the Land Use regulations.
.B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen.AreaComprehensive Plan.
Response: The 1973 Sand Use Plan map shows this site and the area
across Hwy.82 as single family homes., Latest discussions within
the Housing Subcommittee for -the Aspen Area Community Plan
:indicates that this parcel is.a desirable location for affordable
housing development. It also is in agreement with the purpose
-statement of the AH zone as it: is within walking distance to the
commercial core; is -on a mass transit route; and lends itself to
5
infill on small -neighborhood scale rather, than being -a major
housing project.
C. Whether the amendment is compatible with surrounding
proposed P
Zone Districts and .land uses, considering existing land use
-and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The AH zone is intended to be used as inf ill zoning
-scattered throughout the -community t;within residential
neighborhoods. Site design is critical to the compatibility of
a proposed development .and its immediate. surroundings. . This
project proposes single family development adjacent to the existing
Riverside Dr. neighborhood which is zoned R-15. Zoning to the west .
is R-6, but the area is developed as a mix of multi -family (Aspen
Edge Condominiums) and single family residential. The property to
the east is zoned LP (Lodge Preservation). -and is occupied by the
Crestahaus- Lodge. Across Hwy.82 is -the -Alpine Lodge. zoned LP and
single family homes zoned R-15A.
Following the site's topography, the proposed multi -family
structures are placed.in the lower portion of the site along the
highway frontage. This is closer to multi-family/lodge
developments on the' west, north and east -.sides and is less
desirable for single family development.
D . The of f ect of the proposed -amendment on traf f is generation and
road safety.
Response: The proximity of this site to the downtown area will
promote walking to the core, especially by employee occupants of
the townhomes. The report prepared by the Applicant's engineer
Banner Associates indicates that access from Hwy.82 is obtainable
through CDOT with limited improvements such as a deceleration lane.
The access for the free market lots from Riverside Dr. is
acceptable according to the City Engineering Department. 'The
records researched by Engineering indicate that Park Ave. is a
public r-o-w although this is contested by an adjacent owner.
Regardless of that issue, the application shows the access to the
new lots is from the Riverside Dr. r-o-w, which is recommended by
the Engineering Department.
As mentioned earlier, the .Riverside Dr. neighbors were strongly
against using their street as the route.into the new lots. They
stated that the road was dangerous already and increased traffic,
especially construction traffic and parking, will make a poor
situation worse. At the scheduled site visit prior to P&ZIs review
of the Conceptual -Plan, Commissioners will see that the roadway is
narrow with dense vegetation coming right to the pavement edge.
Staff has requested -that the Engineering Department accompany the
P&Z on their site visit prior to the P&Z meeting.
t
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands an public facilities, and, whether- and the
-extent to which. the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, .including but not -limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, ,and emergency medical facilities.
Response: 'The Water Department has indicated that water capacity
is sufficient for this project but that -a waiver of the Water .Main
Extension Moratorium must be granted by Council. 'The Applicant's
Engineer will formally request-this.at Final:-PPUD Plan review. At
this time, "will serve" letters have been submitted by the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District, Holy Cross Electric,Rocky
Mountain Natural Gas, -and U.S.West Communications.
7. - Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on -the natural
environment..
Response: The rezoning will =not, on Its vwn, have a negative
affect on the natural environment. Sensitivity of the site
development is a function of PUD review. The major issue that is
under consideration for the Conceptual Plan is how the seven new
lots will be accessed - through existing Riverside -Dr. or via a new
-road up the slope .from the highway. please refer to the PUD review
criteria below.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent -and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: This rezoning meets the location criteria for AH
properties, those being "within walking distance to the center of
the city or on transit routes" . The character of much of the east
end is that of a mix of residential types. This rezoning requires
a mix of deed restricted housing to accompany the free market
development. This Applicant is providing different ownership
opportunities as well as a mix of housing types: single family and
multi -family.
The other details -of --the project such as the specific
affordable/free market ratios, dimensional requirements, etc. shall
be considered within PUD review.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel -or -the surrounding neighborhood -which support
the proposed amendment.
' Response: -AAs 7men,tioned above'the 1973 Land -Use Plan snap shows
the subject parcel .and extensive area surrounding - it as single
family residential. Since then, =one finds that two lodges have
.been zoned LP in an effort to retain smaller accommodations in the
community. In more general terms,--pthe affordable housing market
has gotten much tighter hence the creation of this particular zone
Iri
-district. .-Also, txaffic .has increased ion the highwaywhich ,lessens
the applicability of single family development adjacent -to the
road. Since 1973, mass transit has been established and now serves
this -site regularly. ,
I. -Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and -intent
of this chapter.
Response: Rezoning this site --will not be in conflict with the
L
public interest.nor with -the Land Use Regulations.
Planned Unit Development QUM : The proposed rezoning to AH will
retain the PUD overlay already existing -on the property. Review
of a Conceptual Development Plan, followed by review of a Final
Development Plan, is required for each PUD parcel. -
The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to
encourage flexibility and innovation in the -development of -land
which:
A. Promotes greater variety in the type,' design, and layout of
buildings.
B. Improves the design, character and quality of development.
C. Promotes more efficient. :use of land, public facilities, and
-governmental services.
D. Preserves open space to the greatest extent practicable.
E. Achieves a compatibility of land uses; and
F. Provides procedures so that the type, design, and .layout of
development encourages the preservation of natural and scenic
features.
Pursuant to Section 7-901 if the Land Use Regulations,.a PUD
development application shall comply with the following standards
and requirements:
1. General Requirements.
h. The proposed development -shall .be consistent with theAspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: As presented in -the -rezoning section above, the -1973
Plan is not reflected by actual development and zoning in this
vicinity. Growth patterns and affordable housing deficits are
} guiding more pro -active measures for the AACP update currently
being finalized. This proposal more accurately reflects current
conditions rather than -the 1973 Plan.
f
b. The proposed development shall be consistent Stith the
character of existing land uses in the surrounding area.
-Response: Mixed types of residential And lodge accommodations in
varying degrees of density within the neighborhood is consistent
with the proposed single family -and townhome development proposed
in this application.
c . The proposed development shall not adversely of f ect the future
development of the surrounding area.
Response: This is -:the last developable parcel In -tie direct
vicinity, so future development will not be compromised.
d. Final approval shall -only be granted to the development to -the - -- -
extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant.
Response: Free market development associated with AH projects are
exempt from GMQS up to fourteen units -per year as an incentive to
AH development by the private sector. To date in 1992, only three
free market units have been approved (Ute Park Subdivision on Ute
Avenue. Deed restricted affordable housing units are also exempt
upon City Council approval.
2.Density.
Response: The maximum density shall be no greater than that
permitted in the underlying zone district. The application booklet
provides development data, including density, on page 11, Table 2.
The site does contain sloped areas which have been subtracted from
land area for density calculation purposes. Engineering has
requested that the slope calculations be signed off by -'a registered
engineer or architect prior to Final Plan submission.
Staff has reviewed the application and found that further density
reductions are not necessary for the following concerns:
insufficient water pressure or other utilities; inadequate roads;
ground instability; mud flow; rock falls and avalanche dangers;
natural watershed quality; air quality; or that the. proposed
development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful
disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Please note
that this last item is based on the current design showing access
for the single family lots off of -Riverside Dr. If access to these
lots is taken from Hwy.82, the project's densities would have to
lowered because of limitations imposed by the roadway traversing
the site,, -
Land Uses.
Response: The land uses proposed are those allowed in the AH zone
9
district.
4. Dimensional Requirements.
-,)Response: -The dimensional requirements submitted in the ,Conceptual
Plan .are those established for the AH -zone -district. 'Variations
.may be permitted within PUD development. The only variation
requested within the Conceptual Plan submission is an FAR variation
by Special .Review for the townhome parcel (to*, be considered at
Final Plan -review) . Allowed by right in -the AH zone is FAR of
.33:1. The designed FAR for Lot 8 ._is .. 49:1.. Special Review can
consider FAR up to 1:1.
Due to response from some of the neighbors at the August 27, 1992
meeting, the Applicant will study creating greater setbacks along
the perimeter of the parcel to limit. impacts to .adjacent
properties.
s.. Off-street parkin
Response: -The number of required off-street parking spaces for the
AH zone is one space per bedroom with a maximum of two spaces per
dwelling unit, approved by Special Review. Two spaces are provided
for the affordable units. Half of the proposed 16 townhomes are
one and two bedrooms units, the rest are three bedrooms. 'The
project is located on a RFTA route and is within walking distance
to downtown. Parking for the individual free market homes will be
assessed by Zoning when building permits are issued.
6. Open space.
Response: The proposed open space for the AH zone is established
by Special Review. For Lot 8, the townhome lot, all owners will
be granted a proportional undivided interest in the open space on
that lot.
7. Landscape plan.
Response: The Final Development Plan -submission will include a
landscape plan as required by the PUD regulations.
B. Architectural,* Site Plan. Architectural character is based
upon the suitability. of a building for its purposes, upon the
appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of
harmony and proportion of. the building with each other and
surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize
disturbances to the natural terrain .and -maximize the
preservation of existing vegetation, as well c,as enhance
-drainage and reduce soil erosion.
Response: The ,application =Contains -sketches of the proposed
exteriors and floor plans of the townhomes. They will be
10