HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19921117
AGE N D A
==================================================================
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
November 17, 1992, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
=================================================================
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
It-
A. Design Workshop/U.S. West Subdivision, Leslie Lamont
B. city Shop Master Plan Adoption, Roxanne Eflin
C. Zaluba Non-compliance, Leslie Lamont
IV. WORKSESSION
A. Kraut Property, Jim curtis
V. ADJOURN
~''''''''-'''-
'"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: November 13, 1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Special Joint Meeting with County P'&Z - November 18th, 5:00 pm, 1st
Floor Council Chambers, City Hall
Aspen Area Community Plan Adoption, continued (CH)
Special Joint Meeting with County P&Z - November 23rd, 1:00 pm, 2nd
Floor Meeting Room, City hall
Aspen Area Community Plan Adoption, continued (CH)
Regular Meeting - December Sth
Ritz -Carlton Hotel Subdivision PUD Amendment, Lot 1 (DM)
Oxley Conditional Use (LL)
The Weight Training Center Conditional Use (KJ)
Bell Mountain GMP Scoring, Special Review, & Text Amendment (KJ)
419 E. Hyman -Satellite Dish Conditional Use (KJ)
No Meeting on December 22nd
Z
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: November 17, 1992
RE: US West/Design Workshop Subdivision and Map Amendment
SUMMARY: The applicants, US West, propose to subdivide their
property in order to convey a small piece to Design Workshop Inc.
In addition, Design Workshop Inc. proposes to rezone their newly
acquired property from R-6 to Office and use the property for on -
site parking. The subject property is currently used as parking
for the US West building.
Subdivision and rezoning is a two step process. The Commission
shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to Council.
Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and rezoning.
APPLICANT: US West and Design Workshop Inc.
LOCATION: 117 North Aspen Street, Lots C, D, & E and 1/2 of the
vacated alley, Block 66 and 120 East Main, Aspen Colorado
ZONING: R-6 and Office
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subdivision and Rezoning
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering - Having reviewed the submitted drawing, the
engineering department has the following comments:
1. A plat must be submitted which meets the requirements of
Section 24-7-1004.D of the Municipal'Code. The applicant is
required to submit two reproducible mylars for approval by the
engineering department and record one plat with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder. It is recommended that a blueline
be submitted for review prior to the final submission.
2. The vicinity map needs to be at a scale of 1"=4001.
4. A statement to the effect that all easements indicated in
title policy number dated are shown on this plat.
5. A statement that the applicant agrees to join any improvement
district formed for the purposes of constructing improvements
in the public right-of-way.
VA
6. The surveyor's certificate needs to include language that the
survey was performed in accordance with Colorado Revised
Statutes 1973, Title 38, Article 51, as amended from time to
time. Also it must include that there is closure of 1:10,000.
7. The plat is incomplete with respect -to existing improvements
i.e. the rest of the building, sidewalk, curb and gutter,
trash areas.
8.' The plat needs.to show the entire Design Workshop parcel and
all improvements.
9. Any work in the public right-of-way requires an excavation
permit from the Street Department.
10. Any storm run -off -generated from the new parking lot to be
developed by Design Workshop must be maintained on -site. A
drainage plan, complete with calculations must be provided by
an engineer registered in the State of Colorado and submitted
to the Engineering Department to ensure that historic drainage
patterns are retained in the new parking lot.
STAFF COMMENTS:
I. Background: Design Workshop Inca (DWI). has recently acquired
the Old Library parcel which was rezoned from Public to Office two
years ago. In an effort to provide more on -site parking, DWI has
been negotiating with US West to purchase approximately 2,520
square feet of their property which lies to the north of the DWI
parcel. The US West building functions primarily as a switching
station and no longer requires the amount of land for parking that
is currently on -site. In order for US West to convey this land
the parcel must undergo subdivision.
DWI intends to modify the new parcel creating 9 on -site parking
spaces. The Planning and Zoning Commission, through Special
Review, reviewed the parking plan at the October 20, 1992 meeting.
The Commission approved a parking plan for 14 on -site parking
spaces and payment -in -lieu for one space that cannot be
accommodated on -site. Please find attached October 20, 1992 memo
to the P&Z, Exhibit A.
In addition, DWI will rezone the property from R-6 to Office to be
consistent with the rest of their parcel.
II. site Description: The US West parcel contains a one story,
6,960 square foot structure that serves as a switching station for
communications. Behind the building is an approximately 10 car
parking lot.
2
rd
The Design Workshop Inc. parcel contains a one story building, with
a basement, that has recently been renovated for offices. The
building is approximately 8,198 gross square feet.
The parcel that will be conveyed is a 90 by 28 foot piece of land,
including the vacated -alley, in the back of the US West property.
The small piece is vacant except for one electric transformer and
several telephone pedestals, two of which will be moved.
III.. Subdivision - In order to create a separate parcel for sale
and rezoning the US West proposes to subdivide their 19,020 square
foot parcel creating a separate 2,520 square foot parcel.
1. Pursuant to Section 7-1004 C.1., the General Requirements for
subdivision are as follows:
(a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The intent of the subdivision proposal is to enable
Design Workshop Inc. to provide more on -site parking. The Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address this property
or the recent zone changes to the Design Workshop property.
(b) The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the area.
RESPONSE: Existing land uses in the area include office and lodge
along Main Street and residential on Bleeker Street. The focus of
months of work with Design Workshop has been parking mitigation.
The provision of more on -site parking to accommodate office use in
the Old Library building dissuades occupants of the building from
parking in adjacent neighborhoods. This subdivision helps to
maintain the existing character of the neighborhood.
In addition, many uses along Main Street provide customer/employee
parking at the rear of their buildings.
The existing character Iof the US West parcel or surrounding
properties will not change. Because the small piece that is being
conveyed to DWI is at the rear of the property, the appearance from
the street of the US West lot from the street .should not change
significantly.
(c) The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas.
RESPONSE: Other than redevelopment of the US West property, the
only parcel left with substantial. development potential on this
block are Lots A & B totaling 6,000 square feet. Currently there
3
is a nonconforming fourplex on the property. Future development
of this property is not affected by this subdivision.
(d) The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The subdivision is intended for on -site parking only.
If Design Workshop proposed to expand the building, the acquired
parcel would be considered additional lot area for floor area
purposes. However, any additional development would require a
growth management review process including mitigation for open
space, parking and employee housing.
The US West parcel is zoned R-6 and the required minimum lot area
in the R-6 zone district is 6,000 square feet. After the
subdivision US West will retain 16,500 square feet of land which
complies with underlying zoning. This is enough lot area in the
R-6 zone district to allow future development of either a single
family or duplex residence.
The switching station is a nonconforming use in the R-6 zone
district. If the property were redeveloped a single family or
duplex residence is the only permitted use.
If US West seeks to develop their property for more than two
dwelling units, all applicable chapters of the Municipal Code,
including subdivision and GMP would apply.
2. Pursuant to Section 7-1004 C. 2 - 5, the pertinent subdivision
requirements are as follows:
(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: There are no natural hazards that exist on the site that
would endanger the welfare of future residents. However, Design
Workshop shall work with the Engineering Department to ensure that
historic drainage patterns are retained in the new parking lot.
(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.
4
R
3 & 4. Improvements and Design Standards - following is a review
of the relevant subdivision standards:
(a) ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, NATURAL GAS AND CABLE TV - The
electric transformer shall remain in the current location but
two out of,the three telephone pedestals will be relocated.
(b) DRAINAGE - A drainage plan, complete with calculations
must be provided by an engineer registered in the State of
Colorado and submitted to the Engineering Department to ensure
that historic drainage patterns are retained in the new
parking lot.
(c) ROADS - Design Workshop shall adhere to the conditions of
approval for the amended parking plan that was presented to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for Special Review.
(d) FINAL PLAT - The Subdivision plat needs to include:
* A plat must be submitted which meets the requirements of
Section 24-7-1004.D of the Municipal Code. The applicant is
required to submit two reproducible mylars for approval by the
engineering department and record one plat with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder. It is recommended that a blueline
be submitted for review prior to the final submission.
* The vicinity map needs to be at a scale of 1"=4001.
* A statement to the effect that all easements indicated in
title policy number I
,.dated are shown on this plat.
* A statement that the applicant agrees to join any
improvement district formed for the purposes of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
* The surveyor's certificate needs to include language that
the survey was performed in accordance with Colorado Revised
Statutes 1573, Title 38, Article 51, as amended from time to
time. Also it must include that there is closure of 1: 10, 000.
* The plat is incomplete with respect to existing
improvements i.e. the rest of the building, sidewalk, curb and
gutter, trash areas.
* The plat needs to show the entire Design Workshop parcel
and all improvements.
* The final subdivision plat and agreement must be filed
within 180 days of final approval.
5
IV. Rezoning - Design Workshop Inc. proposes to rezone the newly
acquired parcel from R-6 to Office. Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the
standards of review for an amendment to the Official Zone District
Map are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment is consistent with the recent
rezoning of the Old Library from Public to Office, enabling DWI to
comply with the parking requirements of the Office zone district.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Area comprehensive Plan does not specifically
address this particular site.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: This project site is bordered by R-6 zoning on Bleeker
Street and Office zoning on Main Street. In addition, the Sardy
House (zoned LP) is adjacent to the Design Workshop Inc. parcel.
Rezoning the conveyed piece of land is consistent with the zoning
along Main Street. The subdivision enables the conveyance of a
small piece of land. It does not create a separate parcel for
potential development purposes.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: It can be argued that rezoning the Old Library parcel
two years ago may have impacted traffic and parking problems
related to this parcel. However, rezoning the new parcel should
not exacerbate traffic and road safety issues. In fact, the
subdivision and rezoning enables occupants of the Design Workshop
building to park on -site rather than in adjacent neighborhoods.
The parking plan incorporating the new parcel was approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at their October 20, 1992 meeting.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: This rezoning will have no affect on public facilities.
u
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
RESPONSE: It is necessary to relocate or replace a very large
spruce tree pursuant to a tree relocation permit.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: The proposal to provide on -site parking combined with
payment -in -lieu helps keep employee parking out of adjacent
neighborhoods and helps fund the parking program.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: Many years ago the alley on this block was vacated.
Nine hundred square feet of the land being conveyed to Design
Workshop Inc. is the vacated alley. In 1990, the Design Workshop
parcel was rezoned from Public to Office. The Office zone district
requires more stringent parking requirements than Public. These
two events support the rezoning from R-6 to Office to facilitate
Design Workshop's parking plan.
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The amendment is consistent with established public
policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and
subdivision with the following conditions:
1. A plat must be submitted which meets the requirements of
Section 24-7-1004.D of the Municipal Code. The applicant is
required to submit two reproducible mylars for approval by the
engineering department and record one plat with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder. It is recommended that a blueline
be submitted for review prior to the final submission.
2. The vicinity map needs to be at a scale of 1"=4001.
4. A statement to the effect that all easements indicated in
title policy number ,dated are shown on this plat.
7
5. A -statement .that the applicant agrees to join any improvement
district formed for the purposes of constructing improvements
in the public right-of-way.
6. The surveyor's certificate needs to include language that the
survey was performed in accordance with Colorado Revised
Statutes 1973, Title 38, Article 51, as amended from time to
time. Also it must include that there is closure of 1: 10, 000.
7. The plat is incomplete with respect to existing improvements
i.e. the rest of the building, sidewalk, curb and gutter,
trash areas.
8. The plat needs to show the entire Design Workshop parcel and
all improvements.
9. Any work in the public right-of-way requires an excavation
permit from the Street Department.
10. Any storm run-off generated from the new parking lot to be
developed by Design Workshop must be maintained on -site. A
drainage plan, complete with calculations must be provided by
an engineer registered in the State of Colorado and submitted
to the Engineering Department to ensure that historic drainage
patterns are retained in the new parking lot.
11. The final subdivision plat and agreement must be filed
within 180 days of final approval.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend to Council approval of
the subdivision between the US West property and Design Workshop
Inc. property with the conditions listed in Planning memo dated
November 17, 1992."
"I move to recommend to Council approval of the map amendment for
the parcel conveyed to Design Workshop Inc. from R-6 to Office."
EXHIBITS
A. October 20, 1992 memo to the Commission
B. Draft subdivision plat
no
STATE OF Colorado
COUNTY OF Pitkin
SS.
AFFIDAVIT
The undersigned af f iant being duly sworn upon hi, oath deposes.
and sayeth:
1. The attached -Public Notice (Exhibit A) was sent to
the attached list of property owners (Exhibit B)
by the U.S. Mail on Monday, November 2, 1992.
This serves as notice requirement for property
owners within 300' of the subject property, as
required by the Subdivision application process
for the City of Aspen.
2. Further affiant sayeth not.
Ms Patty Schenck
$ubscribed and sworn to before me thi;� 11th day Of November,,
1992, by Ms Patty Schenck
Witness my hand and official seal.
144y cownission expires:
To—t 'a' r" - - Pub 1 D6
yd
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: DESIGN WORKSHOP, INC. AND U.S. WEST SUBDIVISION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, November 17, 1992 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 Design Workshop, Inc, 120 E. Main St., and U.S. West,
117 N. Aspen St., Aspen, CO requesting subdivision approval. The
applicants propose to adjust the property boundaries and to convey
a portion of U.S. West property to Design Workshop, Inc. For
further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin
Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 920-5090
sZJasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on October 30, 1992
City of Aspen Account
Commonwealth®
Land Title Insurance Company
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR
Vincent J. Higens ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Christina Davis
President 303-925-1766 : 303-925-6527 FAX Vice President
300' OWNER'S LIST
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list
of property owner's within three hundred feet of THE SOUTH 18 FEET OF LOTS
C, D AND E, BLOCK 66, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, TOGETHER WITH ONE-HALF
OF THE VACATED ALLEY LYING ADJACENT TO SAID LOTS C. D AND E, BLOCK 66,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AS VACATED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2 (SERIES OF 1961
AND RECORDED IN BOOK 194 AT PAGE 7 as obtained from the most current
Pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls.
NAMES AND ADDRESSES TAX SCHEDULE NUMBER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
AUTHORX ZVD I S IGNATURE
Form 4100
NAME ASPEN CLINIC BUILDING PTN PARCEL NO: 2737-124-38-004
51
ADT-.'RESS 100 E. MAIN ST.
CITY ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 81611
IME : ASPEN COMMUNITY CHURCH PARCEL NO: TAX EXEMPT
C/o :
ADDRESS : 200 E. BLEEKER
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 81611
NAME : ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT PARCEL NO: TAX EXEMPT
C/O : C/O SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
ADDRESS : 0446 MAROON CREEK ROAD
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 81611
NAME : ASPEN SKI LODGE LIMITED PTN. PARCEL NO: 2735-124-55-031 ET.AL.
C/o :
ADDRESS : 101 WEST MAIN ST.
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 81611_
NAME: CITY OF ASPEN PARCEL NO: TAX EXEMPTS
C/o :
ADDRESS : 130 SO. GALENA ST.
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 81611
�ME : CLAUDE M. & CLAUDINE M. CONNER PARCEL NO: 2737-073-28-001
1/0 :
ADDRESS : P.O. BOX 345
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 81612
NAME : CLAUDETTE CARTER PARCEL NO: 2737-072-20-005
C/O : C/O GRACY'S
ADDRESS : 202 E. MAIN ST.
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 81611
NAME : CONSTANCE M. HOGUET PARCEL NO: 2735-124-37-011 & 012
C/o :
ADDRESS : 333 EAST 68TH STREET
CITY : NEW YORK ST: NY ZIP: 10021
NAME : DONALD PAUL KRUMM PARCEL NO: 2735-124-37-002
C/O :
ADDRESS : P.O. BOX 874
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 81612
NAME : EDWARD & JUDITH E. NEISSER PARCEL NO: 2735-124-37-010
C/O : CIO HARRIS ASSOCIATES, L.P.
P. ;ISS : 2 NORTH LA SALLE, ROOM 500
,-;ITY : CHICAGO ST: IL ZIP: 60602
NAME : EDWARD R & DIANE WATSON PARCEL NO: 2735-124-39-003
C/o :
ADDRESS : 121 WEST BLEEKER ST.
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 81,61-1
NAME : EDWIN J. & ADELINE M. GROSSE PARCEL NO: 2735-124-37-005
C / 64, :
ADDRESS : 23049 FARMINGTON ROAD
CITY : FARMINGTON ST: MI ZIP: 48024
,.ME : ETHEL MCCABE PARCEL, NO: 2737-073-20-006
C/O : FRED PEARCE
ADDRESS : P.O. BOX 531
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 8161.2
NAME : EWALD H. CROSBY PARCEL NO: 2737-073-290003
C/O : ROSA GETTMAN
ADDRESS : 325 SOUTH FOREST ST.
CITY : DENVER ST: CO ZIP: 80222
NAME : GEORGE S. & SHIRLEY M. WEAVER PARCEL NO: 2735-1.24-37-009
C/O : C/O VIRGINIA HURST
ADDRESS : 1 CENTRAL UNION BLDG.
CITY : WHEELING ST:W.VAZIP: 26003
NAME : HOTEL ASPEN LTD. PARCEL NO: 2735-124-39-215 TO 323
C/O : C/O ASPEN ACCOMODATION
ADDRESS : 517 E. HOPKINS
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 81611
AME KERMIT S. & JENNY W. SUTTON PARCEL NO: 2737-073-15-001
'/0
ADDRESS 400 5TH AVE. SOUTH, SUITE 302
CITY NAPLES ST: FL ZIP: 33940
NAME : LARRY SALITERMAN PARCEL NO: 2737-124-38-012 TO 015
C/o :
ADDRESS : 2240 LEE AVENUE NORTH
CITY : MINNEAPOLIS ST: MN ZIP: 55424
NAME : MARY ESHBAUGH HAYS, TRUSTEE PARCEL NO: 2737-073--20-002
C/o :
ADDRESS : P.O. BOX 497
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 81612
NAME : NORTH AND SOUTH ASPEN ASSOC. PARCEL NO: 2737-124-38-005
C/o :
ADDRESS : 200 SO. ASPEN ST.
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 81611.
NAME : PALMER COMMUNICATIONS PARCEL NO: 2735-124-37-004
C/o :
A ;'SS : 1801 GRAND AVE.
,ITY : DES MOINES ST: IA ZIP: 50308
NAME : PRISCILLA ANNE SADLER PARCEL, NO: 2737-073-15-003
C/o :
ADDRESS : P.O. BOX 2989
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 81612
NAME RICHARD B. & MONTAE IMBT JOHNSON PARCEL NO: 2735-124-37-003
C/0;.•
ADDRESS : 6820 BROADWAY
CITY : DALLAS ST: TX ZIP: 75230
'ME : ROBERT & MARIE SEGALL PARCEL NO: 2735-1.24-37-001
CIO : CIO RLS MECHANICAL CORPORATION
ADDRESS : 305 EAST 46 STREET
CITY : NEW YORK ST: NY ZIP: 1-0017
NAME : STEVE & LILY KO PARCEL NO: 2735-124-39-070
C/o :
ADDRESS : 132 WEST MAIN ST.
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 81-611
NAME : T.R.S. FAMILY TRUST PARCEL NO: 2735-124-37-006
C/O : C/O GARY WAYLAND
ADDRESS : 1079 AVIATION BLVD.
CITY : HERMOSA BEACH ST: CA ZIP: 90254
NAME : WHEELER SQUARE ASSOCIATES PARCEL NO: 2737-073-20-009
CIO : CIO THE DONALD J. FLEISHER CO.
ADDRESS : 200 E. MAIN ST.
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 81611
'\ME WILLIAM G. BRUMDER, TRUSTEE PARCEL NO: 2737--073-16-005
ADDRESS 2054 FIRST WISCONSIN TRUST CO.
CITY MILWAUKEE* ST: WI ZIP: 53201
NAME : WILLIAM L. SEGUIN PARCEL NO: 2723-073-16-002
C/o :
ADDRESS : P.O. BOX 4274
CITY : ASPEN ST: CO ZIP: 8161.2
NAME : YVONNE F. HAMMOND PARCEL, NO: 2737-073-15-002
C/o :
ADDRESS : P.O. BOX 280
CITY : EVERGREEN ST: CO ZIP: 80439
MEMORANDUM
To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officerk(LI
Re: Adoption: City Shop Master Plan (Public Hearing)
Date: November 17, 1992
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning and
Zoning Commission adopt the City Shop Master Plan as proposed. You
reviewed the plan at a worksession on September 15, 1992, and
voiced favorable comments in support of the plan at that meeting.
No changes have been made to the draft plan that you reviewed, with
the exception of the addition of the appendix listing city -owned
vehicles and equipment.
This Master Plan represents Phase 1 of a multi -phase plan for the
purpose of renovating and developing this parcel to handle the
needs of the Streets Department, while protecting the historic and
environmentally -sensitive aspects of the site.
COUNCIL ACTION: On November 9, 1992, City Council endorsed the
plan as proposed, with the recommendation that energy efficiency
become one of the priorities during the development of Phase #2 and
in construction.
BACKGROUND: Approximately two years ago, the City Shop became a
highly visible site as a result of the fuel storage tank relocation
and resultant citizen concern. Planning staff, at Council's
request, processed a rezoning of the parcel (from R-30/PUD to
Public/PUD) in order to permit fuel storage tanks above ground.
The P&Z and a group of City Shop neighbors became significantly
involved at this stage, and focused their review efforts on the
tank siting and the mitigation of environmental and visual impacts
on site. The P&Z began to voice its concern about this site,
located along the banks of Castle Creek in a residential area, as
being optimal for long term -use as the City Shop.
Concurrent with the rezoning, the City, through the HPC, sponsored
a Landmark Designation application (zoning overlay) to insure that
any future development on the parcel received review by the HPC..
Council adopted the designation ordinance last year. The c. 1893
historic resource has been identified by the state as eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
It was also at this time that City Council formed the "Blue Ribbon
Committee". This group of multi -disciplined citizens was charged
with examining the City's capital assets to assist Council in
1
budgetary considerations for long-range capital resource
management. I.t was this group that studied all city owned property
and uses, and determined that it was not financially feasible to
relocate the City Shop, and that the existing site should be
studied further for possible renovation and expansion. Council
acted on their recommendation to study this site in detail to
determine how it could be better utilized as a City Shop, and what
(if any) design changes could occur on the parcel to make it
optimally functional without destroying its historic integrity.
It was also evident to the Blue Ribbon Committee that satellite
sites would no doubt still be required in order to house all the
equipment and functions of the Streets, Parks, Water and Electric
Departments.
(Note: The relocation of the City Shop to the area of the Holden-
Marolt Open Space parcel was entirely ruled out early on by
Council, the Manager's office and the Blue Ribbon. Committee,
through comments already received by citizen groups working on the
Aspen Area Community Plan.)
PROCESS: The importance of citizen input can not be
underestimated. Heavy emphasis was placed (in the RFP), on the
consultant's ability to work closely with concerned citizens and
utilize their suggestions. A Citizens Committee was formed
consisting largely of those people involved with the fuel storage
tank placement issue. Three additional people were added: Jay
Hammond (Blue Ribbon Committee), Les Holst (HPC and Blue Ribbon
Committee) and Tim Mooney (P&Z liaison). Staff came to the P&Z at
the beginning of the master plan process requesting one member to
serve on the Citizens Committee as the P&Z liaison, and Tim
volunteered. Staff felt it was important to bring the P&Z along
through a liaison format, since the P&Z had last been involved at
the time of rezoning, which was one a half years ago.
Project Managers are Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer
and Jack Reid, Director of the Streets Department. The staff team
consists of Amy Margerum and Bill Efting from the Manager's office,
Bob Gish, Director of Public Works and Diane Moore, the City
Planning Director.
It should be noted that up until Council directed staff to study
this site and the Citizens Committee reaching agreement that this
is the best site for a City Shop, there was a growing consensus
that only a large, new site and building was the answer to our City
Shop problems. We have found an alternative to this thinking
through the development of the master plan, which illustrates a
compatible and efficient design solution that incorporates
environmental concerns with limited budget.
CURRENT ISSUES: The, draft master plan is considered to be Phase.
#1, serving as a guide for future site, design and operative.
planning. The Master Plan identifies equipment space needs,
K
analyzes design, renovation and expansion issues, proposes
alternatives regarding the expansion, estimates"Phase Two and Three
costs, and details the issues of how the current site may be reused
to solve the unsatisfactory situation the city has here.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Council budgeted $200,000 (FY 192) toward
the development of a City Shop- Master Plan (Phase One) and
construction drawings (Phase Two), which are being developed by
Gibson and Reno and Fleet Maintenance (per the RFP selection). We
allocated 10% of the $200,000 toward Phase I (the Master Plan
presented tonight for your endorsement), which has come in on time
and under budget. $180,000 (90%) has been allocated for Phase II,
working drawings. An RFP is expected to be prepared and
distributed in December of this year for Phase II.
The Blue Ribbon Committee has made the City Shop their #1 priority.
Actual implementation/construction will depend on voter approval,
unless a phased approach can be arranged through the Manager's
office. We anticipate a Spring, 1993 ballot issue for the.
estimated $1,850,000 project cost. Sandy Reed, along with other
members of the Citizen's Committee, has volunteered to help -promote
the bond issue with focus on the long-term cost savings the City
will realize with this renovation and needed expansion of the City
Shop parcel.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Plan has been endorsed by the City
Shop Citizen's Committee, Blue Ribbon Committee, and the Planning
and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Committee in
worksession.. The Planning Office wishes to thank the City Shop
Citizen's Committee for their time and input during numerous
meetings, enthusiasm for the project and unanimous support of the
plan.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
and Zoning Commission adopt the City Shop Master Plan as proposed,
with a recommendation that energy efficiency become one of the
priorities during the development of Phase #2 and in construction,
and direct staff to prepare a Resolution for the Chairman's
signature.
memo.pz.city.shop.plan
3
I
F
x�
•`
,�~~ �' i1
1.yJ #fir '�`��
'� ,-��`.�
-'�(P"�
McFLYNN & PICKETT
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THE SMITH-ELISHA HOUSE
320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE 1
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TIMOTHY MCFLYNN*
MARTHA C. PICKETT
* ALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA
Jed Caswall, Esq.
City of Aspen Attorney
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
November 10, 1992
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Hoag Lot 3: Security for Performance
Required for Construction of Driveway
Dear Jed and P&Z Members:
TELEPHONE (303) 925-2211
TELECOPIER (303) 925-2442
This letter is to confirm our understanding of the terms and
conditions of providing security to the City for the performance
obligation from Joseph Zaluba and Ronald Collen, owners of Hoag Lot-
3, related to the 8040 Greenline Approval. Messrs. Zaluba and
Collen hereby agree to execute a performance security agreement in
a form approved by the City Attorney, to be secured by a deed of
trust against property described as Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision,
according to the plat recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 218. Such
Deed of Trust shall be released by the City only upon completion of
the work required in P&Z Resolution No. , dated November 10,
1992, which work shall be performed to the satisfaction of the
City; or, upon substitution of the Deed of Trust with an irrevoca-
ble letter of credit, approved by the City Attorney.
Zaluba and Collen agree that the Security Agreement and Deed
of Trust shall be in an amount up to $75,000.00 and less than
$75,000.00 only in the event the City Engineer agrees to specific
estimates submitted within the next seven (7) days, to cover those
miscellaneous items listed in the memorandum from Rob Thompson,
dated October 29, 1992.
Jed Caswall, Esq.
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
November 10, 1992
Page 2
Upon approval of this security mechanism by the Planning &
Zoning Commission, Zaluba and Collen agree to execute necessary
documents immediately as requested and approved by the City
Attorney.
sincerely,
McFLYNN & PICKETT, P.C.
By:
MCP/klm
zalubakaswall.11r
Haitha � .]Pickett, attorney
for a u- a and Collen
WFLYNN & PICKETT
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THE SMITH-ELISHA DOUSE
320 WESTMAIN S1REE.T. SUITE 1
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TIMOTHY McFLYNN* TELEPHONE (303) 925.2211
MARTI IA C. PICKETT TELECOPIER (303) 925-2442
ALSO ADMIIICD IN CALIFORNIA
M E M O R A N D U M
December 15, 1992
TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Martha C. Pickett
RE: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline
I. HISTORY OF PROJECT APPROVAL
The Hoag Subdivision was created and approved by the City of
Aspen on October 18, 1971. Joe Zaluba, on behalf of himself and
Ron Collen, co-owner of the Hoag Lot 3, applied for an 8040
Greenline review in February 1989. There were several hearings,
some of which I was not involved in, but after my involvement
included April 4, 1989; August 8. 1989; November 14, 1989; December
191 1989; and January 2, 1990. During these hearings, various
revisions and additions to the application, were requested by P&Z
members and planning staff. Approval was finally made January 2,
1990. Messrs. Zaluba and Collen were extremely accommodating and
spent thousands of dollars in excess of what was anticipated in
satisfying all of the questions and concerns of the Staff and P&Z.
One of the major revisions to the application was the design and
alignment of the new upper driveway, rather than using the lower
access driveway which had been approved by the City in previous
years and in an application from Mr. Jack Barker.
Review of the history of this application is necessary to
remind Commission members that were on the board before and new
members that the many hearings continually referred to by various
members of P&Z and Staff with regard to this application were not
all at the request of the applicant, but at the request of the
City. Also importantly, there were no time requirements for
completion of improvements and no requirement for a performance
MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline
December 15, 1992
Page 2
bond or financial security of any kind for the improvements under
the initial 8040 approval.
Immediately upon receipt of the grant of approval, Messrs.
Zaluba and Collen submitted a building permit application for
commencement of construction immediately. Because of the City's
busy schedule and various delays, the building permit was not
issued until late September, 1990. Because of this issuance of a
building permit several months after its application, the first
building season was lost, and further, the contract to construct a
home for a contract purchaser was terminated because Messrs. Zaluba
and Collen were unable to meet the time requirements of the
purchaser.
II. COMMENCEMENT OF DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION
Meanwhile, in an effort to begin construction and to cooperate
with the neighboring landowners who would share the driveway, the
Hoag property owners began construction of the new driveway. Also,
condition No. 12 of the 8040 Resolution required that the driveway
be constructed prior to commencement of construction of the house.
The driveway was excavated to a preliminary grade, awaiting final
grade for excavation of the building foundation which would
determine more accurately the final grade of the driveway. When
the building permit was not issued until late September, all work
on the project was stopped as inclement weather began.
III. COMPLAINT FROM NEIGHBOR
on or about Sept. 11, 1990, the neighboring owner below the
driveway where it forks off from the ski trail, Mrs. Susan
Rappaport, wrote the City Attorney to express her concern that
there could be drainage from the new driveway which could create
problems for her landscaping and retainage in her backyard, which
was very steep. At that time, Jed Caswall and I had several
telephone conversations as well. as some correspondence which
MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline
December 15, 1992
Page 3
confirmed that Mr. Zaluba had immediately had his experts, Chen
Northern and High Country Engineering, visit the'site, visit with
Mrs. Rappaport and her attorney, John Kelly, to address her
concerns and do additional work on the driveway to winterize its
condition. Once again, please note that the initial contact from
Mrs. Rappaport was mid -September and therefore winterization work
occurred late in the fall just prior to inclement weather.
The next summer the issue was raised again, apparently by Mrs.
Rappaport, in her letter dated August 8, 1991, as to the state of
the ski trail grade. Please note that her letter was in response
to a report from Chen Northern to Gary and Susan Rappaport dated
July 31, 1991, re: the state of the Rappaports' driveway and
grading on the Rappaports' property (not Hoag Lot 3). See Chen's
letter of July 31, 1991, referencing Job No. 4 438 87, which was
Rappaports' property. In that letter, Chen reported that there was
some final grading to be completed on the ski trail above the
Rappaports which should address drainage on the Rappaports'
property. Mrs. Rappaport's subsequent letter to the City was to
inquire as to the status of the final grade on the ski trail, and
did not question the status of the driveway on Lot 3. Somehow,
this inquiry led to the Notice to Show Cause for the July 21, 1992,
hearing which raised various issues related to the driveway, not
the ski trail.
IV. NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
The first Notice to Show Cause Hearing occurred on July 21,
1992. The Notice to Show Cause listed the reasons for the City's
position that the 8040 Greenline approval should be revoked. The
applicant's position has continually been that these conditions had
not been finalized, but that most importantly, that this was not an
issue of non-compliance because the initial 8040 Greenline Approval
did not impose any time restrictions for when the improvements must
be completed. The P&Z at its first hearing in July relied upon a
MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline
December 15, 1992
Page 4
theory that because the building application was granted that
somehow a time period was inferred to be imposed upon the applicant
for other conditions on the property not related to building of the
structure. It is our position that this theory is not a valid one.
Most importantly, we maintain that the applicant has been
cooperative in trying to address all of the City's concerns, and
the neighbors' concerns and has made much progress in completing
these conditions in a satisfactory manner. . (See Exhibit "A"
setting forth a summary of correspondence by the Applicants'
representatives; and Exhibit "B" setting forth a list of hearing
dates related to this noncompliance issue, summarizing the action
taken at each hearing.) All of the applicants' experts, as well as
the City Engineer and Planner, have agreed that the driveway is in
a stable condition, not a hazardous one.
There have been various comments by staff members and P&Z
members that Mr. Zaluba has not been cooperative in this non-
compliance process. I submit that as evidenced by the reports
submitted to the staff and P&Z, the Applicants have indeed been
extremely cooperative and anxious to resolve the issues raised.
First of all, at the first Show Cause Hearing Mr. Zaluba was
personally present and agreed to various conditions, which his
experts immediately explained to him were overzealous. When Jed
Caswall provided to me a copy of the proposed resolution, I spoke
with him on the phone and wrote him a letter with regard to our
position that some of the dates were optimistic but that some of
the items could be completed in a timely fashion. Because I was
out of town, I did not receive a copy of the proposed resolution
until after it had been executed, and I was given one day in which
to respond.
Immediately after the July 21 hearing, Mr. Zaluba met with
various workers and engineers on the property, including the City
Engineer to discuss the best way to proceed on all the issues. The
MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline
December 15, 1992
Page 5
initial 8040 Greenline Approval requires that the applicant have
final approval by the City Engineer as to its engineered drawings
for any retaining walls prior to commencement of construction.
Because Mr. Zaluba had committed to completion of the wall prior to
the winter, and his engineers and designers had explained to him
that this time schedule was not feasible, Messrs. Zaluba, Collen
and the neighboring owners who would be sharing the driveway,
suggested a proposal that a temporary concrete wall be placed along
the upper edge of the driveway merely as a temporary measure for
the winter season. This proposal was nixed upon a determination by
the City Engineer and Staff that this temporary measure was not
necessary because the slope was indeed stabilized and in a safe
condition.
Next, Messrs. Zaluba and Collen, along with the neighboring
property owner who is to share the driveway, submitted a proposal
of plans and specifications for a wall which would not be a tall,
complex boulder and retaining wall which was contemplated during
the application but a simpler, smaller wall which would be more
aesthetically pleasing because more the slough would be able to be
visible and there would be more vegetation showing because the
slope could be cut back and the existing vegetation could slough
over and regrow. Ron Thompson, Assistant City Engineer has
approved these plans and specifications and Leslie Lamont has
stated that she supports approval of this wall for the reasons
stated above.
Also during this time immediately following the first hearing,
Mr. Zaluba worked with a local hydromulch expert to determine how
best to handle the area downhill from the new driveway. It was
suggested that rather than removing all of the rocks as required
and agreed to with P&Z, that some additional sod be placed along
the slope and that the area be hyrdomulched. Initially when Mr.
Za_Luba asked Ron Thompson for his permission to do this within the
time frame set out by P&Z, Ron Thompson agreed. However, a couple
MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline
December 15, 1992
Page 6
of days later Ron Thompson called to say that in speaking with
Leslie Lamont they believed that this hydromulch plan was accept-
able but that it should be approved by P&Z. Because Mr. Zaluba
believed that this was a better alternative, he risked not picking
up the rocks but waiting till the next P&Z for approval. However,
at the next P&Z hearing this item was used against him as a
condition which he had not literally met. Once again, it is
important to note that the downhill slope which was subject to this
hydromulch or removal of rocks was not in an unsafe condition but,
rather, had rocks which had spilled over from the excavation which
needed to be corrected.
Today, our proposal is to not only remove the rocks but also
to hydromulch to dive double protection to ensure that this
revegetation method will be successful through more than one
growing season. Ron Thompson has stated that because this work
will now be done in the spring, rather than the fall which was
initially contemplated, there is a greater chance of its success.
V. REVEGETATION Or OLD HAIRPIN TURN
As part of the underlying approvals, the applicants were to
revegetate the old hairpin turn which had now been abandoned. The
approval itself contemplated use of the spoils from the excavation
of the house foundation to revegetate this area. This would allow
on -site dirt to be used rather than trucking many truckloads of
dirt through town t:.o the site for this purpose. At this time,
please note that the city engineer's office and the planning staff
have agreed that the .requirement at the July 21 hearing, to
immediately revegetate that area should be given some additional
time to hopefully allow on -site spoils to be used for this purpose.
Therefore, this condition, required by P&Z at 'its July 21 hearing,
.is now being recommended to be amended by the staff.
MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline
December 15, 1992
Page 7
VI. COOPERATION FROM Applicants
As noted above, Messrs. 7aluba and Collen have worked
diligently to cooperate with the City and the neighbors each time
an issue has arisen. They have not consistently ignored nor sought
the requirements imposed by the City, whether legal or not. Please
note that this has been an evolving process. Although the
applicant has raised various revisions as to how to handle certain
conditions and to the plans and design for the wall and
revegetation measures, so has the City taken this opportunity to
revise its conditions, supplement, amend, and add brand new
conditions which were never contemplated nor required before. One
goad example is after a meeting with staff, the Staff Planner,
Assistant City Engineer and City Attorney on September , the
parties agreed that Ron Thompson would provide a memorandum or a
letter to the applicants setting forth all of the items he wanted
addressed. Ron Thompson called me on September 24 and specifical-
ly listed the items which would be required. I took notes verbatim
and immediately sent a letter to my clients and their experts so
that this work could begin. At the same time, I wrote a letter to
Ron Thompson confirming in writing all of the items he had listed
for me. On September 2.9, I received a letter from Ron and Leslie
once again revising those .requirements given by Ron, and that
information was later once again used against the applicant by
stating that I had changed a time requirement period. The time
requirement that I had changed was actually moving up a date to
three days earlier so that Ron would have three additional days to
review something which he had required. I thought modification of
that date which would favor the City and not my client would be
acceptable.
on several occasions the Assistant City Engineer, Leslie
:Lamont and Jed Caswall met with me and/or Randy Wedum to discuss
_resolution of these issues. Consistently, we have thought that we
had resolved the issues, addressed all of the concerns and met
MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline
December 15, 1992
Page 8
deadlines imposed. However, at each hearing, the presentation made
by staff and the discussion among P&Z members has failed to
acknowledge cooperation by the applicants and their representatives
and have relied upon a literal interpretation of dates for compli-
ance imposed by P&Z without input by the applicants, their
representatives and city staff members who have agreed that certain
time frames were unrealistic and agreed that other time frames were
acceptable.
It has been a difficult process for the applicants to work on
two levels, one with the staff in believing that their time frames
and solutions were acceptable and were to be recommended to P&Z,
and then understandably from the P&Z members' point of view not
having these recommendations clearly set forth at hearings in front
of P&Z. As I recall, Bruce Kerr, for one, noted on a couple of
occasions that he was receiving mixed messages from staff and could
not discern what in fact staff was recommending.
VI I . SUMMARY
Mr. Zaluba's property is admittedly a steep, difficult site
for development. However, this property is a legally subdivided
City lot which has been reviewed by the City first in its subdivi-
sion process and secondly in an 8040 Greenline Approval for Sack
Barker, which approved a lower driveway. The 8040 Approval process
for Messrs. Zaluba and Collen was a long and tedious one, which was
not mandated by the Applicants, but by the City; a process which
the Applicants participated in agreeably and cooperatively. The
issue of non-compliance arose not by the City's concern but by an
adjacent property owner, who objected to the approval of the 8040
Greenline in the first place because she did not want a house and
the traffic behind her, and by raising concerns relating to the
state the driveway which the City has consistently agreed did not
exist. The slope where the driveway is cut has remained stable as
evidenced by various letters from the Applicants' experts, as well
MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline
December 15, 1992
Page 9
as from the City Engineer I s and Planning Staff s office. The other
conditions which have been imposed by the City during this non-
compliance process were either not a part of the initial 8040
Greenline Approval or did not have a time period in which they must
be finished. The only amendment that the Applicants are seeking is
the new design of the wall which has arisen because once the
excavation for the driveway was completed, it was not as steep as
originally contemplated and because the Applicants, who must now
work with an adjacent owner to share the costs as well as the
actual use of the road have agreed upon a plan which'is not only
less expensive (which should not be penalized) but is also more
visually acceptable to these Applicants who must travel it each day
because it is less visually impactive by allowing more vegetation
-to be shown.
Hoag Lot 3 is currently under Contract for Sale with a closing
scheduled for February 28, 1993. The new purchasers, Dr. and Mrs.
Jeff Rush, as part of their Contract, have agreed to provide a
Letter of Credit in the amount of $80, 000, to the benefit of the
City of Aspen. Our proposal today is that you accept this Letter
of Credit, the original of which is being Federal Expressed for
arrival in Jed Caswall's office tomorrow, December 16. This Letter
of Credit may be revoked by the Rushes only in the event for some
reason they do not consummate their closing in February. At that
time, if indeed the Rushes choose to revoke the Letter of Credit,
the Applicants will have the right to substitute the Letter of
Credit, in the same form, to be acceptable by the City Attorney,
and if such Letter of Credit cannot be supplied by the Applicants
prior to withdrawal of the Rushes' Letter of Credit, then, the
Applicants have agreed that the 8040 Approvals shall automatically
be revoked. Most importantly, they have agreed to waive their
rights to a hearing at that time.
The Applicants believe that their proposal is a fair one and
_includes a major concession on their partly because they are of the
MEMO: Hoag Lot 3 8040 Greenline
December 15, 1992
Page 10
adamant belief that this non-compliance process and the conditions
required have been imposed without the necessary criteria as
required by law. The charges against the Applicants are unfounded
because the conditions required in the 8040 Greenline which have
not been completed did not have a time restriction for completion.
The time requirements have been artificially imposed, or as one of
the planning members determined "inferred" by other items such as
issuance of a building permit. To revoke the 8040 approvals will
greatly diminish the value of the property, particularly given the
fact that it is currently under Contract for sale.
EXHIBIT "A"
CORRESPONDENCE FROM APPLICANTS' REPRESENTATIVES
L. November 9, 1990 letter from Marty Pickett (confirming
retention of Steve Pollach, Chen Associates to oversee work
and confirm that all necessary measures are being taken to
provide stabilization. This letter was in response to a
letter from Jed Caswa l l , dated October 30, 1990, subsequent to
a letter from Susan Rappaport, dated September 11, 1990.
2. November 12, 1990 letter from Chen Northern re: observation of
the temporary driveway grading verifying that there was "no
seepage and no indications of massive slope instability
associated with this cut." Also noting that approximately one
month earlier, he had observed the site when clear of snow and
it was in a similar condition to the present condition, ie.,
"there appears to be little risk of massive slope instability
or erosion that can impact structures below the site."
3. July 31, 1991 letter from Chen Northern to the Rappaports.
This letter was for purposes of reporting on the retainage
work done on the Rappaport property by Chen Northern. In
addition, Chen. Northern noted that "additional grading of the
outside edge of Ute Trail may be needed so that surface water
runoff is not directed onto the subject [Rappaport] site."
4. July 10, 1992 letter from Chen Northern to Joe Zaluba noting
"the temporary grading for the driveway appears to be perform-
ing as expected and there were no indications of upslope
destabilization." Also, "no indications of seepage were
observed." "The slopes along the downhill side of the drive
appeared stable and no indications of accelerated erosion were
noted."
5. July 21, 1992 letter from Chen Northern to Joe Zaluba "there
was no seepage and no indication of massive slope instability
associated with the cut. A small amount of rock had ravelled
from the cut face and came to rest on the driveway sur-
face...we understand that the driveway excavation is tempo-
rary, mainly for construction access, and the road will be
final graded by additional downcutting during the residence
construction. This sequence should be acceptable and the
applicable recommendations presented in our previous report
should be observed in completing the driveway grading."
G. September 15, 1992 letter from Marty Pickett to Leslie Lamont
regarding outstanding issues relating to hydromulch, wall
design, and handling the issue of where the driveway meets the
trail.
7. September 15, 1992 letter from High Country Engineering to
Marty Pickett in response to the City's request for additional
information on the initial temporary stabilization and later
This letter was proposing a temporary measure for the winter
which at the time was a recommendation or proposal by the
Applicants.
8. September 15, 1992 letter Gene Cilli regarding proposal to
hydromulch the downside slope from the driveway.
9. September 16, 1992 letter from Marty Pickett to Rob Thompson
regarding the proposed temporary pre -cast wall for the winter.
10. September 16, 1992 letter from Chen Northern from Joe Zaluba
summarizing the September 8 site visit. He notes that "the
driveway alignment is identical to that described in our July
21 letter. Additional excavation has been made by cutting
down and into the hillside. ...the driveway surface had a
noticeable cross slope into the hillside to contain surface
runoff along the uphill side. ...and there was no indications
of massive slope instability caused by additional excavation.
...hydromulching the uphill excavation phase is not warranted
at this time since the cut is temporary and will be flattened
for the final grading configuration."
11. September 24, 1992 letter from Marty Pickett to Rob Thompson
confirming requirements stated on the telephone on September
23, 1992. this is where the October 15 deadline for submit-
ting an engineering drawing was changed to October 12, 1992 by
Marty to allow three days review by the engineer. Also note
that on September 29, 1992, there was a letter to Marty from
Rob Thompson and Leslie making revisions to the requirements
stated in the telephone conversation September 23 and con-
firmed in writing by Marty on September 24, 1992.
12. October 12, 1992 design drawings by High Country Engineering
for a concrete wall which will expose more vegetation by
allowing the existing vegetative slope to slough over.
13. October 16, 1992 letter from Chen Northern from Randy Wedum
regarding retaining wall details by High Country Engineers.
They state that this plan is in accordance with their recom-
mendations for driveway grading presented on pages 9 and 10 of
their subsoil study report dated June 26, 1989. Further, they
suggest that they observe the final slope grading during and
after the retaining wall construction.
14. November 13, 1992 letter from Chen Northern to Randy Wedum
regarding their review of design drawings by High Country
Engineering and Construction procedures regarding geotechnical
field monitoring. They suggest that field inspection should
be made when the wall area is cut to rough grade and after the
walls have been set in backfield.
15. November 16, 1992 letter to Rob Thompson from Greg Mosian
regarding tree location replacement, hydroseed/mulching and
reseeding plan.
EXHIBIT "B'
SUMMARY OF HEARINGS RELATED TO NONCOMPLIANCE
1. Notice to Show Cause, July 21, 1992
2. Zaluba update, Sept. 22, 1992 where Leslie's memo dated
September 22, 1992 discussed the possibility of temporary
retaining wall for the winter but suggested that P&Z review
that proposal. Staff also requested that there be a fully
organized outline of work to be performed back to the 15th and
work that would be delayed but noted that they "not have a
problem discussing a realistic time frame to do the work."
Staff recommended the commission schedule on October 20, 1992
date to review Mr. Zaluba's latest plans for completing their
required work.
3. October 20, 1992 Leslie called Marty Pickett to explain that
this meeting was being tabled because they did not have time
to review and said that Marty did not need to attend. At that
meeting, apparently Leslie reported to the P&Z that we were
cooperating to come up with a resolution and apparently one of
the P&Z members said that he would like to see a bond or some
sort of financial security at the next hearing. Subsequent to
that meeting, Joe Zaluba, Rob Thompson, Leslie Lamont, Jed
Caswall, Randy Wedum and Marty Pickett met (Friday, October
23, at 2:30) to discuss how to resolve the problem. At that
time, everyone agreed that the temporary wall was not neces-
sary and in fact Rob and Leslie both noted that they would
recommend the currently proposed concrete wall with the
vegetative slope above.
4. Hearing November 10, 1992 (tabled because Jed Caswall was not
there because of a snow storm.) At this time, the only
outstanding issue as far as the staff was concerned was the
performance bond or financial security and Jed Caswall and I
discussed and agreed upon a viable solution being a deed of
trust against the property.
5. Hearing November 17, 1992. At this hearing, the P&Z denied
the proposal of the deed of trust and the hearing was tabled
at Marty Pickett's request to December 15, 1992.
6. Hearing December 15, 1992. Hearing for applicant to present
case as to why the 8040 Greenline approvals should not be
revoked.
zalubalattach.p&z
rdQt aAA
of c�v�14� 6a�vi.d
wol� ws',a�e-,
s:. uAka-v,,*o cArNc�