HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19920407
~
"
"
..
, .
...
AGE N D A
==================================================================
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
April 7, 1992, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
ci ty Hall
==================================================================
SITE VISIT FOR MOSES
Meet in the parking area at City Hall promptly at 4:00 p.m.
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 134 East Bleeker Landmark Designation, Roxanne Eflin
B. Moses Subdivision and 8040 Greenline Review, Leslie
Lamont
C. Loushin Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, Kim Johnson
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Mendenhall Stream Margin Review, Kim Johnson
B. Gooding Growth Management Quota System Exemption for
Change in Use, Kim Johnson
ADJOURN
r
/
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Planning Office
RE: Upcoming Meetings
DATE: April 2, 1992
This is a list of your scheduled upcoming meetings.
Regular Meeting, April 21st
Kraut/Affordable Housing
Text Amendment (cont.
from 3/17)
Longoria Conditional Use
Review for an ADU
(PH)
(KJ)
Weinberg Conditional Use
Review for an ADU
(PH)
(KJ)
Burton/Allen Conditional
use Review for an
ADU
(PH) (KJ)
Patrick Conditional Use
Review for an ADU
(PH)
(KJ)
Williams Ranch Work Session
(1 hour) (KJ)
Special Meeting, April 28th
Joint Work Session with HPC, 2nd Floor, 5-7 p.m.
Regular Meeting, May Sth
Patterson Conditional Use Review for an ADU & Final PUD (PH)
(KJ or LL)
Johnston Conditional Use Review for ADU & Hallam ESA Review
(PH) (KJ)
Text Amendment Revising PUD Requirements, Sec. 7-902 (PH)
Regular Meeting, May 19th
a. nex
MEMORANDUM
To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
From. Roxanne Ef lin, Historic Preservation Officer
Re: Landmark Designation (public hearing): 134 E. Bleeker
Date: April 7, 1992
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Landmark Designation for the property at 134
E. Bleeker, and a $2, 000 designation grant from the City of Aspen.
APPLICANT: Susan and Paul Penn, represented by Jake Vickery of
Bill Poss and Associates
LOCATION: 134 E. Bleeker, Lot S and the easterly 1/2 of Lot R,
Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado
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
at least one of the following standards:
A. Historical importance: The structure or site is a
principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified
or associated with a person or an event of historical
significance to the cultural., social or political history of
Aspen, the State of Colorac or the United States.
Response: The Planning Office files indicate no known
historical event or association with personage of historic
significance is connected to this parcel. We find this
Standard has not been met.
B. Architectural importance: The structure or site reflects
an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of
traditional Aspen character.
Response: Staff finds this Standard has been met, due to the
traditional architectural style of the structure and carriage
house, indicated in massing, scale, roof form, detailing and
materials representative of turn -of -the -century building
styles in --en.
C. Architectural importance: The structure or site embodies
IN
the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique
architectural type or specimen.
Response: We find this Standard has not been met. The
structures are vernacular in nature, and do not represent a
unique type or specimen within our community.
D. Architectural importance: We find this Standard has not
been met. The structure is a significant work of an architect
whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
Response: No known connection to an architect exists within
the historic records of these structures.
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: We find that both structures are significant
components of the West End/Community Church neighborhood.
Their preservation is vital to preserve the character of this
neighborhood.
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: These highly visible structures have long been
noted for their contribution to Aspen's historic character.
Located directly across Aspen Street from the National
Register Community Church, the preservation of these
structures is considered to be critical to the community.
They are excellent examples of Aspen's historic and
architectural heritage. We find that this standard has been
met.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
and Zoning Commission recommend Landmark Designation of 134 E.
4-
Bleeker Street, finding that Designation Standards B, E and F
(architectural importance, neighborhood influence and contribution
to community character) have been met.
Additional comments:
memo.pz.134eb
5
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM
State Site Number:
Photo Information:
ASP-C-26 & 28
Local Site Number: 134-EB
Township 10 South Range 84 west section 7
USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 151
Building or Structure Name: R.R. Bowles Residence
Full Street Address: 134 East Bleeker
Legal Description: Lots R & S, Block 65
City and Townsite of Aspen
City Aspen County Pitkin--
Historic District/Neighborhood Name: Community Church Historic District
Owner: Private/State/Federal
Owner's Mailing Address:
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
Building Type: Residential
Architectural Style: Victorian Miner's Cottage
Dimensions: L: Ix W: - = Square Feet:
Number of Stories: 1-1/2 story
Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Irregular rectangle
Landscaping or Special Setting Features: 2411 cottonwood at south side
AssociatedBuildings, Features or objects - Describe Material and
Function (map number / name): 1-1L2 story second cottage with T-
shaped gable and 1st story shed addition on east side with clapboard
siding a tQur-over-four double huncr windows; red brick chimney -and
carriage at rear, on allev; approximately 600 scruare feet
For the following categories include materials; techniques and styles in
the description as appropriate:
Roof: L-shaped gable with asphalt shingles, one story gable addition
at rear; metal ball finials at gable ends
Walls: Clapboard with board and batten at gable end
Foundation / Basement: . N/A
Chimney(s): Red brick at center of front (north/south) gable
Windows: 1st story paired one -over -one double hung (pair at front
gable has bracketed lintel); 2nd story single one -over -one double
hung with bracketed lintel
Doors: Double arched light over wood panel
Porches: L-shaped shed in southeast corner supported by turned
posts
General Architectural Description: L-shaped 1-1/2storyVictorian
Cottage with L-shaped shed roofed porch
FN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Moses Lot 2 Subdivision and 8040 Greenline Review
DATE: April 7, 1992
SUMMARY: The applicant, Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., proposes
to re -subdivide Lot 2 of the Moses 1987 Lot Split and seeks 8040
Greenline Review of a proposed single family home for Lot 2.
The 8040 Greenline Review is a one step review by the Commission.
Subdivision is a two step process requiring a recommendation from
the Commission to be forwarded to Council.
The applicant proposes to comply with Ordinance 1, Series of 1990
criteria by cash -in -lieu.
APPLICANT: Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., and the Aspen Alps
Condominium Association as represented by Alan Richman
LOCATION: Lot 2, Moses Lot Split on the Aspen Alps South Road
ZONING: L/TR, R-6, R-15 (PUD)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant seeks to demolish an existing
single family home on Moses Lot 2 and rebuild a 5,000 square foot
home with a 500 square foot garage. The applicant also seeks to
re -subdivide Moses Lot 2 to include the Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel.
Please see attached maps depicting the various proposals,
Attachment A.
The applicant has several objectives with regard to the purchase
of the 4+ parcel from Mitchell /Bornefeld and Lot 2 of the Moses Lot
Split. They are as follows:
1. The 1987 lot split that created Lots 1 and 2 of the Moses lot
Split was conditioned upon a limitation on the area of the homes
not to exceed 3,800 square feet of floor area per house.
The applicant requests that the restriction be lifted and replaced
with a 5,000 square foot allowable floor area restriction.
2. The applicant requests that the lot line of Moses Lot 2 be
revised to include sufficient lot area to allow a floor area of
5,000 square feet. The required land area is provided by the 4+
acre parcel purchased from Mitchel l/Bornefeld. This requires a re -
subdivision of Moses Lot 2 because a lot line adjustment is meant
for small technical boundary adjustments and adjustments that do
0
not affect the development rights or permitted density of the
affected lots. In addition the applicant seeks to amend a prior
condition of approval.
3. 8040 Greenline review is required for the development of the
new single family residence on Moses Lot 2.
4. The applicant intends to convey the remaining land area (the
land that is not needed for an allowable floor area of 5,000 sq.
ft.) to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association, a Colorado non-
profit corporation. The tennis courts, which are defined in the
Land Use Code as a separate parcel because of the long term lease,
will also be deeded to the Association.
The Aspen Alps Condominium Association, in an attempt to preserve
the open space around buildings 300, 400, 500, and 700 and the
parking along Aspen Alps South Road and tennis courts tried to
purchase the 4+ acres. But technical reasons have prevented the
Association from assessing homeowners for the acquisition of
property. Therefore, the Aspen View Homesite, Inc. is willing to
convey the property to the Association.
The Association commits to restrict the two parcels (land deeded
by Lot 2 and the tennis courts) against further development or
utilization of the land for density and floor area purposes
provided Lot 2 is allowed 5,000 square feet of allowable floor area
for the development of a single family residence.
5. A Lot Line Adjustment is also requested to clear up a survey
error between the platted Aspen Alps South Road and the actual road
and to convey to Mr. Mitchell the area which he currently uses for
parking. Lot Line Adjustment review is done by the City Council
and therefore is not covered in this memo.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering: The following comments are provided as a follow up
to several site visits and review of the application:
1. Existing conditions map shows access drive with note about
parking along drive. Twenty feet is required to be provided for
emergency access. There cannot be parking in this 201 easement.
The final plat must indicate that parking along road is not
permitted unless approved by the Fire Marshall.
2. The final plat will have to reflect all improvements on the
site including the entire length of the actual access road. The
access easement must be revised to include the roadway surface.
3. The contents of the final plat must meet Sections,24-7-1004-
D.1 and -D.2 of the municipal code. There must be a statement by
2
W
the surveyor, either in a siirveyor's certificate or in a general
note, that all easements of record :4:_ indicated on Title Policy
No. , dated , have been shown on the plat. The
date must be within the past 12 months.
4. The indicated access easement does not connect with the new Lot
2 or its parking area. Regarding Gaard Moses' new driveway
proposal, the Parks Department expressed concern that the health
of the trees between which the driveway is proposed will be
jeopardized. The condition of approval should state that
construction activities contemplated within the drip line of any
trees greater than 6" in diameter must be approved by the Parks
Department.
Also, the width of the access easement to Lot 1 across Lot 2 shall
meet code requirements (201).
5. The applicant shall provide a letter from a registered
professional engineer that all applicable geotechnical concerns of
the Chen & Associates letter of May 27, 1987, and the Lampiris
letter submitted with the application have been complied with
during construction. This letter must be submitted prior to final
inspection and accepted by the city engineer.
6. Water service - Please o in comments from Water Department.
There may be agreement in place regarding hook-up reimbursement for
previously constructed water main extension.
7. The request for increased floor area does not appear to be in
conformance with structure size intent as discussed in letter from
Gideon Kaufman, representing Moses, to Alan Richman, Planning
Director, dated October 23, 1986, which requested rezoning and lot
split approval.
8. Since vegetation contributes to slope stability, no vegetation
shall be removed from the slope.
9. The applicant shall agree to join improvement districts formed
for improvements to the public right-of-way particularly Ute
Avenue.
10. The development must meet on -site drainage retention
requirements of Section 24-7-1004.C.4.f.
11. The applicant is advised to check with the neighbor, Gaard
Moses, concerning his experiences with roof snow shed problems in
this heavy snowfall area.
Parks Department: Tree removal permits are required for any trees
over 6" in caliper.
3
A
Fire Marshal:
1. The Department does have access and a hydrant is available for
fire fighting.
2. Brush should be trimmed within 30' of the structure. This does
not apply to a single specimen of trees or ornamental shrubbery
used as ground cover provided they do not form a means of rapidly
transmitting fire from the native growth to any structure.
3. Remove any portion of any tree with 10' from the outlet of any
chimney. Maintain any tree free of dead wood that is adjacent to
or overhanging the roof. Maintain roof free of leaves, needles
or other dead vegetation.
4. State forest service guidelines for wildfire should be reviewed
by owner.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A. Background - According to the application the applicant has
recently purchased Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split. The applicant has
also obtained an option to purchase an approximately 4 acre parcel
known as the "Mitchell /Bornefeld property". This parcel surrounds
the 300, 400, 500, and 700 buildings of the Aspen Alps.
There are separately owned parcels within the Alps development -
the Mitchell House, the Aspen Alps 300, 400, and 500 buildings,
the Aspen Alps 700 building, and Lot 42 which is a small tract of
land owned by the US Forest Service. An application to obtain the
USFS tract has been filed by Mitchell/Bornefeld pursuant to the
Small Tracts Act.
B. Project Description - The 83 unit Aspen Alps Condominiums lie
within the L/TR, R-6, R-15 (PUD) zone districts. When the original
plat was filed in the 1960's by the developers, Mr. Mitchell and
Mr. Bornefeld, they only designated those lands on which the 300,
400, 500, and 700 buildings were constructed as general common
elements, owned by the unit owners as tenants in common. The
developers retained ownership of the remaining property that
surrounds the buildings.
The Aspen Alps Condominium Association has determined that it would
be in the owner's best interest to secure greater control over the
undeveloped parcels within the Aspen Alps area. The Associations'
intent is to prevent future development which may substantially
affect their property. In addition the Association wishes to
obtain title to the road and parking areas that serve their
buildings.
According to the application, in order to secure the surrounding
undeveloped property the Association has entered into a contract
4
i �-
to purchase the Mitchell/Bornefeld property and must assign this
contract to Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc. (owner of the Moses Lot
2) who will convey a significant portion back to the Association
for open space.
The property owner of Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc. , a past Aspen
Alps homeowner, proposes to demolish the existing single family
residence on Moses Lot 2 and build a new 5,000 square foot
residence containing 5 bedrooms and a 500 sq. ft. garage.
The driveway to Lot 2 will be provided off of the Aspen Alps South
Road. Gaard Moses also proposes to create a new driveway spur off
of the South Road thereby creating a separate access for Moses Lot
1, please see attached site plan showing the proposed driveway spur
attachment B.
The proposed expanded Moses Lot 2 parcel encompasses two underlying
zone districts. A survey provided with the application confirms
that more than 75% of the land area within the proposed Lot 2 is
zone R-15 (PUD) with the remainder of the lot is zoned
Conservation. The Aspen Land Use Code, Section 5-508, states that
when a use is allowed in all underlying zone districts and more
than 75% of the land area of the parcel is within the zone district
permitting the higher density, then "the use shall be developed
using the dimensional requirements and off-street parking
requirement of the Zone District permitting the higher density,
which shall be calculated on the basis of the land area and
development of the entire parcel".
Thus, in addition to acquiring the land to prevent future
development, the proposed re -subdivision of Lot 2 is necessary to
increase the land area to permit a 5,000 square foot residence
pursuant to R-15 zone district requirements.
The proposed development on Moses Lot 2 is above the 8040 elevation
thus requires 8040 Greenline review.
C. Subdivision Review: Pursuant to Section 7-1004 C of the Land
Use Code the following criteria for the re -subdivision of Lot 2 are
pertinent to this review:
la. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: In 1975 land designated "open space" (above the 8040
elevation) was changed to Conservation. This included the Moses
parcel.
In 1987 the Moses parcel was rezoned from Conservation to R-15
(PUD). The rezoning was granted, as stated in the Planning Office
memo, because the property lies well out of sight of the Little
Nell Slope and due to the grade changes is clearly distinct from
5
l_�
the open slopes and surrounding open space with which "C"
Conservation zoning is intended to protect.
Also in 1987, the Moses parcel received a subdivision exemption for
a lot split creating Lots 1 and 2. A condition of the Lot Split
was the acceptance of a voluntary floor area cap of 3,800 square
feet. The Planning Department accepted this cap to ensure
compatibility with surrounding residences. At the time, according
to the Planning Department memo, the Aspen Chance homes ranged in
size from 3,065 sq. ft. to 6,000 sq. ft. and the home sizes in the
then proposed 1010 Ute subdivision were expected to range from
3,000 sq. ft. and 4,300 sq. ft.
The proposed re -subdivision does not affect the original conclusion
from the 1987 rezoning or Lot Split. Lot 2 is primarily increasing
its size to protect undeveloped land within the Aspen Alps from
future development. Although the increase in Moses Lot 2 enables
a larger home (the specific size and location will be covered
within the 8040 Greenline review), the additional land in the
acquired parcel from Mitchell /Bornefeld will be deeded to the Alps
in such a manner as to prevent additional density and additional
floor area for the existing Alps buildings.
lb. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the area.
RESPONSE: The project is consistent with the character of the
neighborhood. The surrounding land uses are single family and high
density multi -family adjacent to the Little Nell ski slope. Most
of the single family homes (with the exception of Moses Lot 1) are
larger than the proposed residence on Lot 2. In addition, as the
application states, by preserving most of the land surrounding the
Aspen Alps the development will be consistent with the open space
character of Aspen Mountain.
lc. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas.
RESPONSE: The proposed development is replacing a single family
home on Lot 2. In addition the proposed re -subdivision of Lot 2
will preserve the open area from future development that could have
significant traffic impacts upon the Aspen Alps South Road and Ute
Avenue, and severely reduce the amount of open space that exists
in the area.
By redeveloping the single family residence on Lot 2, the new home
will be moved further from the home on Lot 1. Currently the two
homes appear as on large structure.
ld. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
0
/ �Z-
RESPONSE: The re -subdivision of Lot 2 will allow a structure that
is conforming with the R-15 (PUD) requirements. All requirements
for the R-15 (PUD) zone district shall apply. In addition, the
applicant will provide a housing mitigation fee pursuant to
Ordinance 1, Series of 1990, for the demolition and redevelopment
of the single-family home.
2a. 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: Please refer to the 8040 Greenline review.
2b. Spatial Pattern - The proposed subdivision shall not be
designed to create spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of
public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
RESPONSE: There are no unnecessary public costs associated with
this proposal. All utilities are available near the site.
According to the application, all public improvements to serve the
project will be borne by the applicant. Although the Aspen Alps
South Road is a private road, the Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc.
has been granted an access easement. A water tap fee may apply for
the new residence if the existing home on Lot 2 did not pay tap
fees in the past.
D. 8040 Greenline Review: Pursuant to Section 7-503 the following
review criteria apply for a 8040 Greenline Review -
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be
located is suitable for development considering its slope,
ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence
and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche
dangers. If 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.
RESPONSE: Please see attached letter from Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D,
consulting geologist, Attachment C. The building site is away from
the base of the steep slope to the west, but instability in the
slope is possible therefore the rear wall of the new home should
be at least six feet above finished grade and deigned to accept
forces of up to 200 pounds per square foot. There should be no
doors or windows on this wall below the six foot level. He also
recommends that if the slope is cut, the rear wall should also act
as a retaining wall to the toe of the slope. Soil engineering
7
studies are recommended to insure proper foundation design and
drainage away from the home to avoid potential mud slurry from
debris flow.
The applicant has committed to following all mitigation techniques
outlined in Dr. Lampiris, report.
The Engineering Department recommends that the applicable
geotechnical concerns raised during the 1987 Lot split that are
germane to Lot 2 also be reviewed and incorporated into development
of the parcel. In addition Engineering recommends that no
vegetation on the steep (west) slope be removed to avoid potential
slides.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant
adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage,
soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
RESPONSE: As recommended in Dr. Lampiris' letter the applicant
will grade the site to insure that drainage flows away from the
site. In addition the development must comply with the on -site
drainage retention requirements of Section 24-7-1004.C.4.f.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant
adverse affect on the air quality in the City.
RESPONSE: The applicant will comply with all applicable City
regulations addressing wood burning devices in the new residential
unit.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road,
or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which
the proposed development is to be located.
RESPONSE: The building site is located on the flat portion of the
site and avoids cutting into the bank at the rear of the lot. A
display board will be made available for commission to review the
location of the proposed home on the site.
A two story log home is proposed for the site and has been designed
to blend into the slope and natural vegetation which surround it.
Natural materials such as wood and stone will be used on the home
and are compatible with the terrain and the Moses home on Lot 1.
The home on Lot 2 will be accessed off of the Aspen Alps South Road
via an easement and is maintained by the Condominium Association.
Gaard Moses also proposes to create a new access to Lot 1 off of
the South Road thus eliminating the need to drive right by the
proposed home on Lot 2. The Engineering and Planning Departments
have reviewed this new access and are comfortable with the minimal
amount of fill required to build the new drive. Mr. Moses shall
8
work with the Parks Department to ensure that the two large pine
trees on either side of the new drive will not be endangered by
the new drive.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable,
disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features.
RESPONSE: The architects have located the proposed home on the
flat portion of the site and avoid disturbance of the steep slope.
Twenty-three Aspen and Spruce trees, of at least 6" in caliper are
located in or near the building envelope. The site plan indicF-`tes
that 16 of the trees will be preserved including all of the Sp.: lice
trees. The applicant has committed to replace the seven Aspen
trees which must be removed. Tree removal permits shall be
required for those trees over 6" in caliper that are removed.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize
the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open
space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
RESPONSE: The building envelope is sited in such a manner as to
limit grading and cutting of the parcel. The parcel is already
accessed by the Aspen Alps South Road. New driveways shall be cut
for Lots 1 and 2 however their impact should be minimal. The new
driveways will extend about 20 feet off the existing road.
The site cannot be seen from the base of the mountain and the
center of town. The site can be seen from the Gondola or if a
skier or hiker looks over the edge of Little Nell. However the
building site is approximately 50-100' below the top of the slope.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the
structure will be designed to blend into the open character
of the mountain.
RESPONSE: The proposed floor area of the new single family home
is 5,000 sq. ft. with a 500 square foot garage. (The re -subdivided
lot could support 6,000 sq. ft. of floor area.) The height
limitation in the R-15 zone district is 25 which ironically is less
than the limit of 28 feet in the Conservation Zone District.
Although the applicant is requesting that the 3,800 sq. ft. floor
area cap be increased to 5,000 sq. ft. the majority of the parcel
will be sterilized against further development. The site is tucked
into the hillside and as previously mentioned is only visible from
the Gondola, Lot 1 of the Moses Lot Split and the upper Aspen Alps
units. The steep wooded slope is being preserved and Mr. Moses has
submitted a letter approving of the redevelopment of Lot 2,
Attachment D.
9
The proposed size of the home is considerably less than those homes
in the Aspen Chance Subdivision and the individual multi -family
Aspen Alps buildings.
The existing homes on Lots 1 and 2 are so close together that they
appear as one structure. The redevelopment of Lot 2 will move the
building envelope away from the home on Lot 1 thus providing more
of an open feel on the two parcels.
S. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are
available to service the proposed development.
RESPONSE: Please see referral comments. The existing residence
is already provided with public water and sewer service. Utilities
are available to the site.
A booster pump may be necessary to mitigate low water pressure and
to sprinkle the house for fire protection. Tap fees may be
required for the new home.
The ACSD indicated that the Alps is served by private lines and
although an upgraded line was installed for the existing residence
this past fall the applicant may need to upgrade the Alps lines for
the new home.
The applicant has committed to working with the public agencies to
ensure that proper utilities are supplied to the new home.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be -properly maintained.
RESPONSE: The development will be accessed by the private Aspen
Alps South Road. The road serves approximately 35 residences. The
replacement of the existing home does not create the need for an
upgrade in the road. All the required parking shall be provided
on -site.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed
development so as to ensure adequate access for fire
protection and snow removal equipment.
RESPONSE: Fire protection is adequately provided for by the
existing road. If necessary a booster pump and sprinkler system
will be installed if required by the Fire Marshal. Snow removal
is privately provided.
A parking easement on Lot 2 has been quit claimed by
Mitchell/Bornefeld to Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc. Lot 2, to
allow the preferred driveway for Lot 2 to be developed.
10
11: Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: . Parks /Recreation/open Space/Trails Plan
map is dedica -ed for public use.
RESPONSE: There are no trails designated for this parcel. As a
condition of the 1987 Lot Split a nordic/pedestrian/bike easement
was provided on Lot 1. The Midland Trail is located just above the
Property.
sECOMMENDATION:
A. The staff recommends approval of the Moses Lot 2 804:0 Greenline
review with the following conditions:
1. The4floor area of the new single zanily home shall be no
greater than 5,000 sq. ft.. The
height shall be 25 feet.
tJ 2 . or to in 1 b 'i din spe on, t e p ' c nt sha r id
2a et r f om r gi tere pr fes Iona eng'neer th al
gdAJ ap ica le g of hni al conc ns f t e C & sso ates ett r
i° of May 27, 87 nd th L mpi is le er su mit ed w t t e
a licat'o a een tiplie ith ring on tr c ' n. is
1 ter s be ac by the Cit, ngineer.
3. The development shall meet on -site drainage retention
requirements of Section 24-7-1004.C.4.f.
4. The applicant s ..11 comply with all applicable City regulations
addressing wood bur ',°..ng devices in the new residential snit.
5. All requirement;.; for the R-15 (PUD) zone district shall apply.
6. All the required parking shall be provided on -site..
7. The applicant shall pro- a housing mitigation fee pursuant
to Ordinance 1, Series c-; 1990, for the demolition and
redevelopment of the single-family home.
8. No further development shall occur on Lot 2 Moses Lot Split
outside of this approved building envelope.
9. No vegetation shall be removed from the slope.
10. Tree removal permits shall be required for those trees over
6" in caliper that are removed. Pursuant to representations made
by the applicant 16 trees shall be preserved which include all of
the Spruce trees. The applicant shall replace the seven Aspen
trees which must be removed.
11. Any construction activities contemplated within the drip line
of any trees greater than 611 in diameter must be approved by the
Parks Department.
12. Mr. Moses shall work with the Parks Department to ensure that
the two large pine trees on either side of the new drive will not
be endangered by the new drive.
13. Brush shall be trimmed within 301 of the structure. This does
not apply to a single specimen of trees or ornamental shrubbery
used as ground cover provided they do not form a means of rapidly
transmitting fire from the native growth to any structure.
14. Any portion of any tree with 10*1 from the outlet of any
chimney shall be removed and any tree that is adjacent to or
overhanging the roof shall remain free of dead wood. The roof
shall be free of leaves, needles or other dead vegetation.
15. The applicant shall work with the public agencies to ensure
that proper utilities are supplied to the new home and all public
improvements to serve the project will be borne by the applicant.
B. Staff recommends approval of the re -subdivision of Moses Lot
2 with the following conditions:
1. A final plat and subdi;V4'U*Lna gement shall be filed within
180 days of final eland use final plat shall be reviewed
and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments.
2. The final plat shall depict the following:
a. the tennis courts and land on Lot 2 Moses Lot Split that
is conveyed to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association.
b Notes shall refer to Deed Book Page 'Z
indicating the restrictions againsi urther developmen�F �or
additional lot area for floor area and density purposes on
existing Alps buildings for the tennis courts lot and land
conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 Moses Lot Split.
c. The new access onto Lot 1 Moses Lot Split.
d. Graphic description of the zoning designations of Lot 2
Moses Lot Split.
e. No parking along the road unless approved by the Fire
Marshal.
f. An easement indicating Lot 2 Moses Lot Split access off of
the Aspen Alps South Road.
12
� �
g. All improvements on the site including the entire length
of the actual access road and the revised access easement
including the roadway surface.
h. The contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7-
1004-D.1 and -D.2 of the municipal code. There must be a
statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate
or in a general note, that all easements of record as
indicated on Title Policy No. , dated , have
been shown on the plat. The date must be within the past 12
months.
i. The USFS tract, if conveyed to Mitchell/Bornefeld, deeded
against future development.
3. The width of the access easement to Lot 1 across Lot 2 shall
meet code requirements (201).
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the 8040 Greenline Review
for Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split with conditions 1-15 as
recommended by Planning staff."
"I move to recommend to Ccncil subdivision approval for Lot 2 of
the Moses Lot Split with condit-ions 1-3 as recommended by Planning
staff."
ATTACHMENTS:
"A" - Site Plans and Maps
"B" - Driveway Spur to Lot 1 Moses Lot Split
"C" - Dr. Lampiris Letter
"D" - Mr. Moses Letter
13
FT
i
ATTACHMENT "A"
Aj
VICINITY MAP
Tit le
1
_ l c o"
EXISTING CONDITIONS
REPEAT OF LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT
zZ
T S' uTILI-r,
1; t 1 - -� _- .-...
C. / ti LA7GMC r0
TMi
�► J' � ,o '�tkr w ak y}c, n• �n
t^tt'c •'� � � — _ ,., °O1''o'
; 1 I �i
\ •' 1(f�v -C.` i••!t .t��.'\� lys% \ nn.•._:<r. ^ NI• �� K .F e \ '
_ � b° •. �rc� •� �
Ell Z3 — _.1'New
�
■ Z=ba +., can a•i.y� ~Ci. �ai!( r wh ': •'� yh i J
Ag
"-'gSa•+wcra �� •��..•\'.-.. a :, y�•:. �\ � � � �• \ �1 : \
• �R;..tggi�+a;� T `+,�� ti. �;�31'� /a�S';\\- `\` `off � �.r,.t± rO• '�' •�'� a. /
jj
-ti
41 � yam' ` \ '•' r' ,`"
yN .
_ • U
�3
AREA TABULATION
ASPEN ALPS + M ITCHELL- dORNEFELD &35G AGKES
LOT' 2, M05E5 LDT SPLIT 0.398
A = ENTI KE PAKCEL AREA 6-754
NET GO\/ERN MENT LOT 42 O. (0
MITCI-IEEE HOUSE SITE 0.2 33
fiSPE.N ALPS PfiRGELS 1.284
E5 = TO TA OUT PARCELS
i .9(D3
C = NET ACCE55 EASEMENTS 0.7 1 3
NET AREA OF REPEAT (A- Iff?-C)
A .078 ACRES
z�4
AREA TABULATION
LOT 2 1.026 AGrzEs
LOT 2 A 2.24 F
LOT 26 O.bI I
TOTAL .,SEA 4.076 AGES
LOT 2 ZONING
K-i5 33,673.b `4Fr = 75-32
CONSERVATION I I,o3/i.9 5q. FT = 4-68/
TOTAL AREA 44,706.7 5Q. FT = 100.E
0fill
� �� 0
'mot "t Dt �--�-
vi
VICINITY MAP
50ALF- = I" = lcoo I
'pi
PROPOSED REPLAT
ES -01 2. M—o—LOT ' —S'-p—LITt'
0 100 150
r—, 20-1
.4r-'
Z. 77
L 51
y P P �oos.nlps
Lu
plc •. \ � P L T F,`�V; D I?K I V.E VV I
tOPOSED. j3 In, I3f1G
XTRA P KK t �, ?C . K -r
RN ��P08T�IT, E
Tom.
N 1 5 ,lr C2� LEN�o H Or piZ1.�E
• ,� .� _,.:�=�- !';=a�� �. , ,�, Ft..oM up ----
i
EXISTING
.6,oho ,4
/ , 1 • �� s ,' I VATE KCEC f �` 1
t? ,�` M EJ`1
�V ' 0
R LOT I Q'
N$5° 151 4
'
8 DIAL TREES
1 Q
S �U
�VELOPE5EpE o
•BUILDING .
(SHADED) CONir`F
Moses
10' SIDE YAD � f-ie u-w 2 12
r sETBAc�
11
Troposed Development Plan _ _ CO REPLATEOF LOT 2 MC►SES LOT SPLIT 8 - �'�
LoT � „
Aspen, Colorado 9 - 911 "
01 29 40' -' T SFL I T (a - 7„
/ Voor ait < & Associates, Architects P. i - 7
C)"
246 West Milt Street 2 -
NORTH New York, NY 10018
Alan Richman Planning Services
Box 3613
Aspen, Colorado 81612
3d
ATTACHMENT
/ . '/C,/
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
COwmuolwG GEOLOGIST
p186|NGeRGOLLLANE _
SILT, COLOpU\D3m1e6u
� mooVm3-oounmwHOURS)
January 2(D, 1992
Alan M. Richman, AICP
Box 3613
Aspen CO. 81612
RE: Aspen Alps Lot
Dear Mr. Richman:
I have completed my geologic investigation of the proposed
building site on the maps which accompany this report. The
building site lies-al-ong the east slope of the lobe
containing the Littie Nell Ski Run. This is in the southern
part of the Town of Aspen, within the Aspen 7 1/2 minute
quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado.
The building site lies on a gentle east slope near a small
debris fan surrounded by trees and covered by native grasses.
It is between the home of Gaard Moses and other Aspen Alps
buildings. The lot is irregularly shaped with the building
envelope as shown.
� The geology of the site consists of clays, silts, sands,
gravels and boulders of colIuvial and some debris flow material
deposited perhaps hundreds of years ago. These materials are
generally graded and sorted and areprobably between 50 and 70 feet
thick at this site. The underlying bedrock cannot be
determined but is probably one of the Paleozoic carbonate or
sandstone units fractured by faulting common to this area.
This faulting is mostly from 30 million years ago and there
is no evidence of recent activity. It is still prudent to
design the home to conform to Seismic Zone II of the Uniform
Building Code.
The fan which has been discussed is a geologic concern
but can be mitigated and should not present problems to the
the home site because of the distance involved and the
relative low energy of the flows. The building site is away
from the base of the steep slope to the west, but instability
in this steep slope is possible; therefore, the rear (west)
wall of the home should be at least six feet above finished
~
grade and designed to accept forces of up to 200 pounds per
square foot. There should be no doors or windows in this interval
within the six foot level. If the steep slope in cut, the rear
wall should also act as a retaining wall to the toe of the slope.
The material of the site is suitablee for the development of a
��
�
`
`
' �ingle family home, but soils engineeerinq studies E-hould be
. performed at the site specific level to insure proper
foundation design, especially in view of the PossibiI ity of
i «* hydrocompactive soils on the fan~ Final landscaping should
include positive drainage away from the home in all
| ' directions,
i < particularly because it is possible for some of
' the mud slurry from a debris flow to reach near the site.
Water for domestic use and waste disposal will be throuQh
municipal sources. The access already exists to the site.
This is generally a good site from a geologic standpoint, but
the previous recommendations should be followed. Additionally,
the homes should be designed to preclude the acCumulation of radon
~ gas as this is becoming standard practice in the State. if there
' are further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Lampiris
Consulting Geologist
`
^�' !
. '
`
ATTACHMENT "D"
GAARD MOSES
P.O. Box 21
Aspen, Colorado 81612
April 1, 1992
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611•..
Re: Hirsch/Aspen Alps
Dear Leslie:
I write this letter to follow up our conversations on the
site concerning the Aspen Alps' sale of land to Mr. Hirsch, and
Hirsch's modification of conditions of the Moses Lot Split.
The Aspen Alps and Mr..Hirsch have promised to provide me
mitigation measures which would lessen the impact of the
proposed changes on my residence. Based on these assurances,
this letter shall serve to confirm my consent to the removal of
the 3,800 FAR limit on the Hirsch proper7y, and to M-?-. Hirsch's
purchase of land from the Aspen Alps.
If you have any additional quest` ->, please feel free to
contact me.
Very truly yours,
Gaard Modes
U
-3-3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Loushin Conditional Use for an Attached Accessory
Dwelling Unit
DATE: April 7, 1992
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use for the
Loushin attached accessory dwelling unit with conditions.
APPLICANT: William, Steven, Deborah, and Brent Loushin,
represented by David Forrest
LOCATION: The parcel is at 904 E. Cooper (Lots K&L Block 117, and
Lot L Block 35, Townsite of Aspen and East Aspen Addition)
ZONING: RMF (Residential Multi -Family)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is-1-equesting Conditional Use
approval to develop two attached accessory dwelling units in
conjunction with the construction of a duplex as required in the
RMF Zone District. Each accessory unit will be 300 s.f. of net
livable area and will be located in the basement of the duplex.
Please see Attachment "A" for floorplans and building elevations.
STAFF COMMENTS: on the subject property there exists a single
family dwelling which will be demolished prior to construction of
the new duplex. Ordinance 1 typically requires 'replacement
affordable housing or cash -in -lieu for demolition of existing
residences. However, in this case the underlying zoning (RMF)
already has provisions for affordable housing which is dictated by
the proposed duplex. The RMF zoning of the property allows
duplexes with the requirements that either one half of the duplex
be deed restricted to affordable housing or that each free market
unit provide an accessory dwelling unit. This applicant is
proposing development under the second option.
Conditional Use for attached accessory dwelling unit: The
Commission has the authority to review and approve development
applications for conditional uses pursuant to the standards of
Section 7-304:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located.
RESPONSE: This proposed unit will allow the property to house a
local employees in an RMF residential area, which complies with the
zoning and Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture
of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity
of the parcel proposed for development.
RESPONSE: The accessory dwelling uses are compatible with the
other residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The units
will not be visible from the outside.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties.
RESPONSE: The proposed accessory units will be completely
contained within the existing duplex. A parking space is not
required by code for a studio accessory unit, but the applicant
states that one space per ADU will be designated on the apron of
the parking garage. Both units will access the exterior through
a common stairway to the east side of the house. No other
significant impacts are anticipated.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable
water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services,
drainage systems, and schools.
RESPONSE: All public facilities are all ready in place for the
existing home and neighborhood.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use.
RESPONSE: The proposed deed restricted unit will satisfy the RMF
affordable housing requirements for duplex development. The
applicant must file appropriate deed restrictions for resident
occupancy, including 6 month minimum leases. Proof of recordation
must be forwarded to the Planning Office prior to issuance of any
building permits.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
N
7
RESPONSE: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and any other applicable conditional use standards.
Section 8-104 1.d. allows the Commission to approve accessory
dwelling units to be exempt from growth management competition.
This proposal qualifies upon approval of its conditional use
review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Office recommends approval of
Conditional Uses for two attached accessory dwelling units for the
Loushin duplex with the following conditions:
1. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The units
shall be deed restricted to resident occupancy with minimum 6 month
leases. Upon .approval by the Housing Authority, the Owner shall
record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the duplex, a copy
of the recorded deed restrictions for the accessory dwelling units
must be forwarded to the Planning Office.
3. One parking space shall be provided on -site for each accessory
dwelling unit.
4. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve Conditional Uses for two
attached accessory dwelling units within the proposed Loushin
Duplex at 904 E. Cooper, wit?-1 the four conditions recommended in
the Planning Office memo dated 4/7/92.
Attachments: "A" - Proposed Site Plan, Floorplans, and Elevations
loushin.adu.memo
3
PLANNING i ONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT .. ~ , APPROVED ,
19 BYA SOLUTION
,� �t1H3n• vNy� �� 10 MUUN I AIN VALLt Y ANU f a
INOfPENNENCE PASS <
Nv -CtJSE^ IN VVMV1ERi a
1 ti3lNnH <
\ i
x
Z I�) 113N 311111
1�3t11
\
{ 1 Z t S vN3lWJ
l�J
Lq
I E�F E; i 1 1", , T
1S Z un i
tE-
� Z
F Mil 1 Apo J I' n v
.�� 133tl1S HJtivNOIN
i
of
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
t
aLJ II '
133tUS N3dS`►
��7IEll
Ell
u I
133ti1S H�SIWtfvO _�
S
^Z
133tl1S1Stli�
q �w 33tl1S ' ON�0035
REVE L
�bL � 3110 ' H
Y O 133111S H1111*JQ W
Y / F r '
Z� on,n] Fol ��
W
IL yuj
133tl1S HIM'
� 0 IgrDD
y
DD DD DD
1331:J1S HiN3ANEO ED 01 r �� �� •
i
•
me
SIFT 10,--
a—
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Mendenhall Stream Margin Review
DATE: April 7, 1992
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of these Stream Margin reviews
with conditions.
APPLICANT: Keifer and Mary Elizabeth Mendenhall, represented by
Sunny Vann
LOCATION: 1310 Red Butte Drive (Lots 2 and 3, Second Amendment to
Block 2, Red Butte Subdivision.)
ZONING: R-30 Low Density Residential
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting stream margin
review for the development of a new single family residence of
approximately 3,800 s.f. on Lot 3 and for a site specific
development envelope on Lot 2. There exists on Lot 2 a single
family residence now occupied by the Mendenhalls. However, no
specific building envelope has been designated. The proposed
envelope will encompass the existing residence. By establishing
an envelope and conditions of approval at this time, parameters for
any future redevelopment of the site will stand without the need
for additional stream margin review. The existing and proposed
structures lie within 100' of the high water line of the Roaring
Fork River. Please see Attachment "A" for proposed envelopes and
residence.
In order to comply with Ordinance 1 for the new home, the
Mendenhalls indicate that they will deed restrict the structure to
resident occupancy. They are full-time working residents of the
community.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: A su-n : --y of the Engineering memo from Rob
Thomson is as follow: ease reference Attac•'i-ment "B" for
complete memo)
- The applicant shall make st-atement on the permit set of
drawings indicating that there ;; ;�e no disturbance of vegetation
between the building envelope the river. Revegetation is
required for any disturbed soil on the site(s).
- Construction procedures shall be employed that permit no runoff
from disturbed soil into the river. Prior to issuance of any
excavation or building permits, the applicant shall submit
information to the Engineering Office describing construction
procedures and drainage controls.
- A fisherman's easement is requested in the river and for a 5'
distance along the bank.
- Historic runoff volumes should be maintained.
- Prior to development on Lot 3, driveway access for both lots
shall comply with Sec. 19-101 of the Municipal Code.
- The applicant shall consult the Parks and Engineering Departments
prior to development in the public right-of-way and shall obtain
permits through the Streets Department.
PARRS DEPT: George Robinson's comments are as follows:
- A 5'-15' fisherman/trail easement is requested along the river's
edge. The applicant should contact the Parks Department to
determine an appropriate location for the easement.
- The applicant shall contact the Parks Department for tree
removal/relocation permits prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
- New ditch culverts must be 8" minimum. Keep all culverts clean
and in good condition.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Section 7-504 outlines the criteria for Stream Margin Review as
follows:
Criteria 1: It can be demonstrated that any proposed development
which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the
base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development.
Response: As both homesites are on the high bank, they are well
above the 100 year flood level. This criteria does not apply.
Criteria 2: Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is
dedicated for public use.
Response: According to the adopted Pedestrian and Walkways Plan,
no trail has been designated across the parcel. However, Planning
and Engineering recommend dedication of a 5 foot Fisherman's
Easement on this parcel. The Rio Grande Trail runs along the
north bank of the river, opposite of the subject properties.
Criteria 3: The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan
are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent practicable.
Response: The plan does not specifically address these parcels in
its recommendations. The building envelopes proposed will not
significantly affect the riverfront vegetation or natural
appearance, according to the application. The Engineering
Department requires that any vegetation outside of the building
envelope on the riverside not be disturbed.
Criteria 4: No -vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made
that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
Response: According to the applicant, no vegetation will be
removed or any slope regraded such that the river would be
adversely affected. The site is fairly flat, so minimal grading
should take place. Engineering needs to sign off on a construction
/ drainage plan prior to issuance of any building permits.
Planning suggests that the building foundation(s) be excavated from
the inside.
Any tree over 6 inches caliper on the lots will require a permit
for removal. As mentioned, Engineering requires that no vegetation
occurring outside of the building envelope be removed. The
application mentions that other landscaping will be added after
construction, and existing small cottonwoods will be relocated on
site.
Criteria 5: To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed
development reduces pollution and interference with the natural
changes of the river, stream or other tributary.
Response: The proposed envelopes will have no adverse .effect upon
the natural changes normally experienced by the oar ng Fork.
Revegetation of disturbed areas will preclude erosion and
appropriate safeguards will be utilized during construction to
prevent pollution of the river. Barricades preventing debris
falling downslope shall be erected prior to any
excavation/construction on the sites. The Engineering Department
requires that the applicant must submit a drainage plan addressing
stream pollution prior to issuance of any building permits.
Criteria 6: Written notice is given to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water
course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
Response: No alteration or relocation of the existing water course
will be required.
Criteria 7: A guarantee is provided in the event a water course
3
13
is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his
heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying
capacity on the parcel is not diminished.
Response: Not Applicable
Criteria 8: Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state
permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year
floodplain.
Response: The applicant states that no federal or state permits
are required to construct within the proposed building envelopes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Office recommends approval of
Stream Margin review for a new residence on Lot 3 and for a
building envelope and future construction on Lot 2 with the
following conditions:
1) The applicant shall make a statement on the permit set of
drawings indicating that there will be no disturbance of vegetation
between the building envelope and the river. Revegetation is
required for any disturbed soil on the site(s).
2) Construction procedures shall be employed that permit no runoff
from disturbed soil into the river. Prior to issuance of any
excavation or building permits, the applicant shall submit
information to the Engineering Office describing construction
procedures and drainage controls.
3) Prior to development on Lot 3, driveway access for both lots
shall comply with Sec. 19-101 of the Municipal Code.
4) The applicant shall consult the Parks and Engineering
Departments prior to development in the public right-of-way and
shall obtain permits through the Streets Department.
5) If dedicating a fisherman or trail easement along the river, the
applicant should contact the Parks Department to determine an
appropriate location for the easement.
6) The property owner shall contact the Parks Department for tree
removal/relocation permits prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
7) New ditch culverts must be 8" minimum. Keep all culverts clean
and in good condition.
8) Foundation excavation along the river side of the structure(s)
shall be done from the inside out. A barricade shall be erected
4
14
It • k-
to prevent debris from going down the slope. It shall be in place
prior to commencement of excavation and shall remain throughout
construction.
9) All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve stream margin review for
the Mendenhall parcels on Red Butte Dr. with the conditions
presented listed in the April 7, 1992 Planning Office memo,
specifically including a building envelope for the existing
residence on Lot 2 and a new residence and building envelope on
Lot 3.
Attachments: "A" - Site Plan
"B" - Engineering Referral Memo
mendenhall.memo
k
PLANNING i ONING COA�iISSI'pN
EXHIBIT �� , APPROVEZ
19 BY RESOLUTION
S 6�5?•pp-E
�.7. S7 '
45.89 R j BIER
F0 RK ,
ROARING
loo-
25
t' ............................... ...... y y, // ✓ �// //�� ,'�. \\�<
/ ot
70.0
2 STORY 14OUSE
•4 otcx tATto 16.64'
63058lo
SJK \
\10
\ C a
'� ti°' ►� �o' e1�
r All •, / \ '
i � •
RED BUTT-t DRIVE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: GMQS Exemption - Gooding GMQS Exemption for Change -in -
Use from Office to Residential
DATE: April 7, 1992
SUMMARY: Planning Staff recommends approval of GMQS Exemption for
the Change in Use from two commercial condominium office units to
one residential condominium unit. If approved by the Planning
Commission, the project will proceed to City Council f�?- vested
rights approval.
APPLICANT: Richard Gooding, represented by Sunny Vann
LOCATION: 210 E. Hyman, Units 201 and 202 of Park Central West
Condos (Lots K,L,M,N and 0, Block 75, Townsite of Aspen)
ZONING: Office (0)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: GMQS Exemption for Change in Use from two
units of commercial (office) to one unit of free market
residential. The condominium map and declarations will be changed
to reflect the new internal changes. The Applicant also seeks from
City Council vested rights for three years.
BACKGROUND / PROPOSAL: In 1978 this condominium received GMP
approval for 10 residential units and 3 commercial office spaces.
At that time, commercial allocation was not required in the Office
zone. When the project was developed and the condominium map and
declarations filed, the residential/office mix was depicted. In
1981, the P&Z approved the creation of an additional office space
from the existing office unit 201. An amended condo plat was filed
at that time. Gooding Investment Co. purchased unit 202 in 1981.
Mr. Gooding purchased unit 201 in 1983. The units have since been
used for both office and residential purposes according to the
applicant.
The current request is to legally combine and convert the two units
into one residential condominium with two bedrooms and two and a
half baths. Total area will be approximately 1,600 square feet.
Please see existing and proposed floor plans, Attachment "B".
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering:
1) A condominium plat amendment must be prepared which meets the
Ir
requirements of Section 24-1004.D. There must be general notes on
the plat which indicate (1) the book and page numbers of the
original and subsequent plats that are being amended, and (2) a
brief description of the changes being made.
2) Should the applicant demonstrate that the application meets
condominium declarations and that the proposed changes are
acceptable to the condo association?
3) The application indicates that there should be no problem with
utilities supplying the project and that necessary tap fees will
be paid prior to obtaining a building permit.
4) The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way using language currently
available from the City Attorney's Office.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Growth Management Exemption: Section 8-104 B. states that the
Commission may grant a GMQS Exemption for change -in -use between
commercial and residential uses if the changes have a minimal
impact on the City. Minimal impact is described by minimal number
of additional employees and provision of employee housing for the
employee increase, minimal number of additional parking demanded
by the change in use and that parking will be provided, minimal
visual impact on the neighborhood, and minimal demand placed on
City public facilities.
This change in use specifically addresses the conversion of two
office units to one residential unit. As office use, the two units
would have to mitigate for approximately 2.7 employees (at 3
employees per 1,000 s.f., 60% mitigation minimum). Using GMQS
threshold calculations for the one residential unit, approximately
1.2 employees would be generated. As the residential employee
generation is less than the commercial generation, no impact
results.
The application states that 2 parking spaces are reserved on site
within the condominium's 15 space lot for units 201 and 202. The
residential parking requirement in the Office zone is one space per
bedroom, thus no additional parking is required.
There are no facade changes involved with this proposal, so no
exterior visual impacts will occur.
The building is currently served by City services. Any applicable
taps fees will be paid if required by the renovation. The
Engineering Department proposed a condition that this applicant
agree to join any future improvements districts. In subsequent
conversations with Mr. Vann, it was pointed out to staff that this
applicant, as one owner within the complex, cannot legally bind his
condominium association to join a future improvement district. For
this application, Planning is not including this condition as a
�v
il U
AASN
x u( ~ n
° o^ L •
IL 0
r �
WJ
f of '►L _ JU
JU
tj
At
Atl
VA
� J 1
nt
i1 ' o°
O I W ! m 16
� et 7� .. : •. f +tom•, ..� ,:�� ••� j `� j~ y;�s f J {,� :�1• � �'� ;
•�� j� � * `�" ;•'� .� 1� .•. � ��i• Ali
' !ir •r,ir,1 0, M`.ir !'�,�. :� i`.tuY�1'�� tit ' Y ,.� , � `4
0" � �r' �•,� •,• �.. 1 �•r,'•` Ate. �� �S� � '•�_ '�•jG '�...' r1
, 7, ,; ' °•' y\�' 111'�' 'h,a+f,.�'7.�i t�, �•• '��3V�,',' ,•4�+� � ",it n
"{� � r i 't1�"t1 ,} �,•V = � ji.,V; . ,� �ty.,�, �..� ,./ ' >r; h � O "4 C, '1±^' �" ' 4,
• �� c6.;1 ..' �+ ' � �`.�-:'�.:'' rat' 1 � �. '•, � .. 1 . T `• �.
pf •�y', r - 'Y�: -', ,' 'f, ' +; r,�.���I.J •, .,,tit. �• � j ` .•F:' .�.
Q• � ' •yr� � �ilh ' 1. +'�. ,•, .�jt• �� v'• -R. ti� .T: - •a, �. � r • .r ' ,
• ., Yr fl.� �, { :r t� ��i.a t�'�'~'JrV+�i ,•it ti., -.�: �� r� •t •.�i• U
ii .,., •'I i'1 iL a k M�f',y,u...�. �. l.r tit'•; .',jr'�.1 iR+.^. >♦t +c' U' 4?•i ��;" '.�
OO
.; {'„rt '�,t•yy1,, !►.j ;+k •i?4(.� a7 1�ii `.r. p i k���' ,: . f i`h
O. N �= r d VrV#° f.e.V�. i,� V' 4y K ,+ :; �� :':: 'iJ c Y j^• .N.; �i,' +�ti
� L " ,r�tr• 1V• �'• L'JIV~%:.. '.i�t f V{�'"'7+'i'+'� '3•� '� � �� � .►:��/ {I�w'f�' '�'�'� ' 1'•'d+,♦'• �
r'l � ;y',!, '���\i�^ K. 7'�•��^���•, �'i��jti�� .IY������,• '"�y�,,'�%r ��� ! � ��,u1' ,'1`; A� � Fi• �+ ; ���;'.
��. .i. j •:+'� ,i1F•��'r'l�t+• N:' a.'3A ,.'i.• 1yr., •�.lj��., r��,v�y',•♦ •ly O� ,+'� .��'` ✓�j•'� f:�.'S'•+.t, .'i •.
...O , •. ' K �"�1, '.r 't; � �M":V ` "'4.} ,,,y!``�']tS,y' :,.., y . • a• ••'- �.1.\ rc.'r'; 'j�', �i R1'., '-� . y
h �.O � + � ��. �{!;�4 •.11" rye' ,,'�^��'+: �` 1.'�`V►•�.Y•ift".�`�{^�'�• '�,� ,.��.� �f � �t'4i`f'��,�,'•y►�,�'`-'►f'..ff��• li.�i�{ •�': %• >�
,!• + `::'' i'•�'.}L 1Y�. •Y '� :� ,l+r 1` �� ►►� •'�'k%^��•7f4 '.i. "` I y :t; ''*'.. i' ,y;a�;r.,.�. ,•► '.' '
•� r . �' ,lk
'.-1'f Ia�fN" s ��ii `1i�.t ,h' 71' y�'t • ��; .17�1 Z•r .•M'�V. r F'• "`t�' It
� K N" ` •V7.: y,, • �� ,xi`,,:• . //�� tt �y{,'�'�•� . y r�' 1.'a'�' �)t'? rµ ,.''7 {ti �yrfY Salt' ' err r �i�'+ 7 ��
✓ • a w• '� > 't• ),". t:r V � 1 Y.•,y�yj 'V•�1` i r3.r ✓)' y , '•,5: �Y�� 1� �'` T. ,ij, "'� � r,
' r ..f, M �. 1 �'( yr. 1 ,/.:'tK{��,,�� �•.1' R; ) �+ � ''s /;�• � ., � �jM M
": S G, d�..v�). + Y.i �G .:�r� `cal i•/ .1:� a * ' '2� f'J. �vji
i,� ', `'- � T: V.. i . , •: Gf' . + :1,�V. It � �' F'��•, ti!A4': �''i.':i. � ' : � ���' f •• y�+Y,�`' , �,,j��e'�,j�:,,'� i�4
w. �.. '.' ',i' .M.�• 'w. �•,i •,. >II�' .V 1+�1 II�1' w•. �('� f[l7. .4 4. :' , / 'I ,.
" :,� r t .•/' ��' S �•"...� 'i(•':., ♦ irk:,••. S/:-.s ��. .� "fir r� 'C
^, .. '` �V9i V ' �, , +'•:r ;....r 'fj •,� � � �,�V C• •I�l...j I!i'• �'7 .. � � �': f".�. r' Y M4 rr' . ��., ��''+i ;ti�+ �
requirement for approval. Staff will continue to study the bigger
issue of whether or not a laid use approval can dictate
participation in a future improvement district.
The (0) Office zone requires six month minimum leases on
residential uses. The applicant agrees to file a Subdivision
Exemption Agreement which will state this limitation. The
applicant will also update the condominium's covenants to reflect
the physical and functional changes in the units. The lease
restrictions shall also be included in the covenants.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of this
Change -in -Use from two office condominium units to one two -bedroom
freemarket residential condominium for the Gooding units 201 and
202 in the Park Central West Condominiums with the following
conditions:.
1) A condominium plat amendment must be prepared which meets the
requirements of Section 24-1004.D. There must be general notes on
the plat which indicate (1) the book and page numbers of the
original and subsequent plats that are being amended, and (2) a
brief description of the changes being made.
2) The condominium covenants/declarations shall be revised to
indicate the physical and functional changes of the units and the
six month minimum lease requirements of the (0) Office zone
district.
3) A Subdivision Exemption Agreement shall be filed upon approval
by the Planning Office and City Attorney.
4) All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amender.: by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the Change -in -Use from two
office condominium units to one two -bedroom freemarket residential
condominium for the Gooding units 201 and 202 in the Park Central
West Condominiums with the conditions recommended in the Planning
Office memo dated 4/7/92.
Exhibit "A" - Site and Floor Plans
jtkvj/gooding.memo
Y�vnirw a svaia� c;uru�a.bblva
EXHIBIT y r AMOVBD ►
19 BY RESOLUTION •
' . ri•OVERNAr�G '
! 37. GZ
4 17. 75
N V J v
CID
UNIT *� g " : UNIT'
37. GL , 1 +1''4'UNI`
.77
T
i S. 13 it
J • „
' i 'Q '� t �' '. :r+ , ')Y'•�j ;y♦ ,�, / -%'* ? �i. . .74 .t' '}r-+'. 'ti Y' r - •/ �t ,~.t• •ww
, � ,� ' ��•�7 .1 t :•r'...�•L r ... _Yt.:► a � � � .s f, .: �.i!Cs� _•yr�'1yi4„h,�y'�•
l ej ^''." / r r V a / : rid '• �, 1 t� Ile �i�•�'•'
� • ... •1 , A ' { •♦_ r;.?: . \ • j � _ l� 4 r� 1' r f`• / , • ' ' r., ) l ti:� � ♦ ' :� � �•"r�' ` j•1 ti"4"�`
IL
• `• r _ r ' ..t: �•J_,S'--•,�1'Ir.: ;ct'r .L.�i!' ...' -S {.;,_^�1!'Y ;' ,,..,�r,r,�'=`t-,..} ..i•,-+t
VL ` !' v 1 ♦ _ i�`\C n' 1'r ,t+',r t.\ it .i ti� T ''♦j�,': :i;t ,Jp ' o+'
r •';''�, -'h . '�+r :L `•J�rffr r ^l.?' , y _ •.�/..�r?�rll."q•I% *':.; i .�'1r tt tl'4h�vt�',rj{'t ^' •� S. ♦l'. '�i� ,,- is .1,� ..' .,�. t !1C
,� ... I•p ..,' ..�•` _.♦,_ frl• i"• • �J�,� ►.!i,� �t.t.� 1'`: r•. y, � ,t•' _4.• ,. tf '1 i'�6.'�' ,i�.�j. _�A�. .+
�' tw. ',.t.' / tip.}, ;`�. •t: !..•ji'r1�i;fr:
w `.i:.. �' ��i '�. - .•y. -:: R': .,�Sf,,j-�,•"`^t'-',��yr•�',ti [ r~r� .Y7•r.l i 4• ��i �.iL'�� .�`,:/ '{�i',L. t P r., �4
r.` '�•,_ • .�.'�'•`,�►� •, j �, ' Y'"rj •'h-' '' I�W'h13 ' •�; :S!,i ,1•`.t i7"'.`! : ,1''� x" •fir _ ,
r. l M - t PrY.t ,3:,>: '. ,,, Pjr•r.Y Q . �a r� : y .r)' }Ir-�: •t •�' L"• R
',' ? i' �� .4'. .: � -. . �. • ♦•.. • �•+ � J '�_ ^I'. \ ti � . J; l't i..il+�; ee,•' r �• ". ��� 1�•r ,Jir'V-V♦ - y
•i'Y '�• ',, �. . f .• + � 1►..•rr•e!`/.ur `. yry'- + rf. ♦ h. =2' i. '`.1 r`t!.', •iw r ` ti, S
'- .;Y�S..►Y'� .. :� "►� �Z"„� ,► "7', _ T r►r :�i� ,�����!'�! t�'' �A' � i'A�'X/c"'t'.._'�l' •�,'•:✓r''� :�� -�' ~ .y �r�•,
. i.. . �, �> ,•t� * �." ,r. • • •� i r r', .: .,� '. •t. �y � , 'at"'�•i''':• � �� - t 1+• s r..;�.-�` �.. r: 1 �, t ` . y i �
yP' /� fai/• .. , '♦� tip 4: :v jt+�.: • IS" :fi" �µ; A � t /. ;art
`-f.N
`�'t •�' F��' •� t'' • 1 •�' �' 1 r j } ' ^ ��%I;�s�tw �,.' `-�. �•'��. �' ��'7�..�„ Mff h���:•,y� • Y ..e: � .• � j 7 V ,�.. �- r r.9CG.t F
t `+s� %f•�' y.. '? 1 . c r :.�t� 11G,i'�1r'•'jt 1 Z► t1r%� �.\"' :',�y {'.�..-'•'t� �'ia :j' ..No t x i
.t r,.� 'P •( .� „ '•7. wr♦, •• �` ';'•,}N ��`,•5+..`, +,�`�.,, �•�'y,t E' •�'� a�l�r•r �-/'L 1'��l•rf , _p' }.
•�C'.•4 y \; `'�"w`'y.� j��•�.r �!�'�:r'� �•,.. 'I'•y.'i• _'1"'`S'�'�`•y,,'n,��'; J� i♦Y1 .: 1?}r'. r '`I gr -,c 'j+,°r:�. r .•.�� ',( � `' j -r.
t L' i� ;i` 1 ..,r'jr� f r, '/!� 'l: r' `� 'i �t��_ ��'S, �•"', i��` 4 % y?�_r�i1 •(��j• •�iI�i i'; �,�y 4
ter. •�1',�.+���j.,; ti•• < `• ! .-. ` !- �l� ,�' ".i r.
. �t. �:�' ,-r?;.-� '\, T+J' ':� .+•'. r �%�, ."ej��''}}.•: ..,�� �•rl.l �s.r•�'^�:'.°T1t' .., yw )'9rr;'�-. •�Y�i•�:� 1: '�'�� _ l .�f=''♦ ti
;M '�.�yr.'�,•:''�'%�r.t `' •ai-• . ,'v, �.i"f ;, F•) .i•�.• ,rr�i -�'"- ."'�',•' , •,.,`:�//jA�.\i! t?� '`tL .'T''�.r -' "`� .'.7 ,L
• Y'- `� �J 1„ mil.. •' • ` .1 • t r`I f.. >, 1Ji.i �' `may �� "�'� •�,��• rT• ��:J ! �y-K •�, I'. f��T tl.- �• ..� �'�''T.r. � • J f �
.Y• �` `, yt+., :Ztf y �,, •r• 1''^'vi=. -. -^ .•% �'/�rw�,,J!ii,ii,?.I�-'l,,•"`r.^,1a•4►�'��;iJ:Li!,>2,{,�.�'�'.;t.T.1;� ��iP'�•*�n" ` .� '.► �
4`'•3. 4.,; •32 r 1 Y:). :.\.v:'.JS,�` *. �. a.2's,'':�j y.t.i rt,.�: y," :x:',: ;r.� ''` ( •S
-, r ;�� ,- 'y '': �: : _., a5-•'�.�/' �..�'�•C�.�.. r,y'1•.,�\•t•>,-i •��•• 4 %;1 :.��.'L=*.?.:'�`; fl �. ��AZ`^.i.� �" l:�jti, _�'"� '� ,
. .: �.l: ' � . r+ .. P . /�. .�.y � �• yp� , air ♦ a � , ♦ * 4 .` J� y i
1'. �''� "'�• .1.�:1- w'S. f, LL _'.. •' i� 'k���r�<►,�r.•VFIIr "'!.-�•►ir; .rr �i •. ; / i1•?`?i::i.. "'t '. •.i r • \ J� ? tea.
' 1 �', � :-�'7 �•7.�'S•/S� ' \` '/�.�I �•��•` i�, '''.,r. `�. ,�L�'!\1t3'•�7•l, ''.,•� 'yyIY(!�. �yIF
f .R��r�:r rC
'..!i'=J'"•Mr -�•- i•' :• • ;!' �tr f'.. 1 _', w;!.. i�..:�',tirIo
y' • • ' {:. '��.*-, r �►` 'r,v,,_.['�:' y�' �'•�'i;ly' I.�Mi;,ui w I'♦ 'Af T . ♦u•`'.'�.••'ti.i
d..rlr •�. ,'�, i �f y d`r?f.,r• .�vf�:t+tr+ tlitl�IiM1:. :w�y�.ry'r
y.• •'t :.J a •y , li'�. •I ..: ' ' • f.' � �'.i i•. �
- ' •v. , �� l►. �. i.i �,-.•.� r .,,,sue. _' ' �� �'� "c;:.' �r ' y_y..r�,•,:.• tia.,�t�!�S
. _' f• r j _ �' � C' ., i * ' 1 • r /�� r ' � , :.,� �'� I r' 7 r , „��. r . '�•�� 'F`id; "1••' T .'r•�..:� _T �T
• '�'.' � ' < ` '• '' .!t � S ' � trt.:l•:a. :r` '+ i,ii ,' ••:�., T, y:r~,�„� ,r � ..+.,�;• ,ram .Sly{,- '}. {� T ,'�•
' r/ ,�.• ��, ..t-•. '�.: n - •��i�,,,•Y, •� +y.., t��/�+: :,• ,. �.-r[�:•�5' +.i �,r\,- .�: Y,nr;• �•t;:,• nr"•�•i•„^ i:��?. �4-�1' T•�'j1 `yl� ,ilrt
or_ti �• _ ♦. . ,�;o' y ••t~ • elf.. �.1, r� •P1.. `Y'f. �•"7-,•� f >.✓ % ''iy 5 ` �~'i .' ' N:+,�•:•� H 1�. ,;.
• � '.,_ r. :�'fi.! ••.. -: •.. ? rT �-a','"h~� ,�`.} t�?►�.l•, Ott,' �1 I rA! •tc...•y +,r,•C. F.S 1, a '✓'Y ,'t .:/!1 :F- .,; .1;, ^�' i+?�ii
:� _r. - . -. -. - r Sri.. 1.7 Rai. ,� r•. �:•-._! J 4{ � J!y0� ♦�. Sj! .. t•• ;°�.'
10
' P .`' � t". - - ` t: •° .t'{?. _i•.' 7 ._ ';i �' •a'�,',r' ,� •� .�. '.)� Mr�'r,.'.',,;J^±y�jr •"� .ti. 'r L.
1-4
.i ..1' •.} rs _ ' • - ,e.Gi .tiF pry~ 1;,•Li:•�, �y •,% �'~ C. ? ��,. .!'t<,•a:�.tiy lam' �yl•.'l -• •6 �. ,p.� �k;'•�r• .,�~%.' •'r�`•
'-,; `� r • • . ';.,__ K f • " .,�.t.-<�;'•r, 1.O�''- ��;, J •ii• ^'�'�.,, c �r.r.�•,` t � . �.�._ � ✓r.�......{'`•
_' •11• - ,; 4-"4'"'>i'�"�';y�,.' : r7 •''' aa"t'••j��', (, �� 't 'r+ii•.�' 0.�-s"*' F' 't; _ .n •7s'+':• T•1+7. r. •+�!t ;(�'.'J��,
. - } .. 1 r ,' ',1, , -t .,• ,1,-^, !♦ r rye,,. /.•}'v. •�' .'• y, r+ � •� � .. � r.i-t',�•`+ y-'
yY , . 1 ` S y � �,� '•.i, %i,,n. y N, '. ,�"t. ��, � :• � r, ,•�•',t ylii�,�j s1? i,
• t� 00 E-•1" O• �, V ,' , v' „r1 •tip ` A3 ♦'l•~ 7'"
tj•^ .+i':..,... Ef,•�., ;t,,,•' ,f„ �~ �v