HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19920121
//
/
.,.,-...
;~ '
--
"
,l
-
","'<"""
l,_
AGE N D A
------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
January 21, 199~ Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
city Hall
==================================================================
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A.
700 West Francis Landmark Designation
Eflin
- Roxanne
B. Ute Park SUbdivision Final PUD, 8040 Greenline,
Rezoning and Text Amendment - Kim Johnsen
C. Marshall Hallam Lake Environmentally Sensitive Area
Review - Kim Johnson
IV. ADJOURN
a.cov
To:
From:
Re:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Roxanne Ef lin, Historic Preservation Officer 4k-
700 W. Francis: Landmark Designation (Public Hearing)
Date: January 21, 1992
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Landmark Designation for the
property at 700 W. Francis, in order to take advantage of
incentives available to historic resources, including setback
variations from the HPC for the proposed addition. The HPC is
authorized to grant such variations provided certain findings are
made regarding character compatibility.
Note: 700 W. Francis is eligible for listing on the State Register
of Historic Places, and may be eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places, as well, as it currently exists. Local
Landmark Designation allows the applicant to take advantage of the
20% State Rehab Tax Credits, plus applicable local incentives;
National Register listing would allow the applicant the ability to
apply for Federal Rehab Tax Credits, should the property be
considered "income producing" (i.e. rental property). Staff will
review this property's eligibility with Barbara Norgren, State
Register Coordinator, at the applicant's request.
APPLICANT: Doug and Susan McPherson, represented by Gretchen
Greenwood and Associates
LOCATION: 700 W. Francis, Lots R and S, Block 15, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado
OTHER COMMITTEE ACTION: On December 18, 1991, the HPC unanimously
recommended Landmark Designation for the subject parcel. They also
granted Conceptual Development approval for the project, which
includes an addition to the rear of the parcel, and a
reconstructed/relocated alley building.
Landmark Designation
Local Landmark Designation is necessary in order to receive the
setback variations requested, as well as State Rehab Income Tax
Credits. The applicant has also requested a $2,000 designation
grant from the City of Aspen.
LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 7-702 of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations define the six standards for local landmark
designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet
1
0
at least one of the following standards:
A. Historical importance: The
principal or secondary structure or
or associated with a person or
significance to the cultural, social
Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the
structure or site is a
site commonly identified
an event of historical
or political history of
United States.
Response: The Planning Office records indicate that this
property, referred to as the C. F. Saunders Residence, was
built c.1890 for Mr. Saunders, owner of the local brewery.
He began business here in 1885, erecting a plant at a cost of
$23,000. The brewery (now ruins at the base of Red Mountain
Road) was an important contribution to the social life of the
mining class in Aspen. Staff finds the property meets this
Standard.
B. Architectural importance: The structure or site reflects
an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of
traditional Aspen character.
Response: We find this structure to be one of the finest
representations of a typical Aspen Miner's cottage in our
community. It has been virtually unchanged with the exception
of the snow deflecting modification built into the front
porch.
C. Architectural importance: The structure or site embodies
the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique
architectural type or specimen.
Response: We find that the architectural quality of this one
and a half story cottage distinguishes this structure as a
significant specimen in Aspen. Nearly all of Aspen's
Victorian -era cottages have been altered to some degree over
the years; the Saunders cottage is one of the last remaining
examples in Aspen where the structure has retained its
original integrity. The ornate decoration indicates the
property was built for an owner of greater wealth and social
standing than the average worker. We find that the property,
in it present form, meets this standard. (Please refer to the
Inventory Form attached for specific architectural details of
this property.)
D. Architectural importance: The structure is a significant
work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the
character of Aspen.
Response: Our records do not indicate an architect was
involved in the design or construction of this cottage. The
quality of the cottage is in its original detailing and form.
We find, therefore, that the property does not meet this
2
Standard.
E. Neighborhood character: The structure or site is a
significant component of an historically significant
neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is
important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
Response: The contribution this small scale residential
structure and its outbuilding makes to the West End is
invaluable. It anchors an important corner, and features
historic cottonwoods and an open, relatively undisturbed
irrigation ditch along 7th St. It is vital that any changes
taking place to this parcel do not diminish the contribution
this cottage makes to the neighborhood character.
F. Community character: The structure or site is critical
to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community
because of its relationship in terms of size, location and
architectural similarity to other structures or sites of
historical or architectural importance.
Response: Aspen's "miner's cottages" are signatures of our
town. The preservation of these small scale, vernacular
resources is critical to the character and economic vitality
of Aspen. The particular quality of this cottage contributes
to our understanding of our unique heritage, and of those who
founded and developed our community at the turn of the
century.
Conclusion: The Planning Office finds that all Landmark
Designation Standards have been met, with the exception of #D.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the P&Z
recommend Landmark Designation for 700 West Francis St. to City
Council, finding that all Designation Standards have been met with
the exception of #D.
memo.hpc.700wf.cd.ld
3
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM
State Site Number: Local Site Number: 700.WF
Photo Information: ASP-4-12 and ASP-H-17
Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12
USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15'
Building or Structure Name: C. F. Saunders Residence
Full Street Address: 700 West Francis
Legal Description:
City and Townsite of Aspen
City Aspen County Pitkin
Historic District or Neighborhood Name: West End
Owner: Private/State/Federal
Owner's Mailing Address:
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
Building Type: Residential
Architectural Style: Victorian Miner's Cottage
Dimensions: L: x W: = Square Feet:
Number of Stories: 1-11 2 story
Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Rectangular
Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Rail fence with balustrade
up wood posts
Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and
Function (map number / name): Single gable 1-1•/2 story carriage hous,
with board and batten, approximatley 600 square feet; also shed roof
shed, approximately 50 square feet; with wood shingled roof
For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in
the description as appropriate:
Roof: Cross -gabled with wood shingles
Walls: Clapboard with decorative wood shingles at gable ends
Foundation / Basement: Red sandstone
Chimney(s): 2 - 1 at center front gable, red with corbeled brick;
1 at northeast side, brick
Windows: One projecting bay at front (south) with small divided light
�Y...,,.,.i ..,,•.�-.,,• l 4 ~V%+- r..; v%Ae%,r.v&- . riewd-0 o httrrr a4 Cl Ao ` nnp-
uver-une QUUD.Le llurlf4 Lx k2u C15CW11CL C i 71lC.i J JL%JW-b!L. V AJCZ X Vr i a.,a .�a...y.
roof with one -over -one double hung window, supported by scroll brackets
at east side
Doors: 2 entry at front: segmented transom over segmented U 2 light
over wood panel; transom over multi -light door at east side toward rear
Porches: Shed at southeast corner supported by turned posts with
spindle frieze with decorative wood balustrade
General Architectural Description: 1-1f2 story Victorian cottage.
This structure is one of the finest representations of a typical Aspen
Victorian Miner's Cottage. The front gable has the typical projecting
bay window, in this case more ornately decorated with brackets; the
cross gable with double entry (one for main use, the other for parlor_
room use only). An unusual feature with the entry doors is the transo
window over each (not present in most other Aspen homes). The porch
has much gingerbread detail from turned posts; wood sawn brackets and
lattice work.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: January 21, 1992
Re: Ute Park Subdivision/Final PUD Plan, 8040 Greenline
Review, - oning to AH Affordable Housing, Text
Amendment, Growth Management Exemption, and Special
Reviews for Open Space and Parking in the AH Zone
Summary: The Planning Office recommends approval of the rezoning
to AH and text amendments. Planning recommends tabling of
Subdivision, Final PUD Plan, 8040 Greenline review, Special Reviews
for parking and open space, and GMQS Exemption, to allow further
research of the items listed above in Problem Discussions.
If the Commission wishes to approve the project, recommended
conditions have been included by Planning staff.
Applicant: Ute Park Partnership c/o Jim Martin, assisted by Tom
Stevens, The Stevens Group, Inc.
Location / Zoning: This 3.8 acre parcel is located on the south
side of the east end of Ute Ave. across from the Aspen Club and
Benedict Office Building. The current zoning is RR Rural
Residential.
Request: The applicant wishes to rezone the parcel to AH for
purposes of developing seven deed restricted townhomes within two
buildings and three free market lots for single family residences.
This will require Final Subdivision and PUD approval, 8040
Greenline review for the townhomes, Special Review for parking and
open space in an AH zone, and GMQS Exemption for the affordable
and free market -units. Additionally, the applicant seeks to amend
the Land Use Code regarding allowable FAR maximums for single
family dwellings. Please see the attached application booklet for
proposed site plan and subdivision plat. (Full sized drawings will
be available at the meeting.)
The three bedroom townhomes (deed restricted to Category 4) will
range from 1,285 s. f . to 1,309 s. f . of net livable area and will
have three levels. One garage space and .one uncovered space is the
proposed parking for each unit. The townhomes' architecture will
be consistent with development in the neighborhood and with the
architectural guidelines proposed for the free market lots within
this application. Materials will be cedar siding, double hung wood
windows, shake or metal roofs, and peeled log accents. The largest
of the two townhome buildings is approximately 5,200 s.f. net
1
livable area. Overhangs, roof lines, and massing attempt to create
a residential scale. The proposed architectural elevations and
typical floorplans are included in the application booklet.
The three proposed free market lots average 1 acre each and have
building envelopes established on the plat. Based on the avalanche
zones on these lots, the envelopes indicate "unconditional" and
"conditional" areas in which to build. Each individual lot shall
have its own 8040 review prior to building permit issuance.
Process: This review is the third step in a four part review
process. The Planning Commission shall make a determination on
8040 Greenline review and the Special Reviews. In addition, the
Commission shall forward a recommendation to City Council on
Subdivision and Final PUD, rezoning, GMQS Exemption, and text
amendment. The Council will also hear requests for
condominiumization, vested rights, and exemption of park
development impact fees.
Background: The Planning Commission recommended approval of a
Conceptual PUD Plan for this project on July 3, 1990. The City
Council approved the Conceptual Plan with conditions on August 13,
1990. During the discussions at Conceptual review, the rezoning
was considered as a threshold issue. Density was a concern to both
the Commission and Council. At that time, the Conceptual plan
consisted of sixteen two -bedroom deed restricted townhomes and
seven free market townhomes. According to the application, the
reductions resulted from concerns raised at Conceptual review as
well as current market conditions for deed restricted housing.
On January 13, 1992, City Council approved a request to extend the
1 year filing requirement for submission of a Final PUD Plan for
review. The request was granted to extend the deadline 160 days
retroactively from August 1991 to allow this Final Plan to be
reviewed.
Referral Comments: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit
"A". Summaries are as follows:
Engineering: Rob Thomson forwarded the following comments:
1. The Upper Ute Ave. Improvement District is scheduled for first
reading on Jan.13, 1992. The action taken on this district may
require that the 60' access and utility easement shown on this plan
be dedicated as public right-of-way. The applicant will continue
to coordinate roadway design, drainage, snow storage, etc. with
City staff. Any improvement work must be done in accordance with
City specifications. No driveway or parking space can exceed 12%
grade.
2. The slope reduction calculations must be stamped by an
engineer.
12-
BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY
1280 UTE AVENUE
ASPEN 81611
COLORADO
(303) 925-3481
E•
El
January 17, 1992
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Aspen City Council
Aspen, CO 811611
To whom it may concern:
The purpose of this letter is to encourage you to give a
favorable review of the proposed subdivision of that property
across from the Benedict Office Building that is owned by Ute Park
Partnership. I have followed this property as an adjoining land
owner and for that matter, as a former owner of that property, and I
think that the proposed uses are quite appropriate for the area.
Three single-family homesites are certainly not too much density,
and as you may know, I have long been an advocate of affordable
housing projects such as the one being proposed as part of this
project.
Therefore, I urge you to give the Ute Park application your
fullest support.
Sincerely,
Fredric Benedict, FAIA A NJ)
FB/ko 21ckerr^ (_
,A.DJo )N!NG lomo Pvz-Ty o w KiER s
,January 21, 1992
Aspen City Council
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Aspen, Colorado 8161.1
To whom it may concern:
As General Manager of the Aspen Club, I would like to support
the application for subdivision of that property owned by the Ute
Park Partnership. The Aspen Club is one of only two private
property owners that immediately adjoin the Ute Park property in
question, and I have been kept informed as to the nature of their
proposed subdivision. I can endorse their application as being
consistent with the area. With only three single family homes, the
proposed site plan is not too dense, and we certainly welcome the
addition of a few employee housing units near the Club.
I urge you to gove this application a favorable
recommendation and approval.
Sincerely,
d
Mark Overs eet
General Manager
MO:heg
1450 Crystal Lake Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-8900 303/920-2020 (FAX)
AFFIDAVIT
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have'sent notice to the above named
property owners of Public Hearing to be held Tuesday, January 21,
1992 at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
to consider an application by Doug and Susan McPherson requesting
approval for landmark designation for 700 W. Francis Street, Lots
R and S, Block 15, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
DONEthis -9th-day of January, 1992.- ,
e tchen G ood, Architect
epresentatpe",
Gretchen Greenwood & Associates
Architects
201 N. Mill Street, Suite 207
Aspen; CO 81611
SIGNED BEFORE me this day of January, 1992 by
Gretchen Greenwood of Gretchen Greenwood & Associates.
My Commission Expires
In addition to conformance with the Authority Guidelines on
pricing, this proposal is in agreement with the goal of developing
smaller "pocket" 'housing projects. This dispersal of housing
inventory creates better living environments as well as limited
community impacts.
Problem discussion: The major issues as seen by staff are recapped
as follows:
1. Staff is concerned that the Fire Marshal's requirements for
an emergency vehicle turn around will seriously affect not only the
building envelopes on Lots 1 and 2, but may require significant
grading changes on the parcel. This could alter the responses to
site impact criteria within the 8040 Greenline and PUD reviews.
2. Since the Ute Ave. Improvement District is still in the works,
the impacts to the parking arrangement for the townhomes are not
fully known. The City Engineer will be at the January 21
Commission meeting to update everyone on what impacts may result.
3. As the Housing Board is considering the Category designations
for the restricted units on January 22, the day after the Planning
Commission reviews the project, Planning staff is uncomfortable in
making a firm recommendation on Categories'at this time.
4. Engineering and Planning still have lingering concerns about
the avalanche risk to the townhomes. To overcome them, staff
recommends that the townhomes be designed and built to requirements
established by Mr. Mears for units in red and blue avalanche zones.
The applicant may want to explore alternatives to this
recommendation prior to moving forward to City Council.
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
rezoning to AH and text amendments. Planning recommends tabling
of Subdivision, Final PUD Plan, 8040 Greenline review and GMQS
Exemption to allow further research of the items listed above in
Problem Discussions.
If the Commission wishes to approve Subdivision, Final PUD Plan
(including variation to front setback requirements of the AH zone) ,
8040 Greenline, Special Reviews for Parking and Open Space, and
GMQS Exemption for affordable housing and free market housing in
the AH zone, the following conditions are recommended by Planning
staff:
1. The townhomes within the avalanche zone (units 1-6) must be
designed and built to withstand applicable avalanche/powder blasts
as required by Art Mears. This design requirement must be verified
by Planning prior to issuance of any building permit for these
units.
24
3�
how to handle the free market homes when plans are submitted for
review. Staff feels that further discussions take place to
determine an appropriate policy or code interpretation.
Growth Management Exemption for Affordable Housing and Free Market
Units in an AH Zone:
Pursuant to Section 8-104 C.1.c. all housing deed restricted in
accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and the
Housing Authority is exempt from GMQS by City Council. The review
shall consider the need for such housing, number, location, size,
sale/rental mix, and proposed price categories of the units. The
numbers and sizes have previously been mentioned on page 1 of this
memo.
The seven units are proposed to be Category 4 sales units which
allows a maximum price of $124.00 per s.f. net livable area. The
largest unit (1,309 s.f.) will have an anticipated price not to
exceed $164,285.00. As stated in the application, the Housing
Authority Guidelines state "APCHA's production for 1990 is targeted
to Category 1 rental units, Category 1,2,3 sales units and to work
with the private sector to produce Category 4 sales units." The
proposed project complies with these Guideline goals. However,
referral comments from Dave Tolen at the Housing Authority call for
lowering the price Categories to 2 and 3. He strongly believes
that the additional two units of free market density gained from
rezoning to AH adds profit to the project which should be used to
reduce the prices of the restricted units. It should be noted that
these numbers are subject to Housing Board consideration on January
22 (after P&Z review). Planning is hesitant to recommend housing
categories without input from the Housing Board. Therefore, staff
recommends tabling the GMQS Exemption for affordable housing until
the next Commission meeting date.
The Conceptual Plan approved in 1990 called for seven free market
townhomes and sixteen affordable units with Category 4 price
limits. A Conceptual approval however does not "vest" a project
going into Final Plan review. Therefore the project is not
guaranteed approval of the same elements such as category
designations. Planning staff believes that the Final application
is consistent the Category 4 designation considered in Conceptual
and also with the Housing Authority's Guidelines for private
development,of Category 4 sales units. Mr. Tolen feels that this
particular section intends to be applied to properties bought on
the free market needing the maximum amount of payback to float the
costs of the restricted units. He wants to study this issue
further as it has ramifications on the pricing structures of the
units in this project. He hopes to be present at the January 21
Commission meeting to comment on the price category issue.
Planning staff is seeking the valuable input from the Housing Board
and Mr. Tolen to help determine the fairest pricing system, both
to the applicant and to the Community.
23
2. The applicant will continue to coordinate roadway design,
drainage, snow storage, etc. with City staff. Any improvement work
must be done in accordance with City specifications. No driveway
or parking space can exceed 12% grade. If the City Engineer
determines that an encroachment license is necessary for the
townhome parking areas, the developer shall process the application
prior to issuance of any building permit for the townhomes.
3. The slope reduction calculations must be stamped by an engineer
prior to final approval by the City Council.
4. The submitted storm drainage calculations for the townhomes are
not acceptable. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for
the townhomes, the applicant shall satisfy the City Engineer
regarding storm drainage calculations. Storm drainage
calculations must be provided for the free market homes at the time
of individual building permit application.
5. The applicant shall indicate the entire avalanche zones (not
just within the building envelopes) on the plat.
6. Avalanche warning signs shall be indicated on the plat along the
property boundaries along Ute Ave. and along the nordic trail.
7. Changes or additions to the signature blocks must be made to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to his signature on the
plat.
8. Adjustment to plat notes 2-7 are required to satisfy the City
Engineer and Attorney prior to the. Engineer's signature on the
plat.
9. Site improvements for the deed restricted units and streets and
driveways must be depicted on the plat.
10. The contour elevations must be added to sheets 1,2,4 and 5
prior to filing the PUD Plan.
11. Any hazardous or toxic soils must be stabilized and revegetated
or removed to a site acceptable to the City.
12. The applicant shall submit a letter from a trash service
company which verifies that the trash facilities are adequate to
serve the deed restricted units and access to the free market lots
is acceptable. This must be received by Planning prior to final
approval of the PUD Plan.
13. The garages shall be designed so that fumes do not accumulate
in the living areas.
14. Prior to constructions, a fugitive dust control plan must be
obtained from the Colorado Pollution Control Division and this
M1
office.
15. Downstream sewer constraints will require deposit of $3,000.00
per dwelling unit in addition to regular tap fees.
16. The proposed sewer lines require easements ten feet on each
side of the center lines. Other utilities must meet minimum
separations to sewer lines based on depth of the sewer lines.
17. Manhole U-2-B must be accessible via the single family homes'
driveway and be covered with access, ingress and egress easement.
18. All utilities for Lots 1 and 2 shall be placed within a utility
corridor in the driveway access.
19. This project must be built in compliance with all current fire
codes. A turn around for emergency vehicles must be provided at
the end of any private drive in excess of 150' in length. This
must be within an emergency access easement. The applicant shall
contact the Fire Marshal to discuss criteria for emergency access.
This item shall be worked out prior to final hearing by the City
Council.
20. Prior to commencement of water line installation, the applicant
must receive waiver of the water main extension moratorium from
City Council.
21. The year-round trail easement shall be 15' wide with side
slopes not to exceed 6%. The Nordic Council and the applicant
shall work together and verify the trail alignment as shown on the
Plat and PUD Plan complies with the most workable alignment for
skiing and trail connections. Signage shall indicate avalanche and
rockfall hazards to trail users. These signs shall be installed
prior to commencement of any site work.
22. The variation to the front setback requirements for the
townhomes shall be clearly indicated on the Final PUD Development
Plan.
23. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
24. The Subdivision Plat and Subdivision / PUD Agreement shall be
recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Failure on the part of the applicant to record the Plat and
Agreement within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days
following approval by the City Council shall render the Plat and
PUD Plan approval invalid and reconsideration and approval of both
by the Commission and City Council will be required before their
3�
acceptance and recording, unless an extension or waiver is granted
by City Council for a showing of good cause.
Attachments:
Project Application Booklet
"A" Complete Referral Comment Memos
27
I�
3992
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer
Date: January 3, 1992
Re: Ute Park Subdivision Final Plat, PUD, Text and Map
Amendment, 8040 Greenline Review, GMQS Exemption,
Condominiumization
Having reviewed the above referenced application and having made
a site inspection, I have the following comments:
1. The upper Ute Avenue Improvement District is scheduled for its
first reading January 13, 1992. Contingent upon the outcome, the
following comments will pertain for this review:
A. The applicant will continue to coordinate traffic lane
widths, road shoulders, drainage improvements and snow storage
allowances with the city staff.
B. If the upper district is included in the construction and
bonding procedures, the existing 60 foot utility/access easement
might have to be dedicated as a public right-of-way.
C. Any improvement work should be done in accordance with
city specifications. (There is always the possibility that the 60
foot utility/access easement could be dedicated as public right-
of-way in the future.)
D. No driveway or parking space can exceed a 12% grade.
V2 . The applicant must provide an engineer's stamped letter
recounting the method for determining the slope reduction
calculations.
A.
,3. The submitted storm drainage calculations in this application
are not acceptable in that they do not have an engineer's stamp and
they show the developed drainage exceeding the historical drainage.
As the. structures for the free market lots have not been designed,
the increase to impervious runoff can not be determined.
Therefore, storm drainage calculations for the free market lots
must be provided at the time of individual building permit
application.
4. I have discussed the code section referring to similar
subdivision names with the city attorney's office. The current
37
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT , APPROVED r
19 BY RESOLUTION
gm
name of the proposed subdivision is acceptable
5. The following items are required for final subdivision/plat
submission:
A. The applicant must submit 2 sets of mylars of the final
plat, along with $10.00 per sheet for one set to be recorded
at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders' Office, within 180
days of approval. (It is recommended that the applicant
review the required changes and corrections with the
engineering department prior to the submission of the final
plat.)
B. On sheet 13 the applicant must:
1. designate the avalanche zones as they exist for the
entire parcel, not just in the building envelope.
2. indicate the locations for the avalanche warning signs
that are to be posted along the property boundaries along Ute
Avenue and along the cross-country ski trail.
3. change the certificate for planning and zoning
approval to read.... The Plat of UTE PARK SUBDIVISION was
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the
day of and was signed on the day of , 1992.
Chairman
4. change the certificate for city approval and
acceptance to read .... The Plat of UTE PARK SUBDIVISION was
approved by the City Council on the day of and was
signed on the day of , 1992.
5. add the certificate... Planning Director Approval
The Plat of UTE PARK SUBDIVISION was approved by the Planning
Director for the City of Aspen, Colorado, the day of _
,1992.
Planning Director
6. plat notes 2-7 will require adjustment to the
satisfaction of the city attorney and engineer.
7. the plat must be corrected to depict the site
improvements for the deed restricted units and the streets and
driveways.
C. On sheets 1,2,4, and 5 designate the elevation of the
contours.
I)o
6. If any location on the parcel is found to contain hazardous or
toxic soils,, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the
soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site
to a location acceptable to the City.
7. The application has stated that "the deed restricted units are
no longer in danger of avalanche by the location of Lot 1 building
envelope". It is not the location of the building envelope of lot
1 that eliminates the risk, it is the construction of the building
that must be specially designed to stop avalanches. There must be
language written into the deed restricted units in the event that
the building on lot 1 is built after the deed restricted units and
if something happened to the building on lot 1, i.e. fire, future
remodel, the deed restricted units would be exposed.
8. It is recommended that the applicant submit a letter from a
solid waste handling company that the trash area depicted on the
site development plan is properly sized to serve the deed
restricted units.
UtePark
HI
MEMORANDUM aEC 1
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department.(
Date: December 12, 1991
Re: Ute Park Subdivision Final Plat, PUD, Text and Map
Amendment, 8040 Greenline Review, GMQS Exemption
Condominiumization
Parcel ID# 2737-184-00-009
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above -mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns.
The authority for this review is granted to this office by the
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen
Municipal Code.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer as
provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This
conforms with Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of
public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit
the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to
areas that are not feasible for public sewers".
Regulations:
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided
by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This conforms
with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such
projects "which use water shall be connected to the municipal water
utility system".
AIR QUALITY:
The location of this project is ideal from an air quality point of
view, since it is within easy rfalking distance of downtown.
The below -grade garage area should be designed so that fumes from
it do not accumulate in the living area.
Dedication of the hiking and cross country trail easement which is
now a missing link in the system, also provides an air quality
benefit, by providing an alternative to motorized travel.
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
June 12, 1990
Page 2
Prior to construction, an approved fugitive dust control plan must
be obtained from the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division and
this office. The plan must include such measures as cleaning paved
roads where dirt is carried onto them from construction vehicles,
wetting of disturbed areas and access roads, and installation of
fencing to prevent dust from blowing onto nearby properties and
roads.
`I �
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff (Environmentally Sensitive
Area (ESA) and Special Review - *Site Visit*
DATE: December 17, 1991
Summary: The project under consideration has already been built.
The Planning Office recommends denial of this item as proposed. If
the Commission wishes to approve a hot tub and deck in this general
area, the Planning Office recommends that the hot tub be moved back
to the 15' setback line and the deck be approved by special review
to encroach up to 9' into the setback. Staff proposes conditions
for special review approval. This would eliminate any development
below the top of the slope and limit above ground development in
the setback area, in compliance with the goals of the
Environmentally Sensitive Area.
Applicant: Ms. Ronnie Marshall, represented by Katie McMahon
Location: 320 Lake Ave. (Parcel 1, Marshall Lot Split)
Zoning: R-6, overlain by the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally
Sensitive Area (ESA). Please see Exhibit "A" for vicinity map.
Proposal: Ms. Marshall seeks to legalize a hot tub and deck
project that was built in .the summer of 1990 without a building
permit. In order to receive a building permit, all Planning
approvals must be in place. Please see Exhibit "B" for site plan
and site sections.
Background: The hot tub and deck was red -tagged for not having a
building permit in mid summer of 1990. It was determined at that
time that the Historic Preservation Committee had to approve the
project before a building permit could be sought. In August 1990,
HPC granted approval with the condition that landscape plantings
be done to provide screening.
When the applicant again applied for a building permit, the Zoning
Official determined that a setback variance must be obtained before
he could approve the application. In June of 1991, the Zoning
Board of Adjustment approved the setback variance based on the
hardship that the structure was already built.
However, between the time that the applicant received HPC approval
and applied for the variance, the Planning and Zoning Commission
and City Council adopted the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmental
Sensitive Area overlay and review criteria. Now the project must
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT '' , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION
Comments on Marshall Deck / Spa Details
Ron Walker, Building Department
1/16/92
The project will require a plumbing permit and an electrical
permit.
The applicant must supply gallon capacity, manufacturer, and UPC
(Uniform Plumbing Code) certification information for the spa.
How is the tub filled? A vacuum breaker may be required for any
submerged source or hose end filling.
How is the tub drained? This is very important. To verify
drainage the tub must be inspected for a bottom drain. If one is
not there, the tub drains by siphon (onto the ground, through
hose). If bottom drain is visible, an inspection of the connection
to sewer system must be made (check crawlspace probably).
A railing is required: 36" tall with baluster spacing at 6" max.
Stairs down to tub must be minimum 36" wide, with 8" min. rise and
9" min. tread. Handrails required on one side minimum, 34"-38"
high.
GFI (ground fault interrupt) necessary for any electrical near the
water.
The sketch for building permit shows adequate structure for deck
(joist size and spacing, concrete post depth, concrete pad
thickness under tub, etc.) An inspection must be done to verify
construction according this plan - this will require a lot of
digging to expose the concrete components. The steel reinforcement
specified on the plan must be verified by letter from the concrete
installation contractor.
the deck and hot tub as it currently exists. Staff recommends
approval of ESA review and Special Review if the applicant agrees
to relocate the development as shown on Exhibit "D". If the
Commission does not approve the existing situation, staff s design
concept or a similar concept, the hot tub and deck must be removed
and can only be replaced on -site in accordance with the exemption
allowance within the ESA Ordinance.
If the Commission approves the hot tub and deck as currently built,
staff recommends the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant must
receive approval from the Parks department regarding any vegetation
removal resulting from the current development. Any applicable
permits must be in place.
2. The applicant must verify where the hot tub drains to the
satisfaction of the Planning Office. This shall be a letter from
the plumbing contractor, general contractor or Building Department.
If the Commission wishes to approve staff's design concept and
Special review, the following condition is recommended in addition
to the two above:
3. The excavation resulting from the current development must be
backfilled to original grade. Compaction to original density must
be attained in order to maintain stability on the slope.
Exhibits: "A" - Vicinity Map
"B" - Application Site Plan, Section, and Landscape
Plan
"C" - Application and History of Project
"D" - Staff sketches with proposed tub/deck location
Ordinance 71 adopting the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA
jtkvj/marshall.esa.memo
5
sj�
in the application and your packet.
ESA Special Review: Four review criteria must be met in order to
grant a Special Review for location of any above or below grade
structure within the 15' setback from the top of slope or above
the height limit established by the 45 degree angle originating at
the top of slope. As mentioned, staff recommends denial of the as -
built proposal but would support an amended design that places the
tub and deck up and back from where it now exists. Please see this
in sketch form, Exhibit "D". If the Commission agrees to consider
staff's idea, the following special review criteria must be
addressed.
1. A unique condition exists on the site where strict adherence
to the top of slope setback will create an unworkable design
problem.
Response: Ms. Marshall's rear year is not very deep. With the
proposal from staff there would be a 13' separation from the rear
of the house to the relocated deck, and 18' to the tub. The
Commission could direct the applicant to keep the deck at grade
within the setback or it could allow the deck not to exceed 12"
above grade. This height is what staff calculates the deck would
be given the gentle fall towards the bluff.
2. Any intrusion into the top of slope setback or height limit
is minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Response: Staff sketch shows the deck to extend 8-9' into the
setback at approximately 12" above what would have been the
original grade. This height would not be perceptible from below
the slope. Staff would recommend that the excavated area of the
current development be backfilled to original grade and compacted
to original density as part of any relocation approval.
3. Other parts of the structure or development on the site are
located outside the top of slope setback line or height limit
to the greatest extent possible.
Response: This criteria is satisfied if the hot tub is relocated
as staff proposes.
4. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or
development in the setback from all adjoining properties.
Response: Please refer to the landscape plan in the exhibits.
Staff feels that if the plantings below the deck were installed and
continue to thrive, no further landscaping is necessary. The
juniper shrubs above the deck would have to be relocated.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of ESA review for
4
eastern edge. For a sketch of staffs design concept, see Exhibit
"D" . Please read further comments in Special Review section below.
3. All development outside the 15' setback from the top of slope
shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a 45
degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height
shall be measured and determined by the Zoning Officer
utilizing that definition set forth at Section 3-101 of this
Chapter 24.
Response: The existing development complies with this height
limit. Staff's recommended design would also comply.
4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development
applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative
screening of no less than 50 percent of the development as
viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative
screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be
replaced with the same or comparable material should it die.
Response: The landscaping done as a result of the HPC review was
approved by Tom Cardamone of ACES. As the landscape plan in
Exhibit "B" illustrates, the 50% requirement is met. As previously
mentioned, the Parks Department was not consulted prior to removal
of existing vegetation prior to construction. Any approval by the
Commission should be conditioned by the applicant contacting Parks,
supplying information about the previous vegetation, and complying
with any permit requirements that Parks deems necessary.
5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no
light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down
the slope.
Response: The application states that no lighting has been
installed with the project.
6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the
slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be
maintained. Pools 'or hot tubs cannot be drained down the
slope.
Response: The application states that no fill or debris has
occurred on the slope and the tub does not drain down the slope.
Staff would like the applicant to inform the Commission where the
tub drains.
7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape
architect, or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing
and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and pertinent
elevations above sea level.
Response: Architect Jim VonBrewer has submitted sketches included
3
receive approval by the Commission in order to allow a building
permit to be issued. Please see Exhibit "C" for application and
history summary.
Referral Comments:
During the Development Review Committee hearing for this project,
George Robinson from Parks was concerned that vegetation may have
been removed that required permits from Parks. He wants the
applicant to verify any removals and obtain permits if applicable.
Staff Comments:
This is the second project to be reviewed under the Hallam Lake
Bluff ESA which was adopted in November of 1990. The intent of
this overlay area is to provide a minimal level of protection from
development impacts on the A.C.E.S. nature preserve below this
hillside. Various human impacts to the nature preserve that
concern A.C.E.S. include visual, noise, and light intrusion as well
as damage to the slope and vegetation which may increase runoff
and erosion. Attached for your reference is Ordinance 71 (series
1990) . Please keep this for future reference.
The review standards contained in the ordinance are as follows:
1. No development, excavation or fill, other than native
vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of slope.
Response: As built, this project required excavation of the slope
to accommodate the hot tub and a level area for part of the deck.
According to the drawing submitted in the application roughly four
feet of earth was removed from a 15'-20' section of the slope.
Also, about half of the deck cantilevers out over the slope and is
approximately 3.5' above the natural grade at its highest point.
This review standard is clearly not met with the as -built project.
It is for this reason that staff recommends denial of the existing
design.
2. All development within the 15' setback from the top of slope
shall be at grade. Any proposed development not at grade
within the 15' setback must be approved by special review
pursuant to Section 7-404D of this Article 7.
Response: Half of the tub and a portion of the deck are within the
15' setback but are below original grade. Staff cannot support
the development in consideration of this review standard. As an
alternative, staff proposes that the hot tub be moved up and back
so that it better complies with this criteria. Staff also believes
that the western edge of the deck should be moved back to the
setback line. The bulk of the deck would then be at grade at the
setback line and the original grade would fall away gently towards
the bluff. The deck would probably be about 12" above grade at its
2
63
Z
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT '" '' , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION
Chronological Events Relating to the Hallam Lake ESA and Marshall
Development
05/29/90 Building Department issues stop work order at 320 Lake
Ave. for construction without a permit.
06/90 Surveyor's certificate shows completed spa.
06/14/90 Building permit application.
06/29/90 Commencement of Planning Office's file on Hallam Lake
Environmentally Sensitive Area.
07/19/90 Notice, Aspen Times, July 19, 1990 for the August 7, 1990
P&Z meeting.
07/26/90 HPC Minor Development review application filed by
Marshall and Von Brewer.
07/27/90 Tom Cardamone wrote a letter describing impacts of
development on the slope.
08/22/90 HPC approval subject to additional landscaping.
08/28/90 Letter from A.C.E.S. to surrounding property owners
inviting them to the September P&Z meeting to discuss the
proposed ordinance.
09/04/90 Round two of discussions by Planning & Zoning.
10/02/90 Planning & Zoning approval after three public hearing
discussions -- August 7, September 4 and October 2.
10/17/90 Building permit approved by HPC and Water.
10/22/90 1st Reading of Ordinance 71
11/07/90 Von Brewer brings survey to Bill Drueding and he rejects;
needs to go to Board of Adjustment for rear setback
variance.
11/12/90 2nd Reading of Ordinance 71, after newspaper notice.
11/15/90 Memo from HPC to Zoning that landscaping conditions were
met and approved.
06/06/91 Board of Adjustment variance approval after continuation
from April 11 and May 23.
07/16/91 Letters from the Planning Office requiring ESA
application.
marsha11.1.15
3. the applicant had no vested rights by having submitted a
building permit application prior to adoption of Ordinance 71;
4. by allowing the development to remain it "rewards" parties who
disregarded the permitting requirements that everyone else must
comply with; and
5. there are alternatives available to the property owner to have
a tub and deck in her rear yard without violating the regulations.
Exhibit "A" - Chronology of Events
"B" - Building Department Comments 1/16/92
K
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: January 21, 1992
RE: Information for Reconsideration of the Marshall Hallam
ESA Review
At the January 7, 1992 regular meeting of the Planning Commission,
Commissioner David Brown requested that the Commission vote to
reconsider the above referenced item that was denied by a 4-3 vote
at the December 17, 1991 meeting. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Kerr. The Commission then voted 4-3 to reconsider the
item at the next regular meeting.
Four items were requested of staff for the reconsideration. First,
the staff submits a chronological listing of events related to this
case, including the formulation and adoption of ordinance 71, 1990
which established the Hallam Lake ESA and review criteria. This
is presented as Exhibit "A". Second, staff was asked to contact
the Building Department to determine if there were any apparent red
flags concerning the hot tub and deck in regards to applicable
building code requirements. The list of comments is attached as
Exhibit "B".
Third, it was requested that the contractor be asked to provide a
statement regarding the process he was involved in, specifically
his negligence in not obtaining proper permits. Staff consulted
City Attorney Jed Caswall, who said that the Commission could not
demand any information from Mr. Dyer (who's address on the building
permit information was listed as Grand Junction.) At the time of
this memo, staff had left a message on Mr. Dyer's phone and hopes
for a return call to get any information he might offer. Lastly,
the question was asked whether or not there have been any similar
cases where codes changed before a valid building permit was
issued. Staff is still looking into this and will report any
findings at the January 21, 1992 meeting.
Also attached is the staff memo from the December 17, 1991 meeting
for your background information. Staff I s recommendation for denial
of the development remains the same based on the following points:
1. the Commission was steadfast in their task of developing the ESA
ordinance for the protection of the nature preserve as well as the
neighborhood character within the review area;
2. the development is in direct conflict with review criteria #1
regarding construction and excavation on and into the bluff;
60
PLANNING & ZONING COMM"S'lon
EXHIBIT to /*,,* �'_, APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION •
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR
HALLAM LAKE BLUFF ESA APPROVAL OF
RONNIE MARSHALL'S SPA/DECK
The Applicant, Ronnie Marshall, hereby submits her application
for Hallam Lake Bluff ESA approval of the spa/deck constructed in
the rear yard of her property during the summer 1990.
Factual Backaround
A review of the factual background with respect to the
construction of Applicant's spa/deck over a year ago is essential
to an understanding of the bureaucratic nightmare in which the
Applicant has been involved for well over one year.
In the summer of 1990 the Applicant's contractor from Grand
Junction, Jon Dyer, constructed a spa/deck in the rear yard of
Applicant's property without obtaining a building permit. This
came to Applicant's attention when a City of Aspen inspection of a
neighboring property revealed Applicant's construction, and the
Applicant's spa/deck was red -tagged by the City. Upon application
for the permit,, Applicant learned that since her property is a
designated historical landmark, minor development approval of the
spa/deck was required by the Historic Preservation Committee
("HPC"). That approval was granted on August 22, 1990 subject to
the planting of additional vegetation along the Hallam Lake side of
the deck in order to mitigate visual impacts along the Hallam Lake
Bluff. Tom Cardamone of ACES attended the hearing and provided
input as to the kind and quantity of the vegetation that would be
appropriate.
Applicant submitted a landscaping plan,, planted the vegetation
as approved, and upon completion of the planting HPC, by Roxanne
Eflin, and Kim Johnson of the Planning Office inspected the newly
planted vegetation. In a November 15, 1990 memo to Bill Drueding
in the Zoning Department, Ms. Eflin advised Mr. Drueding that the
planted vegetation completed by Applicant was sufficient to satisfy
HPC development review standards. Upon completion of the HPC
review, Applicant's representative again applied for a building
permit and was informed that a variance application was required to
resolve a setback issue with respect to a portion of the deck that
was more than 30 inches above grade. At this juncture Applicant
retained counsel to pursue the variance before the Board of
Adjustment.
During this same time frame the City of Aspen was in the
process of adopting an ordinance creating the Hallam Lake Bluff
Environmentally Sensitive Area Overlay, which included Applicant's
property and imposed development review standards with respect to
any development within the newly created area. ordinance 71 was
M
adopted on November 12, 1990, three days prior to Ms. Eflin's memo
of approval of Applicant's planting in satisfaction of Hallam Lake
concerns.
Applicant's counsel met with Mr. Drueding with respect to the
variance request, but was not made aware of the necessity for
Applicant to apply for an ESA review. Meanwhile, Applicant's
contractor, who by this time was involved in litigation with the
Applicant (Applicant refused to pay the contractor until such time
as it could be determined what her expenses would be in obtaining
a building permit to use the spa/deck) , met with Kim Johnson in Mr.
Drueding's office and was informed that both a variance and a
Hallam Lake Bluff ESA review would be required. Mr. Dyer stated at
that time that it would be easier to tear out the spa/deck than
obtain the required approvals; however, this was not communicated
to Applicant or Applicant's counsel. To complicate matters
further, Ms. Johnson was unaware of Applicant's variance
application.
The Board of Adjustment granted a variance to Applicant on
June 6, 1991. Applicant once again applied for a building permit
and was informed by the Planning Office that a Hallam Lake Bluff
ESA review was required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
There are several pertinent facts that should be kept in mind
during the course of this review. The first is that most of
Applicant's time and expense in obtaining approval of her spa/deck
could have been avoided had her contractor obtained a building
permit prior to construction. The time and expense of the Hallam
Lake Bluff ESA review could have been avoided altogether, as such
review was nonexistent at the time that her contractor should have
applied for and obtained the building permit. In addition,
Applicant believed that all Hallam Lake concerns had been
satisfactory addressed and resolved upon HPC's approval of her
landscaping improvements along the bluff last fall. Finally, it is
clear that Applicant's burden with respect to meeting all of the
review standards for Hallam Lake Bluff is compromised by the fact
that the spa/deck was already constructed and in place prior to the
enactment of Ordinance 71 creating such standards.
Minimum Submission Contents
Attached hereto as exhibits are a letter of authorization
executed by Applicant (Exhibit A), the street address and legal
description of the subject property (Exhibit B), documents
evidencing Applicant's ownership of the subject property and thus
her right to submit this Application (Exhibit C), and an 8z" x 11"
vicinity map locating the subject property within the City of Aspen
(Exhibit D). A written description of the proposal and an
explanation of how the spa/deck complies with the Hallam Lake Bluff
ESA review standards is set forth below.
N
Z
Specific Submission Standards
.A building permit survey by Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. is
affixed hereto showing the boundaries of the subject property, the
existing spa/deck as constructed, and the existing grades at two -
foot contours, with five-foot intervals for grades over ten percent
(100). Attached hereto as Exhibit E is Applicant's landscape plan
showing the significant natural features, including all plantings.
Also attached hereto as Exhibit F is a section that shows how the
spa/deck is constructed in relation to the top of the slope.
Finally, a copy of the preapplication conference summary is
attached hereto as Exhibit G.
Review Standards
Development within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA must meet the
following review standards:
1. No development, excavation or fill, other than native
vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of slope. This
is the only development review standard that Applicant's existing
spa/deck does not meet. As the building permit survey shows,,
approximately 7 to 8 feet of Applicant's redwood deck area is below
the top of the slope. All of the deck, except for 32 inches of it
on the Hallam Lake side, is below 30 inches above grade, as is
shown on the section attached as Exhibit 'IF". It was that 32-inch
portion of Applicant's redwood deck for which Applicant sought and
obtained a variance from the Board of Adjustment. The visual
impacts of the deck from Hallam Lake were also the specific focus
of the HPC review and have already been addressed and mitigated by
the extensive landscaping implemented by Applicant and approved by
HPC in conjunction with Tom Cardamone of ACES. Since this review
standard is designed to preclude visual impacts from Hallam Lake
occasioned by development below the top of the slope and HPC and
ACES have confirmed that no part of Applicant's deck is visible
from Hallam Lake, the minor noncompliance of Applicant's existing
deck with this review standard should be waived. This is
particularly true in light of the fact that this standard would not
have been imposed on Applicant's development had Applicant's
contractor timely obtained a building permit.
2. All development within the 15 foot setback from the top
of slope shall be at grade. As the building permit survey and
section both indicate, no portion of Applicant's spa/deck within
the 15 foot setback from the top of the slope is above grade. Thus
the spa/deck is in full compliance with this review standard.
3. All development outside the 15 foot setback from the top
of slope shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a
450-angle from ground level at the top of slope. Since Applicant's
spa/deck both within and outside the 15 foot setback is at or below
3
grade, no part of Applicant's spa/deck exceeds the height
requirement of this review standard. Applicant's spa/deck is,
accordingly, in compliance with this review standard.
4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development
applications to include native vegetative screening of no less than
50% of the development as viewed from the rear slope of the parcel.
All vegetative screening shall be maintained in. perpetuity and
shall be replaced with the same or comparable material should it
die. Applicant's landscape plan, as approved by HPC and ACES, is
attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and the landscaping shown thereon
has been in place since fall 1990, a full year. The native
vegetative screening far exceeds 50% of Applicant's spa/deck
improvements as viewed from the rear slope of her property.
Applicant agrees that this landscaping shall be maintained in
perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable
material as approved by the City in the event that such landscaping
requires replacement. This review standard has likewise been met.
5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no
light directed toward the nature preserve or located down the
slope. Applicant has not implemented any exterior lighting in
connection with the spa/deck. Accordingly, the development is in
full compliance with this review standard.
6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of
the slope. Historic drainage ,patterns and rates must be
maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the slope.
No fill material or debris has been placed on the face of the slope
in connection with the construction of Applicant's spa/deck.
Historic drainage patterns and rates have been and will continue to
be maintained. Applicant's hot tub does not drain down the slope.
Accordingly, Applicant's spa/deck improvements fully comply with
this review standard.
7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape
architect, or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and
proposed site elements, the top of slope, and pertinent elevations
above sea level. Applicant's development application includes the
building permit survey and landscape plan (Exhibit "E"). The
survey and landscape plan, as well as the section submitted
(Exhibit "F") show all existing site elements, the top of the
slope, and the pertinent elevations above sea level.
Conclusion
Since Applicant's spa/deck fully complies with all but one of
the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA review standards, and the one review
standard with which Applicant's spa/deck is not in compliance has
been wholly mitigated by the existing landscaping that has been
previously approved by HPC, the Planning and Zoning Commission
n
MA
should grant Hallam Lake Bluff ESA approval of Applicant's spa/deck
improvements.
chm\ms\ronnie.app
Respectfully submitted,
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Catherine H. McMahon,
Attorney for Applicant
5
EXHIBIT Fw :011 , P-rrxvvxu IF
19''Y RESOLUTION
O
_ Q Vol
.,P
rn
- �- CL
ol
• oo
.Z
�iJ 0
ORDINANCE NO. 71
(Series of 1990)
AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE HALLAM LAKE BLUFF ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY AND ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS
THEREFOR BY AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP.
WHEREAS, there exists a unique, valuable and fragile nature
preserve adjacent to the municipal boundaries of the City of
Aspen commonly known as the Aspen Center for Environmental
Studies; and
WHEREAS, the boundary of the Aspen Center for Environmental
Studies nature preserve has in excess of sixty-six percent (66%)
contiguity with the municipal boundaries of the City of Aspen;
and
WHEREAS, development and development activity within those
areas of the City of Aspen immediately surrounding and abutting
the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies presents a threat to
the physical, ecological and aesthetic integrity and safety of
the nature preserve by altering surface runoff and land and slope
configuration, increasing or introducing noise, light and air
pollution in the immediate vicinity of the preserve, promoting
the destruction of plant and animal habitat, and disturbing and
disrupting the delicate balance of existing environmental com-
ponents that presently comprise the preserve's ecological pro-
file; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies nature
preserve provides a valuable and easily accessible scenic retreat
6;7
and study area;for the citizens of the City of Aspen and is a
great benefit to residents and visitors alike; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of
Aspen has previously conducted public hearings on the creation of
a designated environmentally sensitive overlay district encompas-
sing those areas within the City adjacent to the nature reserve;
and
WHEREAS, on or about October 2, 1990, the Planning and
Zoning Commission for the City of Aspen approved and adopted the
- - -Hallam Lake Bluf€-Environmentally -Sensitive Area Zoning Map
Overlay and corresponding development review standards concerning
land use and development within such overlay district; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of
Aspen has forwarded its approvals and recommendations to the City
Council relevant to the adoption of amendments to the municipal
land;use code and zoning map so as to implement measures protec-
tive of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies nature pre-
serve; and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Aspen has deter-
mined that the public health and welfare will be promoted by the
creation of an environmentally sensitive overlay district
adjacent to the boundaries of the Aspen Center for Environmental
Studies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1
Section 3-101, "Definitions as used in this chapter", of
Article 3 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended by adding a new definition,
"TOP OF SLOPE", which definition shall read as follows:
TOP OF SLOPE means a point.or a line connecting at least
three (3) points determined by the point of intersection of
two 50 foot lines, one line being the level of the existing
grade above the slope and the other line being the angle of
the existing slope, both lines measured on.a site section
drawing.
Section 2
Section 5-201 of Division 2, Article 5 of Chapter 24, "Zone
Districts, Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses, Dimensional Require-
ments", of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is
hereby amended by adding a new provision for minimum side yard
setbacks to subsection 5-201.D.5, "Dimensional requirements",
setting forth minimum side yard dimensions, which addition shall
read as follows:
Sec. 5-201.D. Dimensional Requirements.
5. Minimum side yard: [to follow the requirements for lots
annexed after 1/1/89.] For purposes of calculating the
minimum side yard setback for lots within the Hallam
Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), the
area below the top of slope shall be subtracted from
lot size.
Section 3
Section 7-401, "Purpose", of Division 4, "Special Review",
of Article 7, Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as follows:
3
Section 7-401. Purpose. The purpose of special review is
to ensure site specific review of dimensional requirements
(Art. 5, Div. 2), off-street parking requirements (Art. 5,
Div. 2 and 3), and all reductions in the dimensions of
utility/trash service areas (Art. 5, Div. 2), and any
development not at grade within fifteen feet (15' ) from the
top of slope in the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA (Art. 7, Div. 5),
in order to maintain the integrity of,the City's zone
districts and the compatibility*of the proposed development
with surrounding land uses.
Section 4
Section 7-404, "Review Standards for Special Review", of
Division 4, "Special Review", of Article 7, Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended
by adding new subsecticn "D. Hallam Lake Bluff ESA encroachment
into 15' setback from top of slope or height limit", which
subsection shall read as follows:
Sec. 7-404.D. Hallam Lake Bluff ESA encroachment into 15'
setback from top of slope or height limit. Whenever a
special review is for development above or below grade
within the 15' setback from top of slope as identified on a
site specific section drawing or above the height limit
,established by the ESA, the development application shall be
approved only if the following conditions have been met:
(1) A unique condition exists on the site where strict
adherence to the top of slope setback will create an
unworkable design probler.
(2) Any intrusion into the top of slope setback or height
limit is minimized to the greatest extent p.ossible.
(3) Other parts of the structure or development on the site
are located outside the top of slope setback line or
height limit to the greatest extent possible.
(4) Landscape treatment is increased to screen the struc-
ture or development in the setback from all adjoining
properties.
4
70
Section 5
Section 7-501, "Purpose", of Division 5, "Development In
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)", of Article 7, Chapter 24
of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7-501. Purpose. Certain land areas within the City
are of particular ecological, environmental, architectural
or scenic significance and all development within such areas
shall be subject to special review procedures and standards
a-s set forth in this -Division 5. These areas shall be known
as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) and shall include
the following:
A. 8040 Greenline. Areas located at or above 8040 feet
mean sea level (the 8040 Greenline) and including that
area extending 150 feet -below the 8040 Greenline.
Development in these areas shall be subject to
heightened review so as to reduce impacts on the
natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air
pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, unstable
slope, rock fall and mud slide, and aid in the transi-
tion of agricultural and forestry land uses to urban
uses. Review shall further ensure the availability of
utilities and access to any development and that
disturbance to existing terrain and natural land
features be kept to a minimum.
B. Stream Margins. Areas located within 100 feet, mea-
sured horizontally, from the high water line of the
Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within
the one hundred year flood plain where it extends 100
feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River
and its tributary streams, or within a flood hazard
area (stream margin). Development in these areas shall
be subject to heightened review so as.to reduce and
prevent property loss by flood while ensuring the
natural and unimpeded flow of water courses. Review
shall encourage development and land uses that preserve
and protect existing water courses as important natural
features.
C. Mountain View Planes. Designated mountain view planes
as set forth in Sec. 7-505 of this Article 7. Develop-
ment in these areas shall be subject to heightened
review so as to protect mountain views from obstruc-
5
tion, strengthen the environmental and aesthetic
character of the City, maintain property values, and
enhance the City's tourist industry by maintaining the
City's heritage as a mountain community.
D. Hallam Lake Bluff. That bluff ar;a running approxi-
mately on a north -south axis bordering and/or overlook-
ing the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies nature
preserve and bounded on the east by the 7850 foot mean
sea level elevation line and extending 100 feet,
measured horizontally, up slope and there terminating,
and bounded on the north by the southeast lot line of
Lot 7A of the Aspen Company Subdivision, and on the
south by the centerline of West Francis Street.
Development in this area shall be subject to heightened_
review so -as t�o reduce noise and visual impacts on the
nature preserve, protect against.slope erosion and
landslide, minimize impacts on surface runoff, maintain
views to and from the nature preserve, and ensure the
aesthetic and historical integrity of Hallam Lake and
the nature preserve.
Section 6
New Section 7-506, "Hallam Lake Bluff Review", is hereby
added to Division 5, "Development in Environmentally Sensitive
Areas (ESA)", of Article 7 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen, Colorado, such new section to read as follows:
Sec. 7-506. Hallam Lake Bluff Review.
A. Applicability. All development in that bluff area
running approximately on a north -south axis bordering
and/or overlooking the Aspen Center for Environmental
Studies nature preserve and bounded on the east by the
7850 foot mean sea level elevation line and extending
100 feet, measured horizontally, up slope and there
terminating, and bounded on the north by the southeast
lot line of Lot 7A of the Aspen Company Subdivision,
and on the south by the centerline of West Francis
Street, shall be subject to the review standards as set
forth in this section.
B. Exemption. The exterior expansion, remodeling or
reconstruction of an existing structure or development,
or the removal of trees or shrubbery, shall be exempt
0
from Hallam Lake Bluff review if the following stan-
dards are met.
(1) The development takes place more than 30 feet from
the top of slope, or the development is obscured
from the rear slope by other structures as deter-
mined by a site section provided pursuant to
review standard C(7) below.
C. Hallam Lake Bluff review standards. No development
shall be permitted within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA
unless the Commission makes a determination that the
proposed development meets all of the following
requirements:
(1) No development, excavation or fill, other than
native vegetation planting, shall take place below
the top of slope.
(2) All development within the 15' setback from the
top of slope shall be at grade. Any proposed
development not at grade within the 15' setback
must be approved by special review pursuant to
Section 7-404D of this Article 7.
(3) All development outside the 15' setback from top
of slope shall not exceed a height delineated by a
line drawn at a 45 degree angle from ground level
at the top of slope. Height shall be Measured and
determined by the Zoning Officer utilizing that
definition set forth at Section 3-101 of this
Chapter 24.
(4) A landscape plan shall be submitted with all
development applications. Such plan shall include
native vegetative screening of no less than 50
percent of the development as viewed from the rear
(slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening
shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be
replaced with the same or comparable material
should it die.
(5) All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast
with no light(s) directed toward the nature
preserve or located down the slope.
(6) No fill material or debris shall be placed on the
face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns and
rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs
cannot be drained down the slope.
fi
73
(7) Site sections drawn by a registered architect,
landscape architect, or engineer shall be sub-
mitted showing all existing and proposed site
elements, the top of slope, and pertinent eleva-
tions above sea level.
Section 7
Section 7-506, "Procedure for Approval of Development in
ESA", Section 7-507, "Application", and Section 7-508, "Condi-
tions", of Division 5, "Development in Environmentally Sensitive
Areas (ESA)", of Article 7 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen, Colorado, shall be renumbered to read as
follows:
Sec. 7-507. Procedure for Approval of Development in ESA.
Sec. 7-508. Application.
Sec. 7-509. Conditions.
Section 8
The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen,
Colorado, be and is hereby amended to reflect the Hallam Lake
Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area overlay as depicted on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and such amendment shall be promptly
entered thereon in accordance with Section 5-103B of Chapter 24
of the Municipal Code.
Section 9
Any development or proposed development in the Hallam Lake
Bluff ESA Overly District not vested in accordance with law prior
to the effective date of this ordinance shall comply with the
8
terms and provisions of the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA development
standards as adopted pursuant to this ordinance.
Section 10
Except as otherwise provided in Section 9 above, this
ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and L:hall not
operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending
under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
Section 11 -
If any section, subsection, sentence,°clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 12
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the
day of � , 1990, in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
1990.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
0J
ATTEST:
Kathryn(,*'. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 1-Z day of
1990.
4
/ / t
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST: -
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
I
10